A brief analysis of WTC 1 : Initial catastrophic failure.

says who??

which official authority determined that the towers went into freefall and STAYED in freefall during the entire collapse?

where are their calculations?

- - - Updated - - -

better to trust experts than dentists and useless architects.

 

well you failed in your attempt to discredit a description of the demolition.

Just because you can invent a problem does not mean its valid and in fact you sound more like a conspiracy theorist in your OP than I have seen an conspiracy theorist in a long time.

What you did is nothing more than any other grammar nazi does.

I gave you several examples and you simply ignore them.

You admit that you cannot address which columns failed when yet at the same time you make the leap of faith that it had to be fire even though no fire can be seen.

Your sagging floor pic with no fire below the sagging floor is hilarious to say the least.

Did you retract it? NOPE you keep right on and your pals come to your support with delusions of seeing things.

Your numbers are gross generalities not a model, I have show you that what you say cannot be correct yet you persist.

I dont expect that to change, so continue with your delusions and possible impossibilities.

- - - Updated - - -

nist and there are no calculations

the fact that you have to ask that question shows you know nothing anout this man, no offense, its just the way it is

 

Here is one. NIST WTC Lead Investigator Shyam Sunder,

 

you say there were no large fires in the WTC towers, and you accuse OTHERS of having delusions?

wow, talk about irony!!!!

 

Your complaint is that I removed context from your statement, even though my post directly links your post in its entirety, and is only a few posts after your post on the same page. That's funny. Let's dissect the whole statement then.

Look at all that context in the sentence I truncated. "David Chandler explains"...Who? What does David Chandler say that math cannot describe?

Explain the difference between an elastic and inelastic collision without using math. And then we'll talk about equal and opposite force.

 

Brother Jonathan,

In the case of WTC1 and WTC2, the upper sections did not "crush" the lower section like a stomping foot crushes a can. The upper sections of these towers sheared the individual components/connections that made up the towers as a whole as it descended. Whether the upper section was still together or if it came apart. It STILL maintained the same mass.

You do understand that structures as a whole are comprised of "sections" which are brought together to function as a whole right? For example, a floor of a structure is not designed to support the structure above it, but is designed to support the load of itself and anything placed upon it. That being said, the load of each individual floor and any contents is distributed to the trusses beneath, which is then distributed to the columns via connections, which is then distributed to the foundations.

The problem with applying Newton's law to these scenarios is that these are not solid blocks of matter. The problem is what is the weakest point of the structures. Take the the load of the upper section coming down upon the first floor beneath it. Was that floor and it's connections designed to resist that much of a load? No it was not. Not even close. It is evident in any video of the tower collapses that the floor were sheared, not only from the core columns, but the perimeter sections as well. This is proven by the fact that the perimeter sections peeled away from the tower proper. There have also been pictures of the remnants of the core structure devoid of floors, that collapsed shortly after it was photographed.

If your interpretation of Newton's laws holds true, then explain how someone can smash through the door of a house with the entire structure of the house BEHIND it supplying resistance. How can that happen? Local failure of certain components right? Something had to give. Door jamb? Screws in the hinges tearing out of the door jamb?

 

Again, not a single substantive response anywhere in that post. Simple more hand-waving. It has now been two days, and the actual OP remains untouched and unaddressed,

 

That graph proves that WTC7 fell at only about 60% of free fall speed.

Thanks for playing. Try again.

 

can u show us this graph please so we can throw it in Truther faces whenever they talk about "freefall" and Newton's Law?

 

It's right there in Koko's post:



Remember.... that's also only the roof line. And of course Koko has changed the subject to a completely different building than the one associated with his challenge, and met by the OP.

 

Well said.

 

he will not respond to this post, which basically blows his entire argument out of the water.

congrats.

 

You have a lot of nerve to (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) about someone cutting your post short and then cherry pick someone else's to serve your position. Will you continue to be dishonest or do you have the balls to post the whole quote from Sunder?

 

Newton's law of motion is a natural law that applies to all structures. David Chandler does an excellent job of explaining the physics of the demolition at 1:00:00 in "Experts Speak Out" YouTube video which can be found online.

 

Newton's law doesn't apply to structures made of various materials with links of various strengths. You can't simply expect a building 110 stories tall to act like a big rock falling on a bigger rock.

Its insane and ignorant to expect such a thing.

 

You must have missed this part:

You're welcome.

 

I do understand building construction very clearly. I had a Class A building license for several years. I spent 20 years as a building contractor before I retired.

 

so how is it possible that you apply Newton's Laws to a complicated building structure as if they were a rock and a bigger rock?

 

That's not how it works. I am trying to explain to you that your interpretation of Newton's Law and how it applies to a complex entity is flat out wrong. Your interpretation is based on many things including David Chandler's garbage.

I gave you an example of how your application of Newton's Law to a complex structure was flawed (the door and the house example) and you side stepped it like a nimble feline.

So I will ask you. If your understanding and application of Newton's Law is correct when applied to a complex structure, please explain how I can break the front door of a house down with enough lateral force applied when I have the entire mass/support structure of said house is behind that door.

If I asked you to explain your understanding of the book A catcher in the Rye, would you hand me the book to read? Is that how you handle/handled things in school?

 

A building license and 20 years as a contractor does not a structural engineer make.

If you really understand loads and structural steel design, then please explain how you think one floor of the WTC1/WTC2, directly beneath the descending upper section, a floor designed to support it's own weight and that of objects placed upon it, was supposed to resist the load of either upper block descending down upon it.

Are you suggesting that the floor truss connections along the perimeter columns, consisting of angles and bolts, was supposed to resist that tremendous force?

Do tell. I'm all ears.

 

Or more recently, a cardboard box and a bigger cardboard box.

 

I wonder what the ratio is between failure due to poor construction and failure due to poor engineering.

I wish I had known that all it took was a Class A building license instead of an S.E.

 

I was wondering what the ratio of failure due to demolition is

 

why?...when there is no evidence of explosives found? Unless you have new evidence???

 

Sorry, I'm not fluent in animated gif, so I wouldn't be able to communicate that to you.