Yes, I can. The results may surprise you as they did me.

Since no buildings of this magnitude have ever 'fallen' before, from any source of destruction in history, including CD, I had set up models on the mac with my failure software and other helps online and from NASA centers who work in failure, and wanted to see what the two WTC towers would do if they were CD as claimed by the CT movement, et al.. This was about a month or so ago when I was first exposed to the 911 conspiracy movement.

Two things came to the fore, first using a standard demolition criteria and a hypothetical company to do the work of drilling and placement of the explosives and then the way it would fail after detonation. I used data garnered from this link from MacRAE'S Bluebook for demolition company sources.:

http://www.macraesbluebook.com/search/prod...od_Code=9002529

Next, I set up the modeling.

1 First, it would have taken about 1 year to rig the place to fall as it did in a truly vertical way and here is the surprise, and where the CT claims are a total failure, including Dr. Jones , Wood, etc., and other CT not trained in failure-demolition. To make the towers fall as they did, the CD would have to be planted at the top, down in sequence to the 85th thru 75th floor, approximately. This, to achieve the overloading in vertical transition of 3000 ton floors, overloading vertically, then dropping vertically, without undo 'toppling' effect causing the structures to fall everywhere.

2 ......and if the towers had been 'demolition' as claimed by the CTs, from the basement up, the buildings would have literally fallen over sideways from about the 5th thru the 8th floors, respectively, and not fallen vertically as they did. The buildings would have fallen over like a tree.

3 I then omitted the explosives and replaced them with impacts of 164 ton aircraft plus fuel at impact of some 94,500 tons approximate, and the failure occurred as witnessed. The 2nd tower falling first since more of the overstory was above the point of impact, causing the overloading to occur earlier.

This is due to the fact the towers are over 1/4 mile high. For 7 it was the untended prolonged fires and debris from the fallen towers.

I'm not sure if this is useful but this would be very common knowledge to anyone with basic engineering understanding. I did the tests since I wanted to add merit to the visuals, mostly for myself, as we see of the failures themselves. For WTC-7, I did the same modeling for fire and debris damage to all sides as documented and the fire not controlled for some 7 hours +, and when the subsequent structure weakened accordingly, the pancake collapse occurred as witnessed. For 7, again, explosives were not needed.

Thought that would be of interest. I'm going to start a new thread with this post as well, to invite responses from everyone.

RAMS

A simple question, if I may. Why could the CD crew not simply blow around 50% of the core columns out, say between floors 75 and 80? After all, isn't this basically what NIST is claiming happened?

NO DUH!! You think!? The building fell in a top down sequence, tell us something we dont already know. Many maintain the Twin Towers didnt have a conventional demoltion.

Strawman argument. We didnt claim it was demolition from the basement up. Although, it was reported that there were basement explosions taking place before the collapses ensued and explosions many floors below the impact zone.

You want to play the expert, so explain this to me in a way I can accept, in a way that make logical sense, and I'll shut up about it.

The Twin Towers' Frames Disintegrated Before Falling
Shattering of South Tower's Top Proves Demolition

This photograph shows the top of the South Tower disintegrating as it has only just begun to fall. Note the curves in the edges of the walls above the zone of collapse.




Your response Rams..........

Good question. Answer: the airfraft impact did that in place of CD. The ensuing fires thus further weakening the steel core portion of the structure to the point of floor collapse, since if CD alone were used, no fire would be present. Gravity ensured the failure cascade of one floor upon another, exponentially, from top down enmass.

RAMS

Got it. But what about if, instead of 'removing' 50% of the columns in that area, the CD crew 'removed' enough to bring the upper section down (i.e. did the job of the impact and resulting fires in one go). Would that then result in a progressive collapse?

I have studied these excellent photo stills from the beginning when I first began to explore the 911 conspiracy issues for collapse. Your examples are well founded and thank you for bringing them here for a refresher. What these images clearly display is the first failure of one floor down to the next, and in the case of these examples the structure began to topple to the side favoring the aircraft impact location---i.e., that floor failed and began the failure cascade. This is good confirmation. Then as the upper floors collapse and the impacting translated energy is dissipated, the floors themsleves fail catastrophically. For study, the impact of a 3000 ton floor dropping 8 feet to the next, unheeded, is a translated impact of some 150,000 tons each. That is the failure quotient that begins the exponential collapse as wiewed and shown in your photo stills. This also confirms my modeling examples of no explosives needed to augment the collapse.

RAMS

Again, excellent question in supposition.

Answer: The answer is in your question. Since steel loses 50% its tensile strength at about 800 degrees F., again, no explosives needed since the impact and fires weakened 'enough' support to cause failure and at first, topple effect, just as the photos that have been graciously provided here by the other poster shows.

And too, all that would be needed to invite vertical cascade failure would be to get the building to lean over at least a few degrees to translate the ambient weight mass to one side of the building structure, thus overriding the ability of the building at that point to support the added weight. This is clearly seen and supported in these refresher photo-stills that "Urbane Legend?" provided for us.

RAMS

RAMS, excellent description of what we are seeing.

Best,
Badeskov

Thank you.

RAMS

I understand, but I want to go back to the question that prompted your analysis. It was something like, what would a controlled demolition have looked like and how would it have differed from the events we observed?

Forget the plane impacts entirely now - we're talking demolition job in isolation. Let's assume it's all been officially pre-planned by the Port Authority because the buildings were unsound. Let's also assume the area has been cleared around the WTC complex for the express purposes of bringing the towers down. Can I take it, from your answers, that these towers could have been taken down by blowing out the central core columns at floors 80 through 75 (for argument's sake) and that this would have led to the progressive, straight-down collapse sequence similar to the one we witnessed on 9/11?

1.Answering only CD in two parts. If it was a controlled demolition, if enough explosives, manpower, time, and coordination were employed beforehand, on something like this which would be a first, anywhere, we would see pronounced squibs** firing outward from every 3 floor or so, from top downward at first, from the top down in sequence, ensuring the building collapsed as nearly vertical regime as possible by using the weight-mass of each 3000 ton floor to overload the supports of the floor beneath.

2. In the CT claims of demolition or demolition assist, as described, from the basement upwards or generically from the bottom up, the buildings would have fallen over as a tree falls, from the first explosive charge.

In actual pre planned demolition of the WTC towers, there would not be demolition at all, since there is no precedent for taking down such, on such a scale and height with so much at risk and so many unknown factors, and the towers would have done catastrophic damage to outlying structures-buildings which they did. And no, in modeling beforehand they would start at the top and set explosives at about 2 or 3 floors at a time, to insure vertical-gravity assist collapse. Actual demolition of the WTC towers with known technology would be a process of dismantling from the top down, floor by floor, however.

** those squibs would shoot out the floor openings/windows for a hundred feet or so. The squibs so claimed as seen was the mass in vertical collapse driving out compressed air at each floor beneath or in some case many floors below from overhead compression through the internal ducting of HVAC, etc.

So, no, we would not see what we observed on 911 day if explosives were used exclusively. And actually, if explosives were used exclusively, the collapse would have been much much slower, since the explosive detonation themselves would interrupt the failure cascade by the nature of explosive displacement of everything that stood in the way as the structure went down.

RAMS

Yet, even thought it would take a sequenced series of carefully placed and timed charges to achive the vertical failure, we are to assume the "organic" damage cause by the plane and fire produced the same results?



I am awear of accounts of explosion in the wtc substructure, however I have not heard CTers claim the demolition was from the ground up. I believe this would be completely contradictory to the standard method of CD.



He has a good point here. This analysis would be the first of its kind. It is a peculiar approach you have taken and I cant help but question your method. Working with only the assumption of CD and using standard demolition criteria, how accurate can you hope your simulation to be? Also, even with the resources you sight, this type of simulation would be an undertaking that would require a great deal of time, research and expertise. It is my understanding that the reverse engineering of a structure for CD is alone a very time intensive endeavor. Yet, you claim to have done this and much more in less then a month? Forgive me for asking but do you have anything to offer as evidence this analysis ever actualy took place? An animation would be fantastic, however even a screen shot(s) of your model would be sufficient.

I don't follow this concept. Are you saying that removing resistance below the collapse with explosive charges results in a slower collapse than if the above structure were to overcome this resistance by enertia alone? The concept that resistance works against enertia would seem to contradict this statement.

Thank you for the response. Firstly, the 'modeling' is not in visuals or graphics or other visuals at the outset, since that infers conjecture. The modeling is done with numerics, much of which unless one was to embrace failure and know what they are looking at (an example is the modeling done to ensure a SRB casing on the shuttle launch stack does not burn through a second time, or if it did, what it would take to cause a Criticality-1 Failure: NASA Speak=loss of vehicle mission and crew.).

So, for my own interest, I erected a series of models (models are numeric) on screen that would preclude explosives, include impact translation + fire only, and vice versa with no impacts and only demolitions. Then, I took the weight of each floor, its support structure to maintain integrity, then began back engineering to see at what point the structure and its supporting features would catastrophically fail.

Once the breach line is reached for one floor to collapse, it is a matter of exponentiality for the subsequent floors to fall.

To add veracity, I also made failure occur at the point in the visuals where each floor was compromised and worked backward from there. The second tower hit, fell first, since the weight for failure was greater than in the first tower impact.

The time to put this together was actually the learning curve of all the variables involved which before entering into the 911 conspiracy world, I didn't know at all specifically: e.g., I did not know the weight of the WTC tower floors and weight per square foot of each. I did not know the gross vehicle weight of a 767 ER200. I did not know the impact translation energy of same coming to a stop in less than 100'. I did not know the fuel loads of each aircraft. I did not understand the cross section size of the core structural steel of the towers' construction regime. I did not understand at what exact location each impact was. I did not understand the sheer factor of the support columns and at what point they would fail by impact and heat + weight.

Then to crunch this, I kerneled my Mac G4 Quad with my buddy's G5 Mac at KSC for added weight and it took about 10 minutes.

But the surprise was that no matter what I did for the demolition only and demoliltion augment (planes plus explosives), the towers fall over, not upon themselves as they did. (I use the bottom up scenario because the CT groups claim of 'hearing' and seeing 'squibs' occurrence from the bottom up.). And that the vertical cascade must start as witnessed, from the top down from the modeling results and no explosves must be present anywhere below the impacts points to cause the vertical cascade failure as we all have seen in visuals.

This was confirmation for me that the visual assessment of what we see in visuals, is in fact, the way it is. That adding explosives to the mix would actually change the whole way the WTC towers fell.

Thank you for the inquiry and comments.

RAMS

Excellent question. No, what it says is that the way the rowers fell was a vertical cascade failure. In other words, exponential collapse. But if you introduce a variable, such as explosives at the bottom or at any point below the impact points by the aircraft, even omitting the effect of heat (fire) you alter the exponential cascade failure effect as witnessed.

Or, if you blew the buildings with an assorted series of explosive charges at any point other than the impact point of the incoming aircraft (themselves with fuel at speed, basically a moving solid), you change the dynamic how it will cascade fail to the ground as witnessed. It would have still failed, but not remotely like what is witnessed in visual evidence.

Thanks again for the great question. Well put also.

RAMS

Sorry to press the point, but I believe we're still talking at cross-purposes.

In the real-world scenario, the argument is that the structural integrity of the towers was compromised at and around the point of impact. This damage, together with the effects of the resulting fires, caused catastrophic local failure, which led to a global collapse.

I want you to comment on a very specific hypothetical CD procedure. I want to assume that charges were placed only in the vicinity of floors 80 through 75 (or an area corresponding to the impact area on 9/11) and not throughout the entire building. I want to know if the 'removal' through explosives, of the core columns in this very specific area would lead to a global collapse that exhibited the same properties as that witnessed on 9/11. If not, why not?

You are not pressing the point at all. This is a very balanced (and for me extremely rewarding) and for others hopefully as well, sound discussion and there is not one error in the source or subject of your questions. Excellent, as I repeat.

To answer,

QUESTION: "I want you to comment on a very specific hypothetical CD procedure. I want to assume that charges were placed only in the vicinity of floors 80 through 75 (or an area corresponding to the impact area on 9/11) and not throughout the entire building. I want to know if the 'removal' through explosives, of the core columns in this very specific area would lead to a global collapse that exhibited the same properties as that witnessed on 9/11."

ANSWER: No, it would not at all. Quite the opposite.

QUESTION: "If not, why not?"

ANSWER: Because under that scenario the impact energy is translated not local, but outward, since the demolitions are 'explosives'. The floors in question would fantail outward in a spectacular debris cloud. Since nothing below the detonation point was damaged, the towers would simply crumble above the explosive point, fall downward till structural resistance stopped the effect.

What transpired, however, was the opposite of this scenario in that the translated energy, 94,500 tons worth, was translated inward dissipating in less than 100'. The instant those airliners entered the structures, the structures were doomed, since all energy was translated internally.

Too, in your scenario, the amount of explosives needed, using the most efficient available (Pentex-fused with Primacord---NOT thermite based silliness) would be required in such volume and in such vivid visability that it would be impossible to do so with such disruption not observed by so many, for so long a period. Someone, janitors, maintainence, electricians, plumbers, building inspectors, HVAC workers, pipe fitters, someone, would see what was happening and alarms would be sounded long before the primacord could be cooked off.

And lastly, there is the absence of fire in the demo only scenario. Lots of fire, and much flowing downward.

RAMS

RAMS,

I, for one, am enjoying your discussion immensely and learning a lot. And I do find the discussion very sound and well balanced - please do keep it up

Best,
Badeskov

I forgot to add this factor as well.

In the demo only scenario, no overwhelming explosives, but stragically placed pentex detonations, with some sort of wrapped resistance around each setting to sunder as many support columns as needed to induce failure, and this would only be needed on three floors, max. What then?

Again, the force is outward, dissipated outward and locally. The upper floors would fail, collapse downward, and finally dissipate as debris fell outward and downward, since the intregrity of the building below the demo point has no damage and the collapse is again dissipated over time outward, most of the structure would remain standing thereafter with little or no damage.

Opposite of what was observed on 911 day.

RAMS

I believe this requires several assumptions of how the towers might have been rigged for CD. I also still don't understand what you were saying about explosives creating a slower collapse.



Since airplanes hit the towers, their effect would be a factor either way. I noticed you simulated the failure only with explosive and then with only an airplane. I don't think anyone is disputing the airplanes hit the building. Is there a reason you ommited the impact of the airplane from your first simulation?

"The floors in question would fantail outward in a spectacular debris cloud"

How does this statment differ from what we saw?

Granted we don't know what might have been the case. However, if only 3 floors would have been rigged for CD, then isnt it plausible that the mechanics for an impact only induced collapse took over from this point? I cant help but suspect if CD was the case, that more than 3 floors would have been rigged.



I beileve this also assumes a 3 floor detonation.

Why wouldnt the "collapse dissipate over time outward, most of the structure would remain standing thereafter with little or no damage" in the airplane scenario?

I personally would love to see the mathmatical model you used for your simulation; from the oversimplified statements you made regarding the findings of your simulation it seems that it could be based on mere speculation. With so many thousands of factors contributing to the collapse and the intricate and unique building design complicating any simulation I think that getting to see what factors you have added as well as how you came about your findings would go a long way in adding weight to your argument. Feel free to post some of your work; it certainly would be nice to discuss the matter knowing what it is you base your information on.

Thanks RAMS.

I'm like one of these people with the latest 'Home Medicine' type books; someone who's heard all the buzz words but who has no real idea what they mean. Such is the case with Engineering-speak vis-a-vis 9/11, for which I apologise in advance!

Since the effects you describe here seem to me to be the fundamental difference between the two scenarios, could you explain how this inwardly-directed impact energy would have affected the building? What has happened to this energy between the time of impact and the time of collapse? And, is there any way or replicating its effects by way of explosive charges (or any other method)?

Nuff said.

No doubt. If only 3 floors would have been rigged for a CD and detonated, you would not see a rapid widespread global collapse of the entire structure having only 3 floors initiate the collapse. The undamaged portions of the structure underneath the collapse initiated floors would act as resistance and inevitably halt the collapse with upper portions of the building where the collapse initiated toppling over to the streets or halting the collapse period; as such which would have been for the south tower as the collapse initiated the top portion above the damaged area began to tilt signifigantly and rotate, you would expect it to continue but it did what demolition experts call making a building "walk" and from there a collapse ensued. Yet this is exactly what shouldnt have occured on 9/11 had explosives not been present, but it did occur, we saw a widespread rapid global collapse from the collapse initiated floors all the way down, somehow effecting and causing the undamaged portions of the buildings below the collapse initiated floors to collapse rapidly.

Heh, maybe because he is conforming to your view.

I totally disagree and even other official version believers have been on the recorded disagreeing. These buildings were designed to withstand airliner crashes, many official story talking heads agree that the buildings would have withstood the jet airliner impacts alone, but if it wasnt for the "intense raging infernos" the buildings would have remained standing. To say the buildings were doomed from the moment aircraft hit the towers is discrediting to the engineer's ability. They anticipated for this to happen and have the buildings remain stable.


Scientific American So as I stated in a counter to what you posted, the buildings were not doomed from moment airliners hit the buildings, it was the "raging infernos" which supposedly doomed the building, without those the buildings would have otherwise remained standing; besides there are many piece of evidence which disproves there was a raging inferno, so with that in mind all that is left is damage.

So what you are saying is that very likely the buildings would have remained standing if hit by unfuelled aircraft. As they were hit by aircraft with substantial fuel loads, this is hardly relevant.

LoL, of course not, perhaps I conveyed that wrong. The buildings would have remained standing if the fire weren't as intense as the media claims. I maintain the raging inferno wasnt there. Aircraft have crashed into high-rise buildings in the past causing fires much worse in nature than those in the trade centers yet those buildings didnt collapse, and the frame/skeleton remained standing; yet we are suppose to believe fires which mostly burned off in the initial impact of the planes and in the first 10 minutes of the impact later caused the buildings to collapse rapidly despite the undamaged portion of the building beneath the impact zone. Bottom line, I maintain there were no raging infernos within the towers to cause the weakening of the steel, even of unfireproof steel to begin to even initiate a collapse let alone a global one at that; Kevin Ryan of UL even went on recorded stating that. In the NIST floor model test which had the same setup as the trade towers, the models were put under stress test to induce the same conditions present within the towers and after 2 hours of testing the models didnt collapse. Red flag.

"NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboritories to conduct test to obtain information on the fire endurance of the trusses like those in the WTC towers. NIST P. 142" "All four test speciments sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing."NIST p.143

NIST P.143 " The results establish that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load,without collapsing, for substantial periods of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on Sept 11th. "

In reguards to the raging infernos, I simply go back to test results of Nist's own Frank Gayle project leader of Wtc Investigations, Nist Metallurgist. He was the leader of 4 out of 8 projects. He done the analysis of the steel directly from the impact zone and ground zero and is quoted in the report:

NIST "None of the recovered steel samples showed evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 degree C for as long as 15 minutes."
Nist Page 180.

Within the investigation of the recovered steel, Frank Gayle's group performed a paint defermation test which showed how paint would curl or change in a certain temperature range. So they took the samples and analized them to see what kind of temperature they were exposed to by looking at the paint. Less than 2 percent of the samples which have been pulled specifically from the fire zones, despite pre-collapse exposure to fire less than 2 percent seen temperatures of 480 degrees F* which is very low relative to the temperatures to "soften or melt" steel.

NIST page 181 "Only three of the recovered samples of exterior panels reached temperatures in excess of 250 degrees C* during the fires or after the collapse. This was based on a method devoloped by NIST to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members through observations of paint cracking."

So, we still have this mystery, if there were no raging infernos within the towers which could have weakened the steel and initiate a rapid collapse sequence, what is the cause of this steel failing and bending like pretzels, which to accomplish would require high temperatures above 1000*F. What could have caused these extremely high temperatures found in the foundation of the WTCs along with molten steel. Why were these extremely hot temperatures present months after the collapse of the buildings and fires continued to burn underneath despite water and firefighter efforts to suppress it. To literally have firefighters go on top of the rubble and literally have the high heat melt they're boots after an hour or so is something people should be looking into. The mere fact that those temperatures were present after the collapse is proof positive that something other than fire was involved in the collapse of the towers,.........what ever that may be.

Nist doesnt even acknowledge that there was molten steel(or metal) underneath the towers after the collapse. Here is the video of the head of the Nist investigation John Gross dismissing the claim despite the many videos that have surfaced of firefighters giving a eye witness account of motel steel. Nist denies molten steel

http://i14.tinypic.com/2vuegkz.jpg

http://i3.tinypic.com/2n7pq35.jpg

http://i9.tinypic.com/4fv05l1.jpg

That is a study in explosions right there. (I know, some people don't see explosions.)

How far away was that photographer.
Hope he is still alive to relate the sound of explosions.
He was just waiting for a conspiracy I can tell.

Rosie is busy on WTC 7 right now but these are a shocker.

Show that instead of horror films any day and the ET crowd will want to be abducted to get
away from unexpected exploding buildings.

Firemen knew the building were safe or they don't go in in the first place.
You think then don't know buildings. So who did the explosions. Did the mastermind tell us yet
or he left the details up to who?

to me these pictures show the tower collapsed at the main point of impact now take this into consideration

"The basic idea of explosive demolition is quite simple: If you remove the support structure of a building at a certain point, the section of the building above that point will fall down on the part of the building below that point. If this upper section is heavy enough, it will collide with the lower part with sufficient force to cause significant damage. The explosives are just the trigger for the demolition. It's gravity that brings the building down".
http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion.htm

no conspiracy

You are most welcome. You present excellent, unbiased questions. Wish there were more that would 'debate' as yourself. You present your questions in supposition, rather than incoherent claims of hyperbole. In the discussion of failure, it is always presented in second person plural, such as "then 'we' have............" or "But 'we' cannot", etc.

Also, you do not claim anything. You inquire by supposition so that there is room to reply. You do not state unfounded opinion and call it good.
Good job, whomever you are, 'coughy'.

Onward to the question starting with the first part, quoted here:



Again in the case of impact translation of transferred energy, that 94,500 tons of impact force, all of it in toto, must be expressed somehow. In the case of the towers, it was expressed two fold; one, it sundered the major number of supports to begin possibly fatal damage. But then, the 89 tons of fuel, most of which detonated and remained with the structure (the visible fireballs were less than 1% of the combusted fuel load) then augmented the sustained initial damage. All of this, again, internally.



In the time the vehicle entered the building, released explosively its fuel load enmass, and came to a complete stop in less than 100', that impact energy was translated through the whole structure in sheer shock energy (it is referred to as 'Dynamic Augment'). Contrary to designers, those towers were never designed to withstand that sort of impact and remain intact, obviously. A residual of this impact energy is expressed as heat in the fires that burned until structure integrity reached a point to fail, or rather, the steel core structure began to bend, and thus invite collapse through overloading.



No, there is not, because, repeating, the entire impact energy was directed internally. If any sort of explosives were used, by their nature, even alone or in concert with the impact of those aircraft, the failure scenario would be entirely different than what was observed. this is so since in one, the impact energy is directed inward, and in the explosives scenario, it is directed outward. Too, since these impact events were never before witnessed by anyone-everyone, ever, it is impossible to apply known criteria other than what is known as documented evidence that is verifiable of the event itself.

What should be the question for everyone; the truth movement, conspiracy groups, skeptics, etc, is this:

Not who or how or what, but the source for the information garnered to then understand by the perpetrators that impact velocity and translated energy via air vehicles with full fuel compliments, would in concert, cause both structures to fail catastrophically. Why is this the point? Because only with the combined effort of impact and fire could the structure be weakened to collapse completely, and this by expressed energy released internally. Someone knew failure quite well, even beyond the building designers.

RAMS

Please read my response to 'coughy' on this subject in this thread. Post #29

RAMS

Hi Rams. I was hoping that you could shared the factors that you used in your simulation; how you come to the findings that you currently are expressing. Perhaps sharing more of that material might help folks understand where you are coming from. Some folks might mistakenly assume that your calculations are too simplified to be accurate given the thousands of factors involved, but you could certainly put those concerns to rest by expanding on your simulation model. I look forward to seeing it.

I'm not sure if this is helpful but to answer your question, the numerics for figuring a portion of input data looks like this, for impact, translation of energy impact. To post all for the whole models would take some room. Input begins as a transform;
y = x^x=y (aircraft)
ln(y) = ln(x^x)
ln(y) = x * ln(x)
249863.002/y) * (dy/dx) = x * (1/x) + ln(x) * 1
x * (1/x) = 1, so
(160/y) * (dy/dx) = 1 + ln(x)
dy/dx = y * [ 1 + ln(x)]
dy/dx = [x^x] * [ 1 + ln(x)]
d/dx (1) = 1^1 * [1 + ln 1]
F(x)=f(g(x))
/y,94552.20001
f(x) = x 1 / 3 vertical expressed tangentC^x
limx.98 0 x 2 cos(1/x) = 0area^all
Hereto is a gif for a function of ªƒ=§Delta, which is the transform impact velocity expression from eFunda.

If you're on a Mac in OSX I can send the .png files in digicalc which once ran has the output file in laplace transforms which is better for expression in failure resolving. Forgive me if this is not what you are asking for.

RAMS

RAMS,

Thanks for posting. Actually, I am on a MAC with OSX and I would love to see some more. Admittedly, the few classes I took in mechanical engineering is quite some years back and I am more on light quanta and that kind of stuff. Nonetheless, i would be very interested in seeing more, if possible

Best,
Badeskov

Look up convolution because thats what the integral formula in time looks like.

It can be solved either way.

http://www.total411.info/2007/03/ua-175-de...nces-prove.html

^ Deceleration fakery or doctored sequence of plane into magic wall.

See here for many objects not seen but show up in photos:

http://www.freewebs.com/beermaidenufos

http://www.freewebs.com/beermaidenufos/The_black_UFO1.jpg

http://www.freewebs.com/beermaidenufos/The_black_UFO2.jpg

http://www.freewebs.com/beermaidenufos/The_black_UFO3.jpg

Quite possible and invisible weapon shot a missile into the supposed side the plane exploded out of.

Rense has two light sources in the air at the south tower explosion side and are declaring a small air force type plane matches the type.

Tesla, no disrespect, but I really don't see how that's "quite possible" at all, since invisiblity doesn't exist outside of websites such as rense.

I do mean complete disrespect and I just could not answer that post. Your response was much better than mine would have been anyway.

RAMS

Well, despite the amazing claim, I'm always ready to accept "proof".

Thank you for this RAMS; I appreciate you taking the time to walk me through the detail... though I do have some more questions/comments!

Where do the figures 89 tons of which less than 1% combusted externally come from? This varies considerably from the details given in NISTAR1.

This contrary to what I have read, both in documents held by NIST and in videos featuring the WTC Project Leader, who described the inner core structure in such a way as to suggest it could withstand the impact of a plane in the same way that a fly screen might respond to being pierced by a pencil. What is the source of your information please?


Notwithstanding the information above, I still cannot understand why you could not initiate a progressive collapse by blowing five floors-worth of core columns out in one massive explosion. Surely this would instantly cause the upper section to fall at free-fall rates, smashing into the lower section, with the net effect being equivalent to the collaspe sequence described by NIST. In my rather simplistic view of things, it doesn't matter whether I destroy a chair leg from outside the perimeter of its footprint or from within, it will, nonetheless, topple over.

Carry the one.

I would like elaboration please. What software did you use? What online sources did you use? Something like GENOA? Pretty interesting stuff.

Typical of you, TK. when I read that comment above, I howled. I agree..............

RAMS

Excellent questions. Well thought out logically as well. You are exactly correct. If just CD on 3 floors, the damgage is local, but below, since explosives expel outward, the structure is intact. In other words, there is not inherent impact translation of shock damage in the whole struture. Just the floors needed to begin collapse.



In the airplane scenario, it would not, could not. It would fail catastrophically, as witnessed. How? Because it took the blow of some 94.500 tons of impact, which one simply might imagine how much explosives that is if only a CD is factored. It is the same explosive yield: aircraft, or implanted explosives: dissipated and internally absorbed energy release with the aircraft, expelled energy in the CD model. But there was no CD at all, and if there was, the whole thing would have failed entirely differently.

Again, good questions.

RAMS

I used Mofix, and a lighter form of Genoa, gotten from NASA-MSF. And a derivative of Boeing's FaultrEASE, in combination with NASA failure ware used internally in language interface for making numerics express in graphic format for matrix. I use the raw input but kerneled to other macs for speed and strength as I get impatient, even as fast as my twin screw quad G4 is. I also use CLOS, since it is NASA inherent, good in UNIX (OSX), and CLOS is the Common Lisp Object-Oriented programming language that powers Allegro CL.

My online sourcing was for all the technical/spec data I simply didn't know; e.g., how was the fuel bladders in the wings of a 767ER200 arranged and baffled, to understand and express at what point in the WTC structure were these sundered catastrophically and then ignited? Were they ambient or pressurized? What milliseconds was the time for first interface of the vehicle's frustrum and the first resistance for the start release of translated energy at impact? What was the first barrier resistance at impact, and how much energy would this rapidly dissipate? Then at what point inside the WTC was resistance overwhelmed by shock energy impact (the 'failure tree', as it is called) to begin the 'Fault Tree Sequencing' to dynamic collapse. There was much much more, but those are a few examples as I began his odyssey.

DETAM

FaultrEASE

GENOA

Thank you for the questions.

RAMS

You are most welcome. It is fun for me as well. It helps me see also in clear thinking format the data results.



The 89 tons is the loaded fuel capacity of a 767ER200 at burn off of max capacity at the time of impact. At exactly 82' inside the WTC tower at impact point, the vehicle interfaced its first catastrophic resistance in the form of the outer vertical support columns. Failure of fuel bladders in wings began at impact point, finished fuel load release at the 82 foot mark. 1% of ignited fuel exited the tower at each floor(s) location openings after impact in the form of visible fireballs. The remainder went down the numerous elevator openings, HVAC trunk tubing, and other vertical openings once the floor(s) were broached, igniting on the way down. Additionally, fuel pooled in massvie quantities on the floors that were impacted, each, nearly 1 acre in area. Then this fuel ignited as well. This was basically a time span of a few seconds.



This is true, in part, without the factoring of impact translation energy. A simple run of GENOA with FaultrEASE with the known inputs, reveals 94,500 tons of translated energy impact over a service area of some 135 feet by 25 feet in less than 100' linear, exluding fuel combustion loads. Do you have a link to that data directly and that person who authored that? This data is from my research, sources at NASA, and known failure criteria.



Correct, it would. But missing is the 94,500 tons of impact energy that was translated in toto, inside and throughout the entire structure in both cases of 1 and 2. In the demolition scenario, 100% of the explosive event evacs outward from the source of placement. Read that again and you have the mind for this, and then visualize this. The chair leg example does not work as it is a solid, for comparison, the towers are not. The chair leg does not absorb impact energy throughout its structure, since it is a solid. One hits it till it fails at location. It does not collapse on itself. Also, in the chair leg example no fire is included.

Why this most crucial element of translated energy is omitted is unknown to me. This is very basic failure criteria, in any form. Too, that 767 weighs 395,000 lbs, and is traveling at impact speed of 552 mph. I will challenge the pencil through the flyscreen example at any time. This is actually quite ludicrous, in fact.

How can I state this categorically?

No explosives were found on 911 day from look down assets that can detect such. No visuals of same were detected by profoessionals who are trained in this and/or trained in failure or both.

And finally, both towers are no longer there.

Good data, Coughy.

RAMS

Does anybody here fully understand RAMS data other than him?

Can anybody else clarify his data with source links and quoted material?

Especially in relation to WTC 7? It may take more than a rocket artist to figure that one out!

Not that I agree with the other side, but I don't really agree with your methods or conclusions here rams, they are way to simplistic.

There are 2 types of explosives used in CD, cutting charges and kicker charges. The cutters do just what their name suggests, they cut steel. They are shaped charges and most of their force goes into cutting the steel, they won't even displace the column they're attached to let alone blow any significant amount of the building outwards.

The kickers are usually simply sticks of dynamite attached to the sides of the columns to be cut. They are set off a few miliseconds after the cutters, to kick the column that was cut out of the way so the building doesn't just fall the 1" that the cutter removed and stop. They can be set to push the column in any direction, and only a couple feet, they don't throw anything other than dust and fine debris out of the building.

And if the impact floors were destroyed with CD and the top fell downward onto the floors below, the building would come down similar to what was observed (but with huge bangs and all the windows exploding outwards before the start of the collapse). You seem to imply that 3 floors worth of CD would somehow blow the floors above them outwards so that they fell around the lower structure instead of straight down into it. But CD explosives are much more precise than that, and wouldn't significantly damage the floors above them, let alone spread them out so far that they fell around the rest of the building instead of straight down. And damaged or not, the lower part of the building was nowhere near strong enough to catch the upper part after it fell more than a couple feet.

Could I ask you to re-work your calculations based upon NIST's data for fuel load at the time of impact, as well as their estimation for the amount of fuel consumed in the initial blast? Here are the details from one of my posts in another thread.


It is also estimated that Flight 11 lost or consumed around 30% of its fuel in the initial impact; and that Flight 175 lost or consumed between 25% and 40% during impact.

Source: NISTAR1. Details for Flight 11 can be found in Chapter 2, sections 2.2 and 2.4. Those for Flight 175 appear in Chapter 3, sections 3.2 and 3.4.

Within the context of coughy's multiple parameters, for what 'ifs', I am categorically correct.

However, in reality, everything you have posted in this post is correct. The only error, is that in the CD excersise it is expelled explosive energy, wherever that reacts from source. In the actual event of what occurred, there was impact energy of some 10s of thousands of tons, plus fire, and that shock energy dissipated and absorbed through the whole structure as damage.

RAMS

I will do that now. Give me time on that.

RAMS

I'm certain MID, TK0001, and others will know exactly the numerics, but it is gibberish without some form of understanding of what we are truly seeing on 911 day for real, without conjecture. Short of this, well, it becomes opinion, and that generally is based on personal feelings, not numeric fact.

Just a thought.

RAMS