Book Review: The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7

388 posts / 0 new
Last post
Boomer41's picture
Boomer41
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 30 2008
Posts: 126
Reply to Grover

Grover,

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my outburst (#303). You are a very patient person and what you write makes good sense. I really admire the dogged way you respond to the obtuse ramblings of certain contributors to this thread.

I am a big picture guy. My aim is always to get to the root cause of any problem. Long rambling discussions dissecting the fall of Building 7 in one millisecond increments are pointless in my view.

The only evidence you need to prove that the NIST report is bullshit is the fact that Building 7 spent more than two seconds in free-fall.

When even NIST agrees that free-fall occurred then we don't need more discussion, we need a new independent investigation, by non-government engineers and scientists, to find out what really happened.

However, I willingly concede that the more smoke and flame this thread generates, the more people who are drawn into the discussion, the nearer we come to achieving the goal of another investigation.

The implications of the events of 9/11 being willfully misrepresented by our government are so enormous that we cannot allow the obvious shortcomings of the official story to go unquestioned. These questions may be the most important ever asked in the history of the United States of America.

Thank you for everything you do. PP is a better place for having you as a member.

Grover's picture
Grover
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 16 2011
Posts: 670
Different Attitudes

Boomer41,

Thank you for the very kind words! Hamish reminds me of a book-smart, brash, young engineer I worked with before retiring. Just like Hamish, he was quick to jump to a conclusion because he discounted "questionable" evidence too drastically and he tended to focus on "oddities" rather than the overall problem at hand. Hamish admitted that he hasn't looked deeply into 9/11. He is approaching the problem in a respectable way - support the official story and question evidence to the contrary. After all, how could the official story get it so wrong? As long as he is sincere in his questionings, I'll work with him.

On the other hand, Doug is a lost cause. Doug believes himself to be an expert simply because he read a book by Popular Mechanics and has visited a few "faither" blogs. He is so sure of himself that there is absolutely no need to listen to the misguided crackpot truthers. He doesn't have to respond to our unreasonable requests for clarification because we're that wrong. (At least, that's my interpretation of his attitude based on his posts.) The combination of ignorance and arrogance creates a wall that is impervious to logic and evidence and makes learning tough.

I have met many folks who at one time believed the official story only to have subsequently changed their opinion of the official story. They used to question the need for an independent investigation. Now, they support it. I've never met anyone who abandoned the official story only to re-embrace it again.

Grover

gyrogearloose's picture
gyrogearloose
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 8 2008
Posts: 518
Shell distortion

Hi Grover

Thanks to a higer res vid, maybe the one posted by Time2help Post #328, ?? I am now confident to state that the dark patches that appeared below the penthouse (like is visible in the post a bit to the left of the play symbol center screen) are windows breaking. That is because in the video that self sets to almost full screen ( as opposed to most that auto size to less than ¼ of the screen) I can see debris falling from the windows as they change color, and once the shell has fallen about 3 floors smoke or dust flows from most of the dark patches in that area.

As this is happening after the penthouse starts to move downwards, I presume that it is caused by the beams that connect the central column that is falling, to the walls distorting the vertical shell columns, enough in some cases to break the windows.

You said “”If this scenario actually occurred, why didn't the strong structure (connecting column 79 o the adjacent exterior walls) above floor 14 pull the exterior walls with it as column 79 buckled and collapsed? “”

From various snippets and knowledge from outside this thread, the connections of the floor support beams to the vertical columns would be designed to principally withstand vertical loading with limited torsional resistance. As column 79 fell, thee floor beams were moved off perpendicular to the columns inducing torsional stresses, and pulling the top of the beam away from the exterior column leading to the failure of the overall connection. From the video it is evident that stresses were induced in the shell after the penthouse began to fall.

Additionally as the floor was a lot of in plane strength, while it is perpendicular or near perpendicular to the shell the shell will not be able to distort much over a 'large' area. By the time it is fare enough off perpendicular to no longer keep the shell 'straight' the beam connections would have been severely compromised.

The alternative is that shaped linear charges were used to sever multiple beams close to the shell on all the floors visible, and a controlled demolition feature unique to this building.....

As this being like all standard controlled demolition, there is one feature I cannot recall seen in any other demolition, in that part of the core was dropped 7 seconds before the rest of the core.

Long delays are evident in long apartment buildings, but this was nothing like that geometry.

Regards Hamish

PS still have not seen the original nano thermite paper as all the links I have tried so far are broken. Will try more....

gyrogearloose's picture
gyrogearloose
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 8 2008
Posts: 518
Krol Paper

Sure it would be nice to build an exact duplicate of WTC7 and try and make it collapse with just fire, go you halves on the costs (and profits on the movie !!!!!)

But all they needed to do was compare with at least 1 well videoed collapse of a similar building to see if their assumptions were good, Not hard in the scale of what they did.

So lets work from their numbers to see how badly out they were. From them total energy required to break the building up as predicted by them 309x10epx9 J vs available potential energy of building mass available of 76x10exp9 J

This means there was a deficit of 233x10exp9 J, and since nano thermite was the only other source availble lets work out how much was needed.

Apparently the heat of combustion of NT isabout 4MJ/Kg

Assuming 20% of this is avaailable to break the concrete, the rest being used to heat the NT up and etc.

This means that 0.8 MJ/Kg ( 0.8x10exp6 ) is available to break concrete up

Since 233x10exp9 is needed, this means 291250 kg of NT was must have been in the building..

291 Tons !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm think their numbers may be a bit out.............

Peer review at work.........

Unless my numbers are wrong. Has happened more than once before.

Oh well at least I have a rol of krol for next time I have a bout of diarrhea ;-)

gyrogearloose's picture
gyrogearloose
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 8 2008
Posts: 518
Re Luke Moffat

Post #333  byLuke Moffat

“”Given that we witnessed the main building collapse uniformly at free-fall speeds we must conclude that all critical resistance was removed instantaneously. Otherwise Newton's third law doesn't hold “”

There is a logical fallacy two in there

My interpretation of instantaneously is 'in less time than can be observed by eye', and not something that occurs over a period of a second.

By observation the support was not removed instantaneously.

If you would look at the first graph in Grover post # 323 plotting the downwards velocity of the north face vs time.

And then look at the wee cartoon just below that showing 2 weights falling, one with no resistance and one supported by a buckling column.

The graph is a fairly good representation of the velocity of the block falling while bending the supporting column. As the column bends further it gives less support and so the acceleration rate raised and the velocity curve gets steeper.

If the support for the top of the building was removed instantaneously, the velocity graph would start out as a straight line, just ike the straight line drawn throught the point that projects down to velocity of 0 at about 1.4 s

However the building did not behave this way.

By the time it was accelerating at near free fall ( and hence there was almost no support) the top of the building had fallen about 8 feet and was moving at about 10 ft per second.

Your claim of instantaneous removal of support is not supported by analysis of the video of the collapse.

Cheers Hamish

gyrogearloose's picture
gyrogearloose
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 8 2008
Posts: 518
Sand puppy's errors?

At the bottom of post#3 sand pupppy said “”10.  More computer animations of progressive destruction of the core columns.  Here you can clearly see the progressive quality and the wave of movement of destruction beginning in the northeast corner and finishing in the southwest corner. NIST NCSTAR 1-9 v2 beginning on p590  [Critics of NIST point out that there is “absolutely nothing even remotely like this wave of destruction observed on videos of the actual collapse.  We will return to this criticism in part 3]””

In the sequence of images below of NIST's simulation of the core of the building, the fourth would be when in the videos the penthouse can be seen to tip (but this is not shown in his earlier linked montage of different shots of the collapse, for some reason most start just after the penthouse dissapears) and the next one would be when it is gone completly.

I fail to see how it could be characterised as “absolutely nothing even remotely “ as up to that point at least it I would describe it as a fair match with what was observed given I not frame by frame compared it with the videos

In Post #4 Sand puppy said “”2.   Failure to observe the predicted buckling of the façade.  NIST explains that the NE half of the core was destroyed several seconds before the visible drop in the roof line began.  Yet the core columns are connected to the façade at every floor by steel girders.  A collapsing core would pull in the façade and deform the flatness of its surface.  Even NIST’s simulations predict the outer surface of the building (the facade) will buckle and warp.  Needless to say, there is no visible buckling of the façade at all seen in any of the videos.  The observed uniform smoothness of the façade profoundly undercuts any progressive collapse explanation in which the core is destroyed asymmetrically or prior to the façade”” (emphasis his )

As I detailed in my post # detailing my observations of the video I linked to, between the penthouse starting to move and when the services structur adjacent to it started to move there were clear indications of distortions on the fave of the building.

And as the building is moving down the distortions grow significantly. And are particular visible in vids more from the side.

This is in stark contrast to the bolded insistence that there was none.

Making categorical statements in contradiction to what can be observed in the videos available does not encourage much confidence.

In addition after a very quick skim of the NIIST report that I have now downloaded, I noticed that the picture he inserted just below titled “view from the north” looks like it is from a simulation run without including a simulation of the damage visible in the photographs.

If you want to convince people of something, it is best to run with a consistent and accurate information.

Cheers Hamiish

Luke Moffat's picture
Luke Moffat
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 25 2014
Posts: 288
Hamish

Hamish, first of all thanks for actually addressing a point that I raised rather than ignore it and offer me photos of rusting fire grates.

As to your response the bit that really gets to the meat of what I'm saying is this;

gyrogearloose wrote:

Post #333  byLuke Moffat

“”Given that we witnessed the main building collapse uniformly at free-fall speeds we must conclude that all critical resistance was removed instantaneously. Otherwise Newton's third law doesn't hold “”

There is a logical fallacy two in there

My interpretation of instantaneously is 'in less time than can be observed by eye', and not something that occurs over a period of a second.

By observation the support was not removed instantaneously.

If the support for the top of the building was removed instantaneously, the velocity graph would start out as a straight line, just ike the straight line drawn throught the point that projects down to velocity of 0 at about 1.4 s

However the building did not behave this way.

By the time it was accelerating at near free fall ( and hence there was almost no support) the top of the building had fallen about 8 feet and was moving at about 10 ft per second.

Your claim of instantaneous removal of support is not supported by analysis of the video of the collapse.

Cheers Hamish

In order to get an object to descend at the free-fall rate of acceleration there can be no resistance. Therefore, at some point in time, all resistance is removed. An object will keep accelerating in this manner until it hits terminal velocity. So far so good?

So, step by step to a generic building collapse - a few columns have been removed (or are no longer load bearing) and the building still stands. This shouldn't surprise us, buildings have redundancy built into them. As long as enough columns remain to support the structural load we don't get a collapse.

Next step, enough columns are removed so that the remaining columns can no longer support the entire building. Those parts which can't be supported collapse. The building loses part of its mass resulting in a partial collapse assuming that enough columns remain standing to support the remaining mass. A better way to think of it might be coastal erosion, or even waterfalls, undercutting the base rock so that the top layer can no longer be supported - and so begins its merry descent over centuries/millennia.

Final step, total collapse, all support is removed and thus, without any load bearing capabilities, the whole structure comes down. Hopefully, we're still agreed.

That can all happen without free-fall acceleration. Now go back to our coastal erosion scenario and add free-fall acceleration for the entire cliff - how did you cause all of that rock to collapse at once, uniformly without removing all critical resistance instantaneously? Because I have absolutely no idea how you'd do it otherwise.

And that's the critical point that you (others?) have to explain i.e. uniform, free-fall collapse. This is what plagues NIST, their model shows a twist to support the column 79 theory. Only we didn't observe a twist. I don't mind dropping the term 'instantaneous' if it's confusing you, I was merely offering the theoretical definition.

Now some clever sod might say, "oh, but you're comparing Tower 7 to coastal erosion..." and my reply would be "doesn't matter" the laws of physics exist to explain all occurrences of motion, otherwise they ain't laws of physics.

Cheers,

Luke

Time2help's picture
Time2help
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 9 2011
Posts: 2454
Revisiting NIST Malfeasance

ae911truth wrote:
Fraud Exposed in NIST WTC 7 Reports — Part 1 of 5 **Burned-Out Fire**

Over the next few weeks, we are republishing five articles that address the alleged fire-induced collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 at 5:20 PM on September 11, 2001.

Titled "Fraud Exposed in NIST WTC 7 Reports," these articles are updated versions of a five-part series written by AE911Truth's Chris Sarns and initially published on our legacy website between May and September 2013.

This is must-read material for anyone who wants to understand in detail how NIST constructed its elaborate, far-fetched explanation for the destruction of Building 7.

Read Part 1 of 5, "Burned-Out Fire," first published on May 8, 2013.

Time2help's picture
Time2help
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 9 2011
Posts: 2454
Fraud Exposed in NIST WTC 7 Reports — Part 2 of 5

ae911truth wrote:
**Magical Thermal Expansion**

Over the next few weeks, we are republishing five articles that address the alleged fire-induced collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 at 5:20 PM on September 11, 2001.

Titled "Fraud Exposed in NIST WTC 7 Reports," these articles are updated versions of a five-part series written by AE911Truth's Chris Sarns and initially published on our legacy website between May and September 2013.

This is must-read material for anyone who wants to understand in detail how NIST constructed its elaborate, far-fetched explanation for the destruction of Building 7.

Read Part 2 of 5, "Magical Thermal Expansion," first published on June 10, 2013.

Grover's picture
Grover
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 16 2011
Posts: 670
The Korol Paper

gyrogearloose wrote:

Sure it would be nice to build an exact duplicate of WTC7 and try and make it collapse with just fire, go you halves on the costs (and profits on the movie !!!!!)

But all they needed to do was compare with at least 1 well videoed collapse of a similar building to see if their assumptions were good, Not hard in the scale of what they did.

Hamish,

Did you read the paper? Korol, et al. purposefully did not model the collapse of WTC 7. Instead, they assumed that fire destroyed 2/3 of the columns on 2 floors (floors 12 &13) and analyzed the subsequent response of the building's theoretical stiffness to a collapse scenario. They assumed that the remaining 1/3 of the columns would be barely sufficient to hold the upper 34 stories before collapsing completely. (For non-engineers: Buildings are designed to be stronger than needed. Engineers use "factor of safety" to denote the ratio of resisting forces to driving forces - typically buildings are designed to be at least 3 times as strong as needed.) Korol assumed that the concrete floors in these 2 floors were so compromised by the fire that the only resistance offered by these 2 floors were from the buckling of the remaining 27 columns.

Once the columns on floors 12 & 13 failed (assumed simultaneously,) the upper block of stories began to fall - converting potential energy to kinetic energy. Korol assumed a "crush down" phase to floor 7 before the "crush up" phase began to crush the stories in the upper block (floors 14 - 47.) They determined, based on their assumptions, that the building did not embody enough potential energy to accomplish more than one floor of "crush up."

gyrogearloose wrote:

So lets work from their numbers to see how badly out they were. From them total energy required to break the building up as predicted by them 309x10epx9 J vs available potential energy of building mass available of 76x10exp9 J

In Section 6 of the paper, Korol admits that they had to "guesstimate" the concrete particle size distribution in the debris pile. Had authorities allowed an investigation of the collapse, this would not be necessary. (Remember that authorities denied repeated requests to investigate by structural engineers and fire safety personnel. Debris was quickly removed and disposed before it could be measured.)

If the final debris pile size distribution were significantly larger than their guesstimate, the energy dissipated by crushing concrete would be less. Based on Korol's guesstimated size distribution, each floor's concrete slab dissipated 6.4 X 109 Joules. The energy dissipated by concrete crushing amounted to about 250 X 109 Joules. The remaining 59 X 109 Joules of energy dissipation was attributed to bending/buckling steel columns. About 80% of their calculated energy dissipation was due to concrete crushing; therefore, a small difference between assumed and actual size distribution could be significant.

As evidenced by numerous videos, copious amounts of dust were ejected from the structure during collapse. Assuming the majority of dust was due to crushed concrete, and crushing concrete to dust sized particles required the most energy; therefore, it would be imprudent to assume that crushing concrete contributed negligible energy dissipation. Even if they missed that portion by a factor of 2 (doubtful,) there still wasn't enough potential energy in the building to allow a complete collapse.

gyrogearloose wrote:

This means there was a deficit of 233x10exp9 J, and since nano thermite was the only other source availble lets work out how much was needed.

Apparently the heat of combustion of NT isabout 4MJ/Kg

Assuming 20% of this is avaailable to break the concrete, the rest being used to heat the NT up and etc.

This means that 0.8 MJ/Kg ( 0.8x10exp6 ) is available to break concrete up

Since 233x10exp9 is needed, this means 291250 kg of NT was must have been in the building..

291 Tons !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm think their numbers may be a bit out.............

Your deficit of 233 X 109 Joules was based on the difference between the total energy dissipation required and the total potential energy available. Nano-thermite would be used primarily to sever columns, although concussion would contribute to concrete crushing.

This paper: http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html notes differences between thermite and nano-thermite. The following figures are copied from that source. They also note (as you stated) that thermite contains about 4 MJ/Kg. Nano-thermite has smaller particle sizes that can react more quickly; however, it shouldn't be more energetic than regular thermite.

thermite_rates_s.png

Your 20% estimate appears to be a potentially gross underestimation. If the nano-thermite were used only to sever columns, significantly less than 291 tonnes would be necessary to accomplish the task.

gyrogearloose wrote:

Peer review at work.........

Unless my numbers are wrong. Has happened more than once before.

Oh well at least I have a rol of krol for next time I have a bout of diarrhea ;-)

Yes. You have been wrong (more than once on this thread.) It disturbs me that you continue to make the same types of mistakes. You inappropriately apply equations, come up with erroneous results, consider your casual ""analysis"" to be above reproach, and then discount others' work completely. To cover your butt, you add a disclaimer that you've been wrong before.

A sincere person does not do as you have done. If you want me to take you seriously, you are going to have to step up your game. So far, you've only attacked the "truther" side of the argument. Look at the official story and see if it makes sense to you. Because you have experience with thermodynamics, I'd appreciate if you could find a source that explains (to your satisfaction) the intense heat found in the debris piles of the three collapsed structures - particularly WTC 7. Could the isolated fires be sufficient to cause this phenomenon? What other available source (based on the official story) can account for the heat?

Also, you need to pay more attention to details. I can forgive misspelled words, homonyms, fat fingers, and grammatical errors as long as the intent comes through, but I draw the line with people's names. The man's name isn't "krol." It is K-o-r-o-l (Korol.) If you (or others) search for "krol" you won't find his work. Besides, it is disrespectful!

Finally, in post #336, you attempted to answer my question about column 79. I found a link that contains a plan view and a section view of column 79 at the 13th floor. Unfortunately, the .pdf has been protected from copying images. (The source of those figures is too large for me to download.) You can see the attention to detail in these figures. It is highly doubtful that similar care wasn't given to all the connections. Again, why weren't the adjacent walls in floors 14-47 pulled in when the column collapsed?

Here is a link to that document: http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/Brookman-Vol-33-Oct2012.pdf

Mr. Brookman lists some of his misgivings about NIST's analysis. I haven't found any official answer to his objections. Perhaps, you can.

Grover

newsbuoy's picture
newsbuoy
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 10 2013
Posts: 184
Best of luck to everyone in the New (Era) Year

"...and now something completely different" - M. Python

"Fascinating Fascism"-Excerpt:

...More important, it is generally thought that National Socialism stands only for brutishness and terror. But this is not true. National Socialism—more broadly, fascism—also stands for an ideal or rather ideals that are persistent today under the other banners: the ideal of life as art, the cult of beauty, the fetishism of courage, the dissolution of alienation in ecstatic feelings of community; the repudiation of the intellect; the family of man (under the parenthood of leaders). These ideals are vivid and moving to many people, and it is dishonest as well as tautological to say that one is affected by Triumph of the Will and Olympia only because they were made by a filmmaker of genius. Riefenstahl's films are still effective because, among other reasons, their longings are still felt, because their content is a romantic ideal to which many continue to be attached and which is expressed in such diverse modes of cultural dissidence and propaganda for new forms of community as the youth/rock culture, primal therapy, anti-psychiatry, Third World camp-following, and belief in the occult. The exaltation of community does not preclude the search for absolute leadership; on the contrary, it may inevitably lead to it. (Not surprisingly, a fair number of the young people now prostrating themselves before gurus and submitting to the most grotesquely autocratic discipline are former anti-authoritarians and anti-elitists of the 1960s.)

Riefenstahl's current de-Nazification and vindication as indomitable priestess of the beautiful—as a filmmaker and, now, as a photographer—do not augur well for the keenness of current abilities to detect the fascist longings in our midst. Riefenstahl is hardly the usual sort of aesthete or anthropological romantic. The force of her work being precisely in the continuity of its political and aesthetic ideas, what is interesting is that this was once seen so much more clearly than it seems to be now, when people claim to be drawn to Riefenstahl's images for their beauty of composition. Without a historical perspective, such connoisseurship prepares the way for a curiously absentminded acceptance of propaganda for all sorts of destructive feelings—feelings whose implications people are refusing to take seriously. Somewhere, of course, everyone knows that more than beauty is at stake in art like Riefenstahl's. And so people hedge their bets—admiring this kind of art, for its undoubted beauty, and patronizing it, for its sanctimonious promotion of the beautiful. Backing up the solemn choosy formalist appreciations lies a larger reserve of appreciation, the sensibility of camp, which is unfettered by the scruples of high seriousness: and the modern sensibility relies on continuing trade-offs between the formalist approach and camp taste.

Art which evokes the themes of fascist aesthetic is popular now, and for most people it is probably no more than a variant of camp. Fascism may be merely fashionable, and perhaps fashion with its irrepressible promiscuity of taste will save us. But the judgments of taste themselves seem less innocent. Art that seemed eminently worth defending ten years ago, as a minority or adversary taste, no longer seems defensible today, because the ethical and cultural issues it raises have become serious, even dangerous, in a way they were not then. The hard truth is that what may be acceptable in elite culture may not be acceptable in mass culture, that tastes which pose only innocuous ethical issues as the property of a minority become corrupting when they become more established. Taste is context, and the context has changed.

http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/33d/33dTexts/SontagFascinFascism75.htm

 
All hail, the new boss (same as the old boss) - apologies to P. Townsend.
gyrogearloose's picture
gyrogearloose
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 8 2008
Posts: 518
Korol paper implies FIVE W54 nuclear bombs needed to drop WTC7 !

Hi Grover

How was that for an attention grabbing headline?

Calculations a bit further down.

Anything in double quotes and italics is quoting you.

NT = nano thermite

“”Also, you need to pay more attention to details. I can forgive misspelled words, homonyms, fat fingers, and grammatical errors as long as the intent comes through, but I draw the line with people's names. “”

My spelling.... at school I was put in a remedial reading class” The teacher could not work out how I could read so well but still spell the same word 3 different ways on the same page. Thankfully spell checkers exist these days but some names get underlined red even when I know they are right so I reflexively ignore that flag. I did notice prior to your post had it wrong but it was too late to edit. Unfortunately the spell checker on my laptop does not work so I have to do it on line in limited time.

We all have out wee problems. Yours seems to be strawmen like in your post # 329 “”Wouldn't it be nice to build a duplicate and then destroy it? If you kick in a couple $billion, I'll try to find the same amount and we can confirm your hypothesis. ;-) Sorry, but you're getting stuck in the weeds again. “” in reply to my “they should have analyzed a controlled demolition of a similar size and type building (as good a match as they could find ) “

How did I get that 'headline'? Well.....

“”Your deficit of 233X 109 Joules was based on the difference between the total energy dissipation required and the total potential energy available. .””

In nuclear parlance, a bomb is said to be a 20 kilo ton bomb, which is rated as being the equivalent of 20,000 tons of TNT, and 1 ton of TNT releasing 4.184X 109 joules

A W54 Mk-54 (Davy Crockett) nuclear bomb max rating is about 20 tons, or 83X 109 joules. As nuclear bombs are a wee hotter than thermite they will be a bit more efficient( see comments on efficiency below ) in some respects but less efficient in others so lets say an efficiency of breaking concrete of 55% which means FIVE W54 Mk-54 nuclear bombs would be needed to bring down WTC7 according to Korol...

Now that I have had a bit of fun lets take another look at Korol without referring to nucswink

'“Your 20% estimate appears to be a potentially gross underestimation. ''”

Based on what? Have you seen a web page or calculations? If so please link or paste.

How I got my estimate of 20%

Breaking concrete (or any material) takes 'work' that can be quantified in Joules.

The amount of energy contained in NT is 4MJ/Kg

When this is 'burnt', 4 MJ of energy is released. According to the Laws of thermodynamics, only a portion of this can be converted to 'work' the rest being 'lost' as waste heat.

The same applies to any fuel being burnt. A standard car diesel engine converts roughtly 33% to usefull work, Large combined cycle power stations can run at around 60%

efficienicy

It was with this background of knowledge that I estimated 20%

A 'free' explosion of a block of NT on the surface of a concrete slab could very easily have an effieciency less than 20%.

If for example it was actually 10% the amount of NT would jump to 582 tons

Even if I grossly underestimated the efficency and it was as good as a combined cycle power station, it still comes in at 97 tons of NT

“” Nano-thermite would be used primarily to sever columns, although concussion would contribute to concrete crushing.””.

In wanting to bring in where a smaller amount of NT could be paced is just headding off into the weeds ( a twist on your expression ) and missing the point as well.

The point I was making was that a quick 'sanity check' would have shown that something was SERIOUSLY wrong with some of their assumptions.

Since the building did come down, I see the options are roughly

1-Their calculations and asumptions were correct an additional 233X 109 J were needed and if NT was the source, that mean 290 tons would have been needed.

2 Their calculations were way off and only a small amount of explosives was used to sever critical beeams

3 their calculations were way off and no explosives were used to drop the building.

If my calculations came up with needing only say 200Kg of NT it would have been dificult to claim that they had their calculations wrong and it would be dificult to distinguish between 2 and 3, but at 290 Tons, well it is a no brainer that something is wrong.

“”Again, it was peer reviewed - which I interpret as catching gross errors. “”

Have a read into peer review process criticisms. ( saw one on wattsupwiththat a while ago ) It is quite sad state of affairs out there.

And what is going on here is a form of peer review. Anyone here is free to point out any errors on my workings, or ask for further clarification.

“”It disturbs me that you continue to make the same types of mistakes. You inappropriately apply equations, come up with erroneous results, consider your casual ""analysis"" to be above reproach, and then discount others' work completely “”

Unless you point to where I inappropriately applied equations, came up with erroneous results, and then show with corrected equations, this is an ad homeim attack (and Chris Martenson gave Doug a dressing down for his repeated use of ad homein attacks.)

As to the 'above reproach', when I post 2x2=4, I consider that to be above reproach. Anything else is open to question and correction or refinement. To suggest otherwise is putting words in my mouth.

“”So far, you've only attacked the "truther" side of the argument. “”

Because I came late into this thread, almost all(if not all ) the faulty arguments on the 'official' side have been delt with by truthers.There are not a lot of posts by non truthers. ( and there were some seriously bad ones on the non truther side ) Got any other specific ones you would like me to comment on ?

“”Because you have experience with thermodynamics, I'd appreciate if you could find a source that explains (to your satisfaction) the intense heat found in the debris piles of the three collapsed structures - particularly WTC 7. Could the isolated fires be sufficient to cause this phenomenon? What other available source (based on the official story) can account for the heat? “”

I do not know what the 'official' story on the intense heat in the dedris pile is.

Vids posted here showed ornage hot steel being pulled from the debris with the people in the vids saying this was observed up to 8 weeks after the colapse.

The probabity that beams of steel got heated up yellow hot ( hotter than orange hot) prior to the colapse, then dropped throught the colllapse chaos to land in colse proximiity to enough other hot steel to then sit and only cool to orange heat 8 weeks later is VERY VERY low.

To give a bit of an indication of my experience in this area, a chemical process plant that I desgned and helped build, had a furnace chamber the size of a 20ft shipping container with 2x 600mm diameter,10 mm wall, 5 m long pipes that ran at 600C, and while operating the insulation kept the exterior below 40C. Once the heater was shut off, the interior was down to 50C after about 36 hrs.

The most likely process by which the steel ended up at yellow heat 8 weeks after the colapse I covered briefly in post #324 on page 11.

Have a re read of that and the next couple of paragraphs then come back with qquestions etc.

The truther side in this thread has put forward no direct explanation about this that I can recall seeing, ( if there is one please point to it ) but as truthers raise it as an issue, by implication, they must be taking the position that the orange hot steel could only have been created as a consequence of the demolition charges like NT and so is proof it was a controled demolition.

From what I can recall without going on line, in preperation for a controlled demolition, the building is initially stripped out.

Removing the debris while it is burning complicates the job and would increase the cost, so contrioled demolition would be targeting avoiding fires in the pile. Removing most of the burnable material before droping the building would be one way to achieve this.

How far this is taken I do not know. Do they take all carpet out? Desks? Doors? Tiber framed partitions?

Power and gas would be disconnected as to remove potential sources of ignition.

So the lack of orange hot steel in controlled demolition debris piles should be of no surprise. Can you find any examples of the debris pile from a controlled demolition catching fire?

In the feb 22 quake in Christchurch, the 5? story CTV building which collapsed caught fire.

Re column 79

Will download the document you linked to at the end of your post as I send this out then get back to you once I have read it.

I will also try and dl the links by Chris M on the steel beam 'vaporised' to almost nothng.

But as a quick rough preamble, my iniitial thoughts would be that it had at some stage afer the colapse been heated to over red heat and spent a considerabel time in an oxidising environment. Structural steel has a poor resistance to high temperature oxidation corrosion and a thick scale of iron oxide forms in a mater of hours.

Regards Hamish

Grover's picture
Grover
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 16 2011
Posts: 670
A Really Long Post

gyrogearloose wrote:

My spelling.... at school I was put in a remedial reading class” The teacher could not work out how I could read so well but still spell the same word 3 different ways on the same page. Thankfully spell checkers exist these days but some names get underlined red even when I know they are right so I reflexively ignore that flag. I did notice prior to your post had it wrong but it was too late to edit. Unfortunately the spell checker on my laptop does not work so I have to do it on line in limited time.

Hamish,

Poor spelling will limit your options in the future. Unless you can communicate effectively (and that means reasonably correct spelling,) your potential bosses will suspect your other abilities. It is easier to find flaws in unsuccessful candidates than polish diamonds in the rough. Spiel chocks donut [spell checks do not] work as well as a discriminating eye. This is just a friendly word of advice.

gyrogearloose wrote:

We all have out wee problems. Yours seems to be strawmen like in your post # 329 “”Wouldn't it be nice to build a duplicate and then destroy it? If you kick in a couple $billion, I'll try to find the same amount and we can confirm your hypothesis. ;-) Sorry, but you're getting stuck in the weeds again. “” in reply to my “they should have analyzed a controlled demolition of a similar size and type building (as good a match as they could find ) “

Actually, the winking emoticon should have triggered the thought that this was a sarcastic solution. I said that you were getting stuck in the weeds again because I didn't see the relevance of analyzing a controlled demolition. (Korol's paper stated definitively that their analysis wasn't for this condition. It was for a burning building collapsing on itself.) 

It wasn't until this morning that I realized that you were suggesting that they measure the concrete sizes in another building to approximate a sieve profile for their equations. If so, that will only produce a size profile that would essentially consume all potential energy through crushing concrete. In normal urban controlled demolitions, the goals are to safely bring the building down within its own footprint without excessive dust generation. They want to limit the explosives needed because of liability caused by ejecta (including dust.) Once the building is down, other equipment can break pieces safely for subsequent disposal.

What we need to find is a steel framed, Class IA, high rise building that was destroyed by fire enough to collapse within its own footprint. Then, a measurement of concrete particles would be useable. Unfortunately, there aren't any examples of this condition outside of the 3 WTC collapses.

gyrogearloose wrote:

How did I get that 'headline'? Well.....

“”Your deficit of 233X 109 Joules was based on the difference between the total energy dissipation required and the total potential energy available. .””

In nuclear parlance, a bomb is said to be a 20 kilo ton bomb, which is rated as being the equivalent of 20,000 tons of TNT, and 1 ton of TNT releasing 4.184X 109 joules

A W54 Mk-54 (Davy Crockett) nuclear bomb max rating is about 20 tons, or 83X 109 joules. As nuclear bombs are a wee hotter than thermite they will be a bit more efficient( see comments on efficiency below ) in some respects but less efficient in others so lets say an efficiency of breaking concrete of 55% which means FIVE W54 Mk-54 nuclear bombs would be needed to bring down WTC7 according to Korol...

[Note: This is an example of applying the wrong equations and determining a wrong outcome.] Korol stated in Section 6 that they had to guesstimate a concrete size profile. Based on their guesstimate, approximately 80% of consumed energy was used to break concrete. They weren't modeling a controlled demolition. They were modeling a high rise building collapsing due to fire alone. Their point was that there wasn't enough potential energy in the building to cause a complete collapse.

If none (or an exceedingly minimal amount) of the concrete broke and the floors just pancaked, there would be enough potential energy to cause the collapse. Breaking / bending columns would absorb energy and we wouldn't get near free fall acceleration for nearly 2 1/4 seconds.

I understand your point that copious amounts of external energy would be needed to accomplish complete destruction based on Korol's guesstimate. You are applying it indiscriminately in your example. Can you find any competent demolitions expert who would use this tactic? If I were to follow your methodology, I would say that there would be radiation present from these bombs. Since nobody measured any radiation, you're suggestion is worthless. I guess I should print it out and go take a crap.

gyrogearloose wrote:

Now that I have had a bit of fun lets take another look at Korol without referring to nucswink

'“Your 20% estimate appears to be a potentially gross underestimation. ''”

Based on what? Have you seen a web page or calculations? If so please link or paste.

Your last question makes me question your reading comprehension. I posted a link and a graph contained within that link that showed how particle size of nano-thermite affected the rate of energy release and the proportion of heat to pressure [post # 343. This post is already too long to post it again.]

gyrogearloose wrote:

How I got my estimate of 20%

Breaking concrete (or any material) takes 'work' that can be quantified in Joules.

The amount of energy contained in NT is 4MJ/Kg

When this is 'burnt', 4 MJ of energy is released. According to the Laws of thermodynamics, only a portion of this can be converted to 'work' the rest being 'lost' as waste heat.

The same applies to any fuel being burnt. A standard car diesel engine converts roughtly 33% to usefull work, Large combined cycle power stations can run at around 60% efficienicy

It was with this background of knowledge that I estimated 20%

A 'free' explosion of a block of NT on the surface of a concrete slab could very easily have an effieciency less than 20%.

If for example it was actually 10% the amount of NT would jump to 582 tons

Even if I grossly underestimated the efficency and it was as good as a combined cycle power station, it still comes in at 97 tons of NT

“” Nano-thermite would be used primarily to sever columns, although concussion would contribute to concrete crushing.””.

In wanting to bring in where a smaller amount of NT could be paced is just headding off into the weeds ( a twist on your expression ) and missing the point as well.

The point I was making was that a quick 'sanity check' would have shown that something was SERIOUSLY wrong with some of their assumptions.

Since the building did come down, I see the options are roughly

1-Their calculations and asumptions were correct an additional 233X 109 J were needed and if NT was the source, that mean 290 tons would have been needed.

2 Their calculations were way off and only a small amount of explosives was used to sever critical beeams

3 their calculations were way off and no explosives were used to drop the building.

If my calculations came up with needing only say 200Kg of NT it would have been dificult to claim that they had their calculations wrong and it would be dificult to distinguish between 2 and 3, but at 290 Tons, well it is a no brainer that something is wrong.

If you are trying to convince me that Korol's broken concrete size distribution was suspect, I would listen. Can you suggest an appropriate size distribution? Then, we can run it through the calculations to see the theoretical results. Of course, any size distribution you generate would be pure speculation on your part. I can easily guarantee that we wouldn't have any free fall acceleration beyond the 2 floors that Korol generously assumed.

gyrogearloose wrote:

“”Again, it was peer reviewed - which I interpret as catching gross errors. “”

Have a read into peer review process criticisms. ( saw one on wattsupwiththat a while ago ) It is quite sad state of affairs out there.

This is an example of a strawman fallacy: Peer reviews are bad. This paper was peer reviewed; therefore, it is bad. Essentially, that is what you just said. Wouldn't it be more nuanced to say that peer reviews fall on a bell curve and that some are exceedingly bad while others are quite competent? That makes more sense to me than just applying some binary switch. Even a bad review will catch gross errors.

gyrogearloose wrote:

And what is going on here is a form of peer review. Anyone here is free to point out any errors on my workings, or ask for further clarification.

“”It disturbs me that you continue to make the same types of mistakes. You inappropriately apply equations, come up with erroneous results, consider your casual ""analysis"" to be above reproach, and then discount others' work completely “”

Unless you point to where I inappropriately applied equations, came up with erroneous results, and then show with corrected equations, this is an ad homeim attack (and Chris Martenson gave Doug a dressing down for his repeated use of ad homein attacks.)

As to the 'above reproach', when I post 2x2=4, I consider that to be above reproach. Anything else is open to question and correction or refinement. To suggest otherwise is putting words in my mouth.

I pointed out where you made your repeated errors above. By the way, this isn't an ad hominem attack. I am not associating you with some group as Doug did and then castigating the group (and you by inference.) I am describing your actions.

gyrogearloose wrote:

“”So far, you've only attacked the "truther" side of the argument. “”

Because I came late into this thread, almost all(if not all ) the faulty arguments on the 'official' side have been delt with by truthers.There are not a lot of posts by non truthers. ( and there were some seriously bad ones on the non truther side ) Got any other specific ones you would like me to comment on ?

“”Because you have experience with thermodynamics, I'd appreciate if you could find a source that explains (to your satisfaction) the intense heat found in the debris piles of the three collapsed structures - particularly WTC 7. Could the isolated fires be sufficient to cause this phenomenon? What other available source (based on the official story) can account for the heat? “”

I do not know what the 'official' story on the intense heat in the dedris pile is.

Vids posted here showed ornage hot steel being pulled from the debris with the people in the vids saying this was observed up to 8 weeks after the colapse.

The probabity that beams of steel got heated up yellow hot ( hotter than orange hot) prior to the colapse, then dropped throught the colllapse chaos to land in colse proximiity to enough other hot steel to then sit and only cool to orange heat 8 weeks later is VERY VERY low.

Orange (or yellow) hot doesn't mean much to me. Can you provide temperature ranges that would comply with steel that meets these color criteria? If ordinary office fires were the only heat source (according to the official story,) could those fires get hot enough to heat typical steel girders and/or columns to orange hot? Assuming all the 76 gigajoules that Korol estimated as potential energy were converted to heat (no breakage / bending,) approximately how much hotter would the building get? (If it is less than 10°C, just say so and don't bother calculating it.) My guess is that it is insignificant. Correct me if I'm wrong, please.

NASA has posted thermographs taken after 9/11. Look at those and see if it passes your sniff test for a fire induced collapse.

gyrogearloose wrote:

To give a bit of an indication of my experience in this area, a chemical process plant that I desgned and helped build, had a furnace chamber the size of a 20ft shipping container with 2x 600mm diameter,10 mm wall, 5 m long pipes that ran at 600C, and while operating the insulation kept the exterior below 40C. Once the heater was shut off, the interior was down to 50C after about 36 hrs.

The most likely process by which the steel ended up at yellow heat 8 weeks after the colapse I covered briefly in post #324 on page 11.

Have a re read of that and the next couple of paragraphs then come back with qquestions etc.

The truther side in this thread has put forward no direct explanation about this that I can recall seeing, ( if there is one please point to it ) but as truthers raise it as an issue, by implication, they must be taking the position that the orange hot steel could only have been created as a consequence of the demolition charges like NT and so is proof it was a controled demolition.

I just reread your post #324 about melting nails with charcoal in a steel drum and an air feed to the charcoal. Does that scale up to a nearly acre sized pile that is upwards of 7 stories high (without installed air pipes providing oxygen to the fire) and constant watering by fire hoses? Remember that before the collapse, fires were in less than 10% of the building. Oxygen in the middle would be consumed quickly. The outer shell was drenched with water.

gyrogearloose wrote:

From what I can recall without going on line, in preperation for a controlled demolition, the building is initially stripped out.

Removing the debris while it is burning complicates the job and would increase the cost, so contrioled demolition would be targeting avoiding fires in the pile. Removing most of the burnable material before droping the building would be one way to achieve this.

How far this is taken I do not know. Do they take all carpet out? Desks? Doors? Tiber framed partitions?

Power and gas would be disconnected as to remove potential sources of ignition.

So the lack of orange hot steel in controlled demolition debris piles should be of no surprise. Can you find any examples of the debris pile from a controlled demolition catching fire?

In the feb 22 quake in Christchurch, the 5? story CTV building which collapsed caught fire.

When I was working, we had flame retardant carpets, partitions, and furniture. Other than paper and personal effects (and plastic computer cases, wiring, etc.) there wasn't much that would sustain a fire on its own. All our partition walls were framed with steel "C" channels. We did this to minimize fire insurance costs and provide a safer environment for the employees.

Obviously, the buildings were not stripped of any of this. Was their mix of flammables significantly different than what I just described? I can't believe that over zealous NYC regulations wouldn't force similar safety precautions ... but I just don't know.

gyrogearloose wrote:

Re column 79

Will download the document you linked to at the end of your post as I send this out then get back to you once I have read it.

I will also try and dl the links by Chris M on the steel beam 'vaporised' to almost nothng.

But as a quick rough preamble, my iniitial thoughts would be that it had at some stage afer the colapse been heated to over red heat and spent a considerabel time in an oxidising environment. Structural steel has a poor resistance to high temperature oxidation corrosion and a thick scale of iron oxide forms in a mater of hours.

Regards Hamish

You might as well look at the link that T2H posted in post #342 as well. http://www.ae911truth.org/news/318-news-media-events-fraud-exposed-in-nist-wtc-7-reports-part-2.html. It references the same article that I linked. It is critical because the NIST investigation identified column 79 on the 13th floor as the initiation of the collapse. NIST claims that thermal expansion of the beam caused it to walk off its column 79 seat. These 2 papers say that failure mechanism is physically impossible.

NIST will not release their data or methods because it will give terrorists inside information on how to destroy high rise buildings (paraphrased by me.) We don't know what instructions the prime investigators at NIST were given behind closed doors. We can only use what we have available to disprove it.

Why is this all important? The events of 9/11 are the biggest crime of the millennium. Nearly 3000 people died on that day. The Bush administration used the events as a reason to invade Afghanistan (although, most of the scapegoat hijackers were Saudis.) Before we finished the job in Afghanistan, we attacked Iraq (under false pretenses of weapons of mass destruction) and destabilized both countries. Those countries continue to be destabilized today. Our leaders have seen fit to invade Libya, covertly and overtly fund Syrian rebels in an attempt to overthrow Assad, and continue drone attacks throughout the region. All of these actions have been done under the "war on terror" banner.

We have lost more military lives (not to mention all the foreign lives) in those skirmishes than were lost in NYC on 9/11. We have also borrowed and spent $trillions to fight those undeclared wars. The military industrial complex and banking industry have benefited enormously from these expenditures. Primarily lower class young adults whose best option was to join the military have paid disproportionately (with life, limb, and/or PTSD.) The casus belli: the events of 9/11.

I'm telling you this so you will have a deeper appreciation of my motives. I can't speak for others who disagree with the official story. I see the "truther" movement as a way to get a new independent investigation. Maybe then, we can stop this madness that has resulted from 9/11.

Grover

Time2help's picture
Time2help
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 9 2011
Posts: 2454
Peter Ketcham speaks out (Former NIST Employee, 1997-2011)

Time2help's picture
Time2help
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 9 2011
Posts: 2454
Peter Ketcham, Richard Gage, Dr. Leroy Hulsey

Peter Michael Ketcham, Richard Gage, AIA and Dr. Leroy Hulsey, Boston, Dec 16 & 17 (AE911Truth)

gyrogearloose's picture
gyrogearloose
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 8 2008
Posts: 518
Grover

Hi Grover.

Always been either self employed or the boss......so spelling has not been a problem since it is my enginering skills that people seek me out for, not my speeling  :-)

My original post on Korol had “”If their guestimate based on the calculated rate of energy used to crush the concrete, correctly predicted the rate of fall observed, “”

as a method of testing their numbers.

I never suggested measuring particle size afterwards as it is impratical/ impossible as some of the smallest particles have drifted away in the wind.

To make it a bit clearer for you, find a steel frame high rise that has been demolished and a good video of the demolition is available. Ask the ask the demolition company how much of the structure was removed by explosives or otherwise, plug the numbers in and predict the rate of fall based on the potential energy available vs the energy required to crush each floor. Then examine the video to measure the actual rate of fall. If you were right, all good. If you predicted that only 3 additional floors would be crushed, but all floors did get crushed, well your gestimate if the particle distribution might be wrong......

you “”What we need to find is a steel framed, Class IA, high rise building that was destroyed by fire enough to collapse within its own footprint. Then, a measurement of concrete particles would be useable. Unfortunately, there aren't any examples of this condition outside of the 3 WTC collapses.””

No . a comparable steel frame high rise in which a controlled demolition was carried out would do.

you “”[Note: This is an example of applying the wrong equations and determining a wrong outcome.] “”

Oh?????

Which equations were wrong and how?

What was the wrong outcome?

You “”I understand your point that copious amounts of external energy would be needed to accomplish complete destruction based on Korol's guesstimate. You are applying it indiscriminately in your example. Can you find any competent demolitions expert who would use this tactic? “”

Few people have a 'feel' for what 233X 109J 'means'. Often you see on TV news reports a volume be as '5 Olympic swimming pools' rather than 8X 106L so joe average can get picture. I was doing the same.

You “”If none (or an exceedingly minimal amount) of the concrete broke and the floors just pancaked, there would be enough potential energy to cause the collapse.

“”

No problem with that, but according to Korol, when WTC 7 collapsed significant breakage of the concrete occurred and they estimated how much. You are in effect proposing that Korol got the estimate badly wrong.

You “”They weren't modeling a controlled demolition. They were modeling a high rise building collapsing due to fire alone. Their point was that there wasn't enough potential energy in the building to cause a complete collapse. “”

Their math regarding the potential energy available, and the energy required to destroy each floor, and the initiation of the collapse was not dependent on the method of causing the 2 floors to loose their strength.

So if you used shaped charges to cut all but 27 of the columns, according to Korol the building would not completely collapse.

You “”If you are trying to convince me that Korol's broken concrete size distribution was suspect, I would listen. “”

That is all I was trying to do.....

I did not try and estimate the particle distribution because I knew what you would say, and then you said it . “” course, any size distribution you generate would be pure speculation on your part “” That is why I suggested the independently verifiable method of examining the drop speed of historical demolition job.

You “”I can easily guarantee that we wouldn't have any free fall acceleration beyond the 2 floors that Korol generously assumed. “”

Given the their collapse model, they did not even assume that.

From their paper“”We begin with the energy balance equation for computing the velocity of Block A after a one story drop to floor level 13. The only energy dissipation will involve the 27 columns that were almost sufficient to support the loading above. Since the initial energy state has zero velocity the following equation applies:

1 2⁄ (

gyrogearloose's picture
gyrogearloose
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 8 2008
Posts: 518
On squibs

The 'squibs' which truthers claim are evidence of controlled demolition charges as they happen many floors in advance of the collapsing floors.

If you look at the video “1 Experts Speak Out - ESO – Introduction” from the AE911 website. It has quite a good resolution video.

Unlike the early stages of the collapse of one ot the towers, where each floor goes, very clearly simultaneously across the whole face, in this video the collapse in some areas are well in advance of others

From 3.42 to 3.45, if you watch carefully at the far right corner you can see the progression of the collapsing floors as indicated by debris blowing out of the immediate vicinity of the lowest point of the collapsing floors..

This progression can be compared to the falling debris outside the building, and can be seen to be moving slower than the large chunks of free falling debris.

To my eye, none of the squibs in this video appear at a lower floor than the 'leading edge' of the floor collapses.

Blue line noting floors still intact in this area

Red line pointing to a squib

yellow line pointing to where floors are being destroyed

This observation is in contradiction to the claims that the squibs occurred many floors in advance of the collapsing floors, and is consistent with the idea that the 'squibs' are caused by the ceiling at the far right corner being impacted by the falling debris and moving down very quickly, displacing air raising the pressure on that floor, and the weakest pane of glass failing.

Regards Hamish

PS the image shows in the comment box but does not show up in the post. will fix if I can

gyrogearloose's picture
gyrogearloose
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 8 2008
Posts: 518
Luke

Hi Luke

You”In order to get an object to descend at the free-fall rate of acceleration there can be no resistance. Therefore, at some point in time, all resistance is removed. An object will keep accelerating in this manner until it hits terminal velocity. So far so good? “

The first moment a sky diver jumps out of a plane they will fall accelerating at G, 9. m/s^2, but therafter their acceleration will progressively fall as 'wind resistance increases', their acceleration curve is a complex one due to the complex nature of air resistance as it is non liinear.

Will simpley steer clear of the erosion anaolog.

You “”And that's the critical point that you (others?) have to explain i.e. uniform, free-fall collapse. This is what plagues NIST, their model shows a twist to support the column 79 theory. Only we didn't observe a twist. I don't mind dropping the term 'instantaneous' if it's confusing you, I was merely offering the theoretical definition. “”

“we didnt observe a twist” At present I think you are implying either that as column 79 twisted in NIST's moodel free fall could not be occuring, or is it the buckeling of the shell that shows in the models?

If you watch a video of it where it shows the penthouse dissapearing, (the penthouse was above column 79 ) you shoould be able to agree with my belief that column 79 failed about 7 second prior to the exterior wall.

The north face of the building does show buckeling in the area their model indicated but not as much. It is not obvious in most of the videos but is quite evident in a couple. Depends on the camera angle. As I noted before the wire frames of the shell distortion posted by sand puppy and chris martenson seem to be of a model run where the evident structural dammage was not modeled in

The best comparision I have seen was presented by AE911 in a video titled “”8 WTC7 Part 7 Virtual Unreality NIST Animations - ESO – Expe”” This has a side by side video of the colapse and wire frame simulation. It starts from just after the penthouse collapsed (see side note below ! ) But it is promptly followed by one from prior to the penthouse colapse.

Note the multi floor buckel near the bottom of the simulation. This muilti story buckel would very likely prodce the acceleration profile that was measured from videos of the actual event. How much 'tweaking' of their model was required to get this result is of course open to question.

Ending their ssimulation where they did was quite justifiable as from there the entire building was guranteed to collapse, and back then the processing power necessary to run the simulation to completion was not trivial. These days with the much improved computing power would render running to completion to the same sesolution almost trivial.

As a side note I have noticed that in a lot of the truther videos the penthouse colapse is not shown, with the video starting just before the collapse of the service structurees and the exterior waslls.

In one video they started the video JUST after the penthouse dissapeared so you get 6 seconds of waiting before the exteroir wall falls,

In another they showed the penthouse colapse, but edited out about 5 seconds of the delay before the rest of the building goes.

This sort of selective editing to me is boardering on deceptive, and could be behind some peoples perception/belief the the building caame down 'all at once and was not a progressive colapse'

Just need to clear up the instantaneous useage/definiition. I cannot see where you offered a theoretical deffinition. As I said above “My interpretation of instantaneously is 'in less time than can be observed by eye', and not something that occurs over a period of a second. “

Do you agree with this or have adifferent deffinition of instantaneously?

By my deffinition, the building did not accelerate at G instantaneously, as others observations, measurements and graphs of the results show that the top of the top right corner of the exterior wall started falling at a lower acceleration than G about 1 second prior to reaching Gand by that time had moved about 3 meters,.

This does not match with the colums being destroyed instantaneously, as it would have reached G within 0.1 of a second of the colums being destroyed.

However it matches better with the buckelling failure of a section of the exterior wall out of any camera view, as with a buckeling failure the vertial support a column gives reduces as the amount of bend increases.

I 'have to explain' free fall collapse.

From the other side instead

Getting 24 m of free fall is easy, shaped charges at 45 deg on every column on about 8 floors and set them all off instantaneously.

I have trouble trying to work out how to set explosives in such a way as to get the building to fall at less then G for 3 m first then 204 m of free fall, as thee videos show. Can you help me with this?

Regards Hamish

gyrogearloose's picture
gyrogearloose
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 8 2008
Posts: 518
Squib image (i hope)

Time2help's picture
Time2help
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 9 2011
Posts: 2454
Food for thought

Hi Hamish,

You may wish to consider copying your posts over into Microsoft Word prior to posting them. This would provide you a proofread cycle that would address the vast majority of spelling errors and typos. 

It's the difference between this...

gyrogearloose wrote:
How I got my estimate of 20%

Breaking concrete (or any material) takes 'work' that can be quantified in Joules.

The amount of energy contained in NT is 4MJ/Kg

When this is 'burnt', 4 MJ of energy is released. According to the Laws of thermodynamics, only a portion of this can be converted to 'work' the rest being 'lost' as waste heat.

The same applies to any fuel being burnt. A standard car diesel engine converts roughtly 33% to usefull work, Large combined cycle power stations can run at around 60% efficienicy

It was with this background of knowledge that I estimated 20%

A 'free' explosion of a block of NT on the surface of a concrete slab could very easily have an effieciency less than 20%.

If for example it was actually 10% the amount of NT would jump to 582 tons

Even if I grossly underestimated the efficency and it was as good as a combined cycle power station, it still comes in at 97 tons of NT

“” Nano-thermite would be used primarily to sever columns, although concussion would contribute to concrete crushing.””.

In wanting to bring in where a smaller amount of NT could be paced is just headding off into the weeds ( a twist on your expression ) and missing the point as well.

The point I was making was that a quick 'sanity check' would have shown that something was SERIOUSLY wrong with some of their assumptions.

Since the building did come down, I see the options are roughly

1-Their calculations and asumptions were correct an additional 233X 10J were needed and if NT was the source, that mean 290 tons would have been needed.

2 Their calculations were way off and only a small amount of explosives was used to sever critical beeams

3 their calculations were way off and no explosives were used to drop the building.

If my calculations came up with needing only say 200Kg of NT it would have been dificult to claim that they had their calculations wrong and it would be dificult to distinguish between 2 and 3, but at 290 Tons, well it is a no brainer that something is wrong.

And this...

proofread wrote:
How I got my estimate of 20%

Breaking concrete (or any material) takes 'work' that can be quantified in Joules. The amount of energy contained in NT is 4MJ/Kg.

When this is 'burnt', 4 MJ of energy is released. According to the Laws of thermodynamics, only a portion of this can be converted to 'work' the rest being 'lost' as waste heat. The same applies to any fuel being burnt. A standard car diesel engine converts roughly 33% to useful work, large combined cycle power stations can run at around 60% efficiency.

It was with this background of knowledge that I estimated 20%.

A 'free' explosion of a block of NT on the surface of a concrete slab could very easily have efficiency less than 20%. If for example it was actually 10% the amount of NT would jump to 582 tons. Even if I grossly underestimated the efficiency and it was as good as a combined cycle power station, it still comes in at 97 tons of NT.

“”Nano-thermite would be used primarily to sever columns, although concussion would contribute to concrete crushing.””

In wanting to bring in where a smaller amount of NT could be placed is just heading off into the weeds (a twist on your expression) and missing the point as well. The point I was making was that a quick 'sanity check' would have shown that something was SERIOUSLY wrong with some of their assumptions.

Since the building did come down, I see the options are roughly:

1. Their calculations and assumptions were correct an additional 233X 109 J were needed and if NT was the source, which means 290 tons would have been needed.
2. Their calculations were way off and only a small amount of explosives was used to sever critical beams
3. Their calculations were way off and no explosives were used to drop the building.

If my calculations came up with needing only say 200Kg of NT it would have been difficult to claim that they had their calculations wrong and it would be difficult to distinguish between 2 and 3, but at 290 Tons, well it is a no brainer that something is wrong.

Here's what Danny Jowenko, controlled demolitions expert, had to say about the controlled demolition of WTC 7.

Jim H's picture
Jim H
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 8 2009
Posts: 2259
Peter MIchael Ketcham of NIST.. repost and a comment

T2H.. Thank you so much for posting the video from December '16 of PMK talking about his awakening to the truth of 9/11.. or should I say to the scam that is the Gov't story.  I am re-posting it here because I think it's so important.  It's important to see someone of obvious brilliance, and sincerity, speak of their awakening.  It's important to see someone be brave for the cause of truth and speak out against power.  

If you have not watched this video.. and you have any questions in your own head about whether the gov't story might actually be true, especially as it relates to the little peripheral matter (sarc) of building 7 falling down, at free fall, in it's own footprint, then please watch it.  If a smart insider like Peter can do it ... so can any of us.  Do what?  Do our own due diligence.  If you are able to spend some time doing your own due diligence.. bringing an open mind (and an awareness that the internet is full of, "debunking" sites that will give you reasons to keep believing the gov't story) then I think you will come out on Peter's side.. which is simply to recognize the truth that this was a false flag.  The rest of the truth needs to come out in a court of law.. but the high level truth is, I make the case, self obvious.  Or, as Paul Craig Roberts said very recently;

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/01/12/ten-aircraft-carriers-aligned...

Anyone stupid enough to believe the official 9/11 story is not sufficiently intelligent to be qualified to be left-wing or even a sentient being.

 

Luke Moffat's picture
Luke Moffat
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 25 2014
Posts: 288
OK, you've lost me

Hamish,

I recommend proof-reading before hitting the 'save' button. This isn't me being nasty or trying to detract from your argument - I simply can't tell whether you are agreeing with me, disagreeing with me or skipping over the topic.

gyrogearloose wrote:

Hi Luke

You”In order to get an object to descend at the free-fall rate of acceleration there can be no resistance. Therefore, at some point in time, all resistance is removed. An object will keep accelerating in this manner until it hits terminal velocity. So far so good? “

The first moment a sky diver jumps out of a plane they will fall accelerating at G, 9. m/s^2, but therafter their acceleration will progressively fall as 'wind resistance increases', their acceleration curve is a complex one due to the complex nature of air resistance as it is non liinear.

Fine, if you want to bolt-on the non-linear deceleration as a sky-diver approaches terminal velocity then I won't argue with you, but that wasn't the point I was making. I was interested in the 2.5 seconds of free-fall. It's doubtful that tower 7 hit terminal velocity so it's a moot point.

gyrogearloose wrote:

Will simpley steer clear of the erosion anaolog.

Eh? Why? What I'm trying to do is to get you to look at different stages of collapse. I thought that was a rather elegant analogy. We don't have to deal with people dying or geopolitical responses. We simply get to discuss the physics. OK, I have another analogy - we have a stick (say 30cm in length) with each end balancing on a column (say each column is 50cm high, 5cm wide and 5cm deep) making sure 5cm of each end of the stick is resting on a column. Now you have to get that stick to collapse uniformly (both ends falling at the same time) so that it remains parallel to the floor at all instances of collapse, at free-fall rates of acceleration, removing - wait for it - only one column. You can call it column 79 if it makes you feel happy. You can even try several times if you like. I'll even give you the best from 2 out of 3... Now increase the complexity of that structure by adding more columns and replace the stick with a solid roof. Now pull one of the centre columns, at what point do the outer columns collapse? Do they collapse together? Do they even collapse at all? And, if so, why?

gyrogearloose wrote:

“we didnt observe a twist” At present I think you are implying either that as column 79 twisted in NIST's moodel free fall could not be occuring, or is it the buckeling of the shell that shows in the models?

The building. NIST model has it twisting - probably to get the physics to work. Focus on the two upper corners of the tower in their model and compare it to what was witnessed.

gyrogearloose wrote:

Just need to clear up the instantaneous useage/definiition. I cannot see where you offered a theoretical deffinition. As I said above “My interpretation of instantaneously is 'in less time than can be observed by eye', and not something that occurs over a period of a second. “

Do you agree with this or have adifferent deffinition of instantaneously?

Ah, so you were there? witnessing it with the naked eye? I was not. I saw it on camera. Cameras have frame rates to trick the eye into seeing still frames as moving images. The highest is usually 30 frames per second which would give your 'instantaneous' a value of 33.33 ms. Which is why I offered the theoretical definition of free-fall collapse.

To be honest, I wasn't expecting an answer to the problem - the point of it all was to utilise the established scientific framework to structure our discussion. Instead I find myself wasting time debating terms. So, in the words of Duncan Bannatyne, "I'm out".

I need to start on the raised beds in the new garden. I also want to grow mushrooms this year. Apparently mycelium is the jazz. Did you know that different species of trees, whose root network is connected via mycelium, can share nutrients to counter nutrient deficiencies amongst themselves? I did not. This was proven with a Douglas fir, a paper birch and a western red cedar connected via a mycelium root network. Researchers covered the Douglas fir to simulate night time so that it couldn't photosynthesise to produce sugars. The paper birch then provided sugars via the mycelium network to the Douglas fir. Mind. Blown.

Bankers Slave's picture
Bankers Slave
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 26 2012
Posts: 484
Seeking truth exposing lies in a catchy tune!

Jim H's picture
Jim H
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 8 2009
Posts: 2259
Tehran building collapse? What was this? Needs analysis.

Team PP.com will get a kick out of this..  I was arguing via text with one of my non-awake buddies ... and of course he knows the line, "no class A skyscraper ever fell due to office fires",  so then he sends me a link to the recent building collapse in Iran.  I was on Liveleak today and there was a different view posted (vs. the one my friend sent me that was pretty obscured by smoke) that, to my eye, suggests SQUIBS.. i.e. suggests at least the possibility of demolition.  Take a look please and comment ;

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e1b_1485009569

Anyway,  is this the second case of a steel framed building collapsing from, "office fires"?  Was it not a class A steel framed building?  Built in 1966 from what I recall.  Different building codes?  Materials?  I would really like to be able to answer my friend back.  Thanks, Jim

PS.. another view, with suggestion of demo;

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/5oy48i/wtf_highrise_buildin...

Time2help's picture
Time2help
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 9 2011
Posts: 2454
Re: Tehran Building Collapse

Tehran Building Collapse: Investigators Must Consider Explosives (Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth)

Grover's picture
Grover
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 16 2011
Posts: 670
Too Soon To Tell

Jim,

After seeing the videos you posted, I watched about 30 more on Youtube. One of them had an English translation of a man who said that the building was known to be in need of structural reinforcement. I'm not sure what that means. The translator also said that the building housed textile manufacturing.

What we know is that the building was 17 stories tall and was built at least 50 years ago. We don't know to what standards it was built. We don't know how the building was loaded or if it contained incendiary materials. Both of your links show a fireball on the 12th (???) floor on the right side of the building before that portion begins to collapse. At about 19 seconds in the LiveLeak video, there is a "squib" at about the 10th (???) floor on the left side of the building face. Three seconds later, there is a significant expulsion on about the 5th (???) floor on the left side.

If this were a controlled demolition, it wasn't very thorough. In other videos, I saw at least 3 full height columns that separated from the fallen floors and then toppled somewhat haphazardly. With all the smoke/dust and poor camera work, it is hard to tell if more fell that way.

It will be interesting to see how the officials investigate this collapse. Right now, they are focusing on search and rescue. That is totally appropriate. After they have accounted for all the firefighters or have concluded that there are no more survivors, then the investigation should proceed. I agree with AE911Truth.org that controlled demolition cannot be ruled out at this time.

At this point, I'm going to take a "wait and see" approach.

Grover

Luke Moffat's picture
Luke Moffat
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 25 2014
Posts: 288
Not Sure Tower 7 Comparisons are Warranted

I think I'm going to reserve judgement on this one. My first impression when I saw this is that it didn't mirror Tower 7. The 'reverse angle', 0:16 - 0:32, shows the top half of the building collapse in sections - right hand side, left hand side, then middle. And then the mid right hand side section juts out off-centre rather than coming straight down - avoiding the main downward thrust. I guess the point I'm trying to make is no 'uniform, free-fall collapse'. Investigators will no doubt factor in the water hose on the right hand side, but I'm not sure how much impact that would have had. Perhaps a little worrisome that my mind immediately jumps to that, overlooking the lives lost. Grim business...

From a few searches it appears to have been operated by the Mostazafan Foundation as a commercial centre (they have ties to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard). It appears to be one of the first high rise buildings built in Tehran (completed in 1962). Not to sound cynical but I doubt it was built to the same specification as Tower 7 (complete in 1987). I did a quick google for technical specs but drew a blank.

gyrogearloose's picture
gyrogearloose
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 8 2008
Posts: 518
Half of post missed last time

Nt sure what happend but here is the rest of the Post 349

You “”I can easily guarantee that we wouldn't have any free fall acceleration beyond the 2 floors that Korol generously assumed. “”

Given the their collapse model, they did not even assume that.

From their paper“”We begin with the energy balance equation for computing the velocity of Block A after a one storey drop to floor level 13. The only energy dissipation will involve the 27 columns that were almost sufficient to support the loading above. Since the initial energy state has zero velocity the following equation applies:

1 2⁄ (

gyrogearloose's picture
gyrogearloose
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 8 2008
Posts: 518
Luke

Hi Luke

You are the one who first mentioned terminal velocity in an explanation that was somewhat inaccurate, so I gave a more correct explanation.

Analogies. I steered clear of the erosion one as there is too many unstated assumptions built in and sorting them all out would waste time.

As far as I knew no one died in WTC7 so that issue does not apply.

Column and stick analogy. Too simplistic and a poor match to the situation.

A variant of your analogy for you. Make the stick stand vertically......

Take 2 columns 1 m long, each capable of just supporting 10 Kg, and a stick that is 100 m long and 0.1 m wide, and weighs 19 Kg.

Using these components we can to two experiments.

1:- Set the two columns 100 m apart with the stick lying down on them. (effectively your scenario )

Remove the right hand column.

The right hand end of the stick will fall to the ground, and the other end will remain on top of the column

2:- Set the columns 0.1 m apart then sit the stick on them so the the whole structure is 101 m tall.

Remove one column

The other column will immediately fail and the stick will fall almost straight down, with very little rotation occurring,

How does this happen?

When there are two columns, the load is equally shared, 9.5 Kg on each one.

When one is removed, because the center of mass of the rectangle is 50 m up, because of inertia the stick will only very slowly start to tip. However almost all the weight is now carried by remaining column, and so it fails.

WTC7 lies somewhere between these two extremes in geometry.

But can you see how if you only pose your analogy you can lead people to see a potentially incorrect picture of what happens

Twisting

OK it is the exterior 'shell' you are referring to.

I would like to quote some one commenting on models

“” 

Quote Chri Martenson

"I don't normally wade into these waters mainly because the entire topic of global warming, for many, comes down to a matter of belief and is therefore subject to a rapid escalation of emotions.

I will say that as a former computer modeler I am quite leery of big models because I know the limitations.  Among them are sensitive dependence on initial conditions (the so-called butterfly effect especially prominent in chaotic systems), the length of time being modeled (longer = less accurate), and getting your variables both completely defined and their feedback loops properly adjusted.

The more non-linear the system, and the less 'testable' it is, the trickier it is to model.  For example, modeling the path of a drop of dye in a glass of water is still pretty much a parlor trick with models making beautiful approximations but not so much actually predicting an actual event (i.e. revealing all the actual swirls prior to a drop being placed in a glass of water).  And here we are talking about a very limited system with a relatively few variables; temperature, density of both fluids, shape of the vessel, size of the drop, height of its drop, etc and one that is easily subject to repeated experimentation and repetition to the investigators' delight and refinement.

Now let's fast forward to a system (climate) with hundreds if not thousands of variables, some of which may not yet even be characterized (or discovered), many of them not directly testable, with unknown feedback parameters requiring vast ranges to be applied (think back to the butterfly effect here) all being cast forward many years, if not decades.  Suffice it to say that some caution is warranted. "

“”

The NIST model would have modeled an approximation of all the junctions, floor thicknesses, floor loadings etc. The could not of course get all the information exactly right. Variability in different batches of steel, bolts, thickness of concrete pour, amount of stuff each Tennant had on their floor, weld strength variations, ect etc.

All these approximations, and it is no surprise that the distortions modeled were not EXACTLY what was observed.

How accurate do they have to be to satisfy you,????

You “”the point of it all was to utilize the established scientific framework to structure our discussion. Instead I find myself wasting time debating terms. “”

When you use words to describe something, and your description does not match the observations on video, time needs to be spent sorting out discrepancies.

You “”“”Given that we witnessed the main building collapse uniformly at free-fall speeds we must conclude that all critical resistance was removed instantaneously. “”

This sentence is a logical mess.

Just because an object was seen to be accelerating at G does not mean that its support was removed instantaneously.

It does however mean that there is no support.

It could be that the support was removed instantaneously, but the fact that it was observed accelerating at G at some point does not prove this.

What was observed and measured from video by more than one person was that the building initially started to fall at an acceleration lower than G, and only achieving an acceleration of G after about 1 second and having moved about 3 m

This acceleration profile is the sort of profile you would expect from the buckling failure predicted by the NIST model.

What is the acceleration profile observed in the controlled demolition of steel frame buildings? All thee truthers keep saying 'it looks just looked a controlled demolition', so where are the measurements of videos to back up that assertion?

If this acceleration profile is common you have built a better case. If it is unique, there is a problem with the controlled demolition meme.

Off to mow a 10 acre paddock of lucern ( alfafa ), good plant for dry areas as the roots can reach down 30 ft to get water!

Regards Hamish

Jim H's picture
Jim H
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 8 2009
Posts: 2259
Tehran building collapse..

Is being used by the anti-Truthers as a means to cast doubt on AE911....

From the comments section;

In any case, this is really feeling like a "jumped the shark moment" for AE911Truth.

https://www.metabunk.org/tehran-plasco-highrise-fire-and-collapse-9-11-w...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments