Talking Turkey

[W Tell]

Well, this is how I deem a natural collapse would progress.

Hmm... do you remember the discussion we had concerning NIST’s ‘best estimate’ which best matched the observable impact damage and did not produce a collapse initiation, and the ‘severe case with additional manual inputs’ which did not best match the observable impact damage and did produce a collapse initiation? We have spoken about it alright – the study not only failed to prove collapse initiation possible (within extent of the observable reality), but in fact demonstrated it unlikely, given only an impact and fire scenario. I'll admit I'm a little worried that you don't remember this - it's necessary to retain all of the unlikelihoods of the official theory along the way; it's not until you clearly see the big picture at the end that everything really sinks in.

I digress... the collapse begins, through whatever method...

I believe the lower edge of the upper block is located within the impact and worst fire region, so itself composes of some limited damaged/weakened stories (I say ‘limited’ because I don’t believe the impacts nor fires were actually threatening to the structures). So right from the offset I believe a degree of two-way damage is occurring (sometimes more severe to the lower, sometimes more severe to the upper – it depends where the columns break) and structure of the blocks is penetrating/becoming enmeshed with one another.

You don’t have to ignore the compressed debris – it is located in the area where the blocks are enmeshed, the debris resting on/in contact with the highest point of the surviving lower structure, until the point the structure of the upper block reasserts its force. Yes it is correct that columns within the upper and lower blocks continue to penetrate one other causing deterioration of the core structure which held the full mass together. This area is no longer rigid or solid, but flexible and broken.

Yes, as the collapse continues downward both blocks suffer damage as the previous bullet point. I’ve been thinking... a ‘collapse’ isn’t the right word to describe the official theory at all... the upper block collapsed, though the lower block did not, the lower block could only be described as ‘crushed’. So yes, the crush continued with each block, in places now greatly overlapping, suffering approximately equal and opposite damage.

I agree that some mass is shed to the sides of the towers in ever greater amount. Some of the deteriorated mass is also pushed within the open elevator shafts and stairwells and now in independent pieces may break through non-essential secondary structure such as areas of cross-bracing and the floors. This all results in loss of momentum as ever less force is applied in any one instant to the most vital part of the lower structure; the core columns.

I don’t think the upper block is pulverized but that it is broken roughly into its component pieces, or even groups of component pieces – it is certainly nothing like the rigid/solid block it began as, imparting all of its force in one instant to the most vital area of the lower block.

This level of deterioration discussed comes about right after the upper block has fallen through its own height, i.e. suffering approximately equal damage to the height of the lower block that it has crushed through. This is the second 0:22 I have been referring to in the WTC1 Hoboken video where the collapse appears to momentarily slow and greater debris ejections are seen, and also coincides with the reduced seismic activity reading I mentioned. Such evidence certainly indicates the process described.

The previously mentioned situation – deterioration of the upper block and loss of momentum – should have continued until the collapse failed to progress. But it did not. The momentum resumed and the seismic activity increased again! This should not occur in a natural progressive (snowball?) collapse. It is certainly not accounted for in Bazant’s theory of ever greater mass and momentum. It’s all rather unnatural. So what is going on? The answer is demolition charges, around every 12 floors, simultaneous with the collapse, visible through the focussed ejections (‘squibs’) far below the collapse front, generally at the centre facing of the towers where the large core box columns were located, weakening the lower structure, allowing the upper block to give false appearance of on its own ‘crushing’ the lower.

With this acceptance every question is answered and all falls into place.

I have little to add. An excellant description.

Now, what I say next could be considered a shot at the OC theorists on the board. The OC theory has, over the last 11 years tried to get this collapse to work in a natural way. Revising it time and time again, when questions on it's authenticity are brought up.... anomlies. Back to the drawing board.

What happened to the core coulmns? How did all of the connections fail at once? Why didn't the tilted upper block just fall off when collapse was initiated? And as I said earlier, how did the top 15 % of the building crush the bottom 85%?

I've watched the story evolve over the years. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the scientic method. Trial and error is a huge part of it. No. My problem does not stem from that. It stems from scientific explanations that are one sided and asked to produce an already expected result.

A cover your ass and grab a paycheck mentality that I compare to how science once tried to appease religion and explained retrograde motion as "epicycles". A giant conveluted and guided answer to explain something very simple that anyone with the proper equipment could witness.

This argument with the collapse still rages on though. To me, it reached the level of "unattainable" long ago for most people to get. In the end, it's 15% of the building bringing down 85% of the building.

[booNyzarC]

I take it you don't know very much about physics then.

[skyeagle409]

What do I see? The top 50% of the building being used to crush the bottom 50%. Now, how much do you want to bet that that building was modified to take out as much resistance as possible so they could achieve that effect?

The upper half of the building is crushing the lower half just as the upper sections of the WTC buildings are descending into the lower sections. In the WTC buildings, fire was all it took to weaken the badly damaged structures to failure.

[W Tell]

I take it you don't know very much about physics then.

Keep these numbers in your head. 15% and 85%. Basic physics covers it.

[W Tell]

The upper half of the building is crushing the lower half just as the upper sections of the WTC buildings are descending into the lower sections. In the WTC buildings, fire was all it took to weaken the badly damaged structures to failure.

I don't care what initiated the collapse. 15% took down 85%. And it had resistance.

[skyeagle409]

I don't care what initiated the collapse. 15% took down 85%. And it had resistance.

Of course there was resistance, which calls into question 9/11 conspiracist claims that the WTC buildings collapsed at 'free fall' speeds.

[W Tell]

Of course there was resistance, which calls into question 9/11 conspiracist claims that the WTC buildings collapsed at 'free fall' speeds.

I'm not discussing the "free fall" speeds right now.

Edited September 28, 2012 by W Tell

[booNyzarC]

I don't care what initiated the collapse. 15% took down 85%. And it had resistance.

What does that have to do with anything at all W Tell? Please explain what you perceive to be the relevance of this.

By the way, in the case of the North Tower it was more like 'about 10.9% took down the other 89.1%.'

[Q24]

It's an idiom. Do you know what an idiom is? Cut like butter.

Ignore the actual idiom if you want to, I don't really care. It's the point of the idiom that matters. Would you care to offer an opinion about the point which I'll describe below?

It is intended to convey that crushing the section which was damaged from the plane impact and weakened by the ensuing fires would be easier because of these facts than it would be if the region were not damaged.

Do you disagree with that?

The phrase, “like a knife through butter”, is not an idiom (though I see why you are trying to step back from its literal meaning and ‘paint it’ (that’s a real idiom) as one). An idiom is a phrase not reflective of its original/literal words. Examples are “storm in a teacup”, “feeling under the weather” or as performers say, “break a leg”. The phrase, “like a hot knife through butter” to be correct, is actually a metaphor which is a type of analogy; used as a comparison of likeness between two differing objects or situations. It is not an idiom because it is understandable in its literal meaning. Further, “Like a hot knife through butter” is not used to imply something is “easier” but actually, “very easy”.

Yes I disagree that the impact and fire meant it was “easier” for the upper block to crush the lower block. The first reason is that the upper block itself comprised of damaged and fire affected storeys which balanced the damaged and fire affected storeys of the lower block, i.e. we are still looking at approximately equal and opposite structures and resultant damage. The second reason is that the damaged and fire affected structure was limited and did not pose a threat to the structure in my opinion (or that of NIST’s ‘best estimate’ non-collapse case), i.e. there was still significant strength in the region. As we have just seen, the steel core column NIST physically analysed from the area retained at least 81% of its original strength and with these columns having an average safety factor in excess of 2:1 it is clear that “like butter” is a highly inaccurate comparison.

In all, “like a knife through butter” is misleading in the extreme, shows lack of appreciation of the structure or situation and I can’t take you seriously whilst you use it.

[booNyzarC]

The phrase, “like a knife through butter”, is not an idiom (though I see why you are trying to step back from its literal meaning and ‘paint it’ (that’s a real idiom) as one). An idiom is a phrase not reflective of its original/literal words. Examples are “storm in a teacup”, “feeling under the weather” or as performers say, “break a leg”. The phrase, “like a hot knife through butter” to be correct, is actually a metaphor which is a type of analogy; used as a comparison of likeness between two differing objects or situations. It is not an idiom because it is understandable in its literal meaning. Further, “Like a hot knife through butter” is not used to imply something is “easier” but actually, “very easy”.

In all, “like a knife through butter” is misleading in the extreme, shows lack of appreciation of the structure or situation and I can’t take you seriously whilst you use it.

Fair enough, I accept your clarification of it being a metaphor. Since you seem so put off by its usage, I'll try not to use it any longer (or at least not as much...). Does that work for you?

Yes I disagree that the impact and fire meant it was “easier” for the upper block to crush the lower block. The first reason is that the upper block itself comprised of damaged and fire affected storeys which balanced the damaged and fire affected storeys of the lower block, i.e. we are still looking at approximately equal and opposite structures and resultant damage. The second reason is that the damaged and fire affected structure was limited and did not pose a threat to the structure in my opinion (or that of NIST’s ‘best estimate’ non-collapse case), i.e. there was still significant strength in the region. As we have just seen, the steel core column NIST physically analysed from the area retained at least 81% of its original strength and with these columns having an average safety factor in excess of 2:1 it is clear that “like butter” is a highly inaccurate comparison.

When describing what was 'easier' I wasn't talking about the entire lower block. I was talking about the heavily damaged and visibly stationary stories initially impacted by the actual original upper block's 12 stories (plus a small portion of the North face facade, in the middle-left, which came down with the upper block because it wasn't attached to anything below due to the fact that there was a huge gash in the side of the building, and was only attached to the section of building above...i.e. the initial upper block...) following initiation.

We clearly see it begin at the 98th story.

So the portions of the building that I'm talking about which would be 'easier' for the actual upper block to crush are specifically the 97th, 96th, 95th, 94th, 93rd, and possibly 92nd stories.

Given these clarifications, do you still disagree?

If you disagree with this, then you must contend that the initial upper block isn't the top 12 stories as appears to be substantiated by the visual record. If you contend this, I ask you to define what you believe the actual upper block is in terms of stories (and/or partial stories) and substantiate the claim with evidence. I am not looking for assumptions here, I'm looking for evidence. Evidence is what will compel me, similar to the information you provided regarding the usage of the above mentioned metaphor.

When providing this evidence, please also keep in mind that you have agreed with my definitions for the upper and lower block which are:

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.

[skyeagle409]

WTC Demolition Theory Disproved!! Investigators find no evidence of explosives!

] [/b]

WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory

Indications of the Imminent Collapse of the World Trade Center Buildings Disprove Explosives Theory

Scientists investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 collapse of the twin towers said, "the World Trade Center towers showed telltale signs they were about to collapse several minutes before each crumbled to the ground." There would not be telltale signs if it was explosives (Controlled Demolition) that caused the buildings to collapse.

"In the case of the north tower, police chopper pilots reported seeing the warning signs - an inward bowing of the building facade - at least eight minutes before it collapsed at 10:29 a.m." New York Daily News reporter Paul Shin wrote in his June 19th, 2004 article 9/11 cops saw collapse coming.

"Federal engineering investigators studying the destruction of the World Trade Center's twin towers on Sept. 11 said New York Police Department aviation units reported an inward bowing of the buildings' columns in the minutes before they collapsed, a signal they were about to fall." - NYC Police Saw Sign of Tower Collapse, Study Says

Several minutes before the WTC buildings collapsed, the structures of the buildings were clearly failing and the exterior steel columns could be seen buckling. This simply would not be happening if explosives caused the collapse because explosives don't go off in slow motion for several minutes. Explosives don't slowly buckle steel columns over several minutes.

http://www.represent...Explosives.html

NYC Police Saw Sign of Tower Collapse, Study Says

June 18 (Bloomberg) -- Federal engineering investigators studying the destruction of the World Trade Center's twin towers on Sept. 11 said New York Police Department aviation units reported an inward bowing of the buildings' columns in the minutes before they collapsed, a signal they were about to fall.

The NYPD aviation unit reported critical information about the pending collapse of the building,'' said Sivaraj Shyam- Sunder, who heads the institute, at a press briefing in New York. ``Any time that information could have been communicated faster to the emergency responders in the buildings, it would have helped save lives.''

http://www.bloomberg...=top_world_news

9/11 cops saw collapse coming

New York Daily News - June 19th, 2004

The World Trade Center towers showed telltale signs they were about to collapse several minutes before each crumbled to the ground, scientists probing the Sept. 11, 2001, disaster said yesterday.

In the case of the north tower, police chopper pilots reported seeing the warning signs - an inward bowing of the building facade - at least eight minutes before it collapsed at 10:29 a.m.

But emergency responders inside the tower never got the order to evacuate due to faulty communications equipment and garbled lines of command, investigators with the National Institute of Standards and Technology said in its second interim report on the collapse's causes.

"The NYPD aviation unit reported critical information about the impending collapse of the buildings," lead investigator Shyam Sunder said at a presentation in midtown.

http://www.skyscrape...e_20040619.html

A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers 1,2&7 From a Conventional Explosives and Demolitions Industry Viewpoint

http://www.jod911.co...hard 8-8-06.pdf

Edited September 28, 2012 by skyeagle409

[Q24]

Fair enough, I accept your clarification of it being a metaphor. Since you seem so put off by its usage, I'll try not to use it any longer (or at least not as much...). Does that work for you?

It’s up to you what phrases you use. I just think that such terms paint a false picture and highlight the bias in your position – you want the upper block to be ‘like a hot knife’ and the lower block to be ‘like butter’, even when basic understanding of the NIST study and physical steel analysis shows they are equivalent structure each with significant strength.

When describing what was 'easier' I wasn't talking about the entire lower block. I was talking about the heavily damaged and visibly stationary stories initially impacted by the actual original upper block's 12 stories (plus a small portion of the North face facade, in the middle-left, which came down with the upper block because it wasn't attached to anything below due to the fact that there was a huge gash in the side of the building, and was only attached to the section of building above...i.e. the initial upper block...) following initiation.

We clearly see it begin at the 98th story.

So the portions of the building that I'm talking about which would be 'easier' for the actual upper block to crush are specifically the 97th, 96th, 95th, 94th, 93rd, and possibly 92nd stories.

Given these clarifications, do you still disagree?

We have been over this already. You are only picking that corner as a reference point because you want the upper block to be smaller. You have already noted an alternative, lower reference point in the north facade that shows the upper block actually extended down to the impact zone. In my view it is obvious that the internal leading edge of the upper block must be within, not a number of floors above, the impact zone – that is the official theory after all, that the collapse initiated due to the impact damage and worst fire affected storeys. The lowest edge of the upper block may be the 95^th floor within the impact zone, which according to the floors you have noted above means three storeys of each block, upper and lower, were weakened and the opposing structure is still approximately equal.

Edited September 28, 2012 by Q24

[flyingswan]

I don't care what initiated the collapse. 15% took down 85%. And it had resistance.

Look at it this way.

Collapse initiated at the damaged level. Even if this was only one storey tall (it was in fact taller), the gravitational energy released by the upper block moving down that one story is some eight times more than the energy required to buckle all the columns in a storey. Even on Q24's incorrect picture of equal damage to upper and lower blocks, that's four times more than required to crush both sides of the impact. This leaves you with 17% of the building falling on 83%, still with plenty of energy left over from the first impact and gaining energy with every storey it falls. Next one down is 18% on 82% and so it goes.

[Q24]

Collapse initiated at the damaged level. Even if this was only one storey tall (it was in fact taller), the gravitational energy released by the upper block moving down that one story is some eight times more than the energy required to buckle all the columns in a storey. Even on Q24's incorrect picture of equal damage to upper and lower blocks, that's four times more than required to crush both sides of the impact. This leaves you with 17% of the building falling on 83%, still with plenty of energy left over from the first impact and gaining energy with every storey it falls. Next one down is 18% on 82% and so it goes.

No, not “and so it goes”, because now we are talking about broken upper structure compared to intact lower structure. Even Bazant states that the flexibility of a one storey mass (or anything less than 6 storeys which would be non-rigid) would not progress the collapse. You are not being honest with all the details in your assessment, but we know that is the state of your position. The same as you have still not accepted the blatant fact that NIST’s simulated base case (non-collapse) model was best match to the observable damage.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=229776&st=240#entry4447162

Such deception and lies to yourself.

Sorry W Tell, don’t let me put you off responding – it needs to be shown that people do not agree with nonsense of the official theory.

[flyingswan]

No, not “and so it goes”, because now we are talking about broken upper structure compared to intact lower structure.

What we are talking about is, in your own words, a "horribly enmeshed" and compacted debris layer adding itself to the falling mass. It doesn't matter whether or not you accept that this debris layer protects the upper block from breaking up or not, what matters is that the falling mass is there and gaining energy as it falls. Even after falling a single storey, it has more than enough energy to crush the next storey, and that's what a progressive collapse is all about.

Here's another example of the phenomenon, four storeys falling on seventeen and bringing them all down:

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Ronan_Point

The same as you have still not accepted the blatant fact that NIST’s simulated base case (non-collapse) model was best match to the observable damage.

Here's another case where that is not correct: NCSTAR 1-3, p91. The only piece of recovered core column showing impact damage was hit in the severe case and missed in the baseline.

Edited September 28, 2012 by flyingswan

[bee]

Look at it this way.

Collapse initiated at the damaged level. Even if this was only one storey tall (it was in fact taller), the gravitational energy released by the upper block moving down that one story is some eight times more than the energy required to buckle all the columns in a storey. Even on Q24's incorrect picture of equal damage to upper and lower blocks, that's four times more than required to crush both sides of the impact. This leaves you with 17% of the building falling on 83%, still with plenty of energy left over from the first impact and gaining energy with every storey it falls. Next one down is 18% on 82% and so it goes.

but didn't vast amounts of the buildings turn to dust?

and dust isn't very heavy.....to do the 'gravitational energy release' thing...?

[flyingswan]

but didn't vast amounts of the buildings turn to dust?

The dust would mostly have come from plasterboard, which is easily broken up. The really heavy parts, the structural steel and the concrete floors, are not so easily crushed.

[bee]

The dust would mostly have come from plasterboard, which is easily broken up. The really heavy parts, the structural steel and the concrete floors, are not so easily crushed.

ok...but is there enough steel left.....

or did lots of that turn to dust as well..?

http://abandontv.wor.../wtc-dustified/

from the link above...

quote...

These core columns were the last part of WTC1 to remain standing so if they collapsed (for whatever reason) they should be lying on top of the debris.

We know each of the Twin Towers’ cores contained 47 box columns. Each columns was made out of steel several inches thick.

47 core columns x 1300 ft (height of tower) = 61,100 ft or 11 miles of thick steel box columns in total.

Here is a picture of the remains of WTC1 (taken on the afternoon of 9/11). The tall column near the middle of the picture (leaning slightly over to the left) is a single core box column situated where ‘the spire’ stood.

Can you see the rest of the 11 miles of core columns piled up anywhere?

[flyingswan]

Can you see the rest of the 11 miles of core columns piled up anywhere?

Plenty of core column pieces visible here:

http://i49.photobuck...s501/wtc1f2.jpg

and here:

http://img854.images...cpaironwtc3.png

and here's the stub of the core from ground level:

http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ardoucette/WTC4160.jpg

Edited September 28, 2012 by flyingswan

[bee]

Plenty of core column pieces visible here:

http://i49.photobuck...s501/wtc1f2.jpg

and here:

http://img854.images...cpaironwtc3.png

and here's the stub of the core from ground level:

http://i117.photobuc...tte/WTC4160.jpg

Where did you get those pictures...?

Can you link to the source, please..

.

[Q24]

What we are talking about is, in your own words, a "horribly enmeshed" and compacted debris layer adding itself to the falling mass. It doesn't matter whether or not you accept that this debris layer protects the upper block from breaking up or not, what matters is that the falling mass is there and gaining energy as it falls. Even after falling a single storey, it has more than enough energy to crush the next storey, and that's what a progressive collapse is all about.

Even bee has addressed this – a solid and rigid mass is very different to a dispersed and flexible mass. Even Bazant, whose paper is the ‘official theory’ on this, acknowledges his equations apply only to the former, which is detrimental to collapse, and not the case in reality.

Here's another example of the phenomenon, four storeys falling on seventeen and bringing them all down:

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Ronan_Point

Ah this is essentially a ‘floors only’ model supported by a single determinate corner column. We have previously spoken on the thread about how this type of model may cause a progressive pancaking. It is quite disgraceful how an engineer would pass this off as being reflective of the continuous core structure of the towers. What are you playing at? You aren’t fooling anyone but yourself and those of a predisposed bias.

Here's another case where that is not correct: NCSTAR 1-3, p91. The only piece of recovered core column showing impact damage was hit in the severe case and missed in the baseline.

NIST did not determine conclusively that the column suffered impact damage: -

“However, the damage to the north flange may have been a result of impact damage... ”

Note the words “However” and “may” which indicate uncertainty and that the damage could have been as a result of the collapse, rather than impact. I'm afraid that your statement implying certain impact damage to the column is but another example of your failed reading comprehension skills.

How many times? NIST state the most important observable in validating their models is the facade impact damage. The facade impact damage is clearly a better overall match to the base (non-collapse) case. It is impossible to have a sensible discussion with someone who does not accept such realities. It’s like talking to someone aghast at implication of the facts and who chooses rather to be in denial.

[bee]

.

what do you mean....EVEN bee.......

[Q24]

.

what do you mean....EVEN bee.......

Well erm... honestly... your opinions on this particular subject don’t usually carry much weight with me (lacking in evidence and logic as I see it)... but in this one instance I think you got it right... correctly identifying the difference between an intact and a deteriorated structure.

Ergo, "Even bee..."

Sorry.

[+Liquid Gardens]

[block]The phrase, “like a hot knife through butter” to be correct, is actually a metaphor which is a type of analogy; used as a comparison of likeness between two differing objects or situations.[/block]

Actually it's a simile. Similes usually have 'like' or 'as' and say something is like something else. Metaphors make the comparison by saying something is something else: 'he's a diamond in the rough', 'all the world's a stage', and are usually making a stronger comparison than similes.

[booNyzarC]

[block]The phrase, “like a hot knife through butter” to be correct, is actually a metaphor which is a type of analogy; used as a comparison of likeness between two differing objects or situations.[/block]

Actually it's a simile. Similes usually have 'like' or 'as' and say something is like something else. Metaphors make the comparison by saying something is something else: 'he's a diamond in the rough', 'all the world's a stage', and are usually making a stronger comparison than similes.

That made me simile.