A brief analysis of WTC 1 : Initial catastrophic failure.

in wtc2 the core or at least one side of the core failed first if you want to maintain that the exterior was pulled in.


yeh you make sure to say lightweight as if it will float away!

light weight as in what 5 pounds per cu yard lighter than heavy weight 2ton version! LOL


doesnt take much to stop a bullet even glass can stop a bullet.



th op proves no such thing, the op at best proves there is a point, however does not show us a bonafide damage report taken before the collapse.


so you come out here with guess work upon guess work and wish for everyone to accept it blindly as fact. not gonna happen

Everything has a point of failure, you have not sown that to be the case since you need to literally remove 3/4 of the building on a floor to get it to collapse as the stress model shows.

 

Show me exactly where I explained what a word means. I did no such thing. I have instead done the converse... explained in detail and without substantive contradiction what a word doesn't mean. I simply pointed out that your use of the word does not correspond to any definition in any dictionary or lexicon. You have never actually challenged that point.

None of your photographic evidence supported your claim, and at least one example proved beyond doubt that your use of the word "symmetrical" is spectacularly inappropriate.

You know... you showed with the "milliseconds" claim that you are able to abandon a bogus argument. Why you persist with the equally bogus "symmetry" claim is really very odd.

I changed nothing. I pointed out that in what has to be the most irony laden series of posts in the history of this forum, you keep falsely accusing your opponents of what you actually are doing.

Blah, blah, blah...

And yet, it is an incontrovertible fact that the perimeter was bowed inwards, and that the bowing proceeded gradually over the better part of an hour. So, whatever it is you think you showed, you can't have shown that what actually happened was impossible. It actually did happen.

And as the analysis in the OP proves, the core cannot have ever "been hanging midair" like Wile E. Coyote for nearly an hour during which bowing gradually and progressively took place. The loss of the core immediately forces all the remaining perimeter columns beyond their breaking point.

That statement makes no sense whatsoever. It can only be accounted for by nearly complete ignorance regarding vectors and how trusses distribute them.

I have shown you my math. Where is yours?

More irony from the undisputed king of it.

 

Actually, no. In WTC 2 the perimeter failed first. The oblique strike of the plane left the core pretty much untouched by the impact, but instead took out a larger number of perimeter columns. As is to be expected, in each tower the most severely damages structure was the one that failed first.

And it does not matter what I do or do not maintain. It is an objective, incontrovertible fact that the perimeter columns were bowed in.

Wrong. I say it as if it matters. And it absolutely does matter.

Light weight as in light enough to allow it to be used to build a 104 story tower as efficiently as possible.

Edgewise?

And now that is what we call moving the goal posts entirely off planet. Having no actual argument in your favor, you make a demand so excruciatingly impossible that it can only be considered completely pointless.

If you have an actual challenge to OP, show us your math.

I have shown you the math and performed the analysis. You have made no actual effort to challenge it.

I am content with that circumstance.

Wrong. After the initial impact you need to remove only 9 of 41 remaining core columns (just over 1/5th) or 49 of the remaining 209 perimeter columns(just under 1/4) to reach the point of total structural failure.

 

I never abandoned milliseconds, the instant of failure occurs in milliseconds, if you set up a demolition the charged are calculate typically in milliseconds.

So now you want to claim you were telling us what symmetry is not, thats a new twist. where can I buy this dictinary?


I already gave you several examples of how the word applies that I used in a broad sense and you regurgitated out of context in the most narrow sense. that is diingenous.

again here is what is actually meant when people use the word symmetry in reference to demolition:

 

Huh?

the plane didnt take out the perimeter columns, the perimeter columns were taken out before the plan even hit.

good test for your investigative abilities





I challenge everything you posted and said so in several posts, you simply continue to pretend I did not, I already said they are bunk, you made it all up!

Feel free to post all sources certificates of authenticity etc etc etc.

 

it just did not happen the way you said it happened, it happened like this





the op does not prove that on any level, since the core is comprised of several core elements, only a few needed to be blown and hang in mid air to get the pulling in result.

your position is completely indefensible

nope thats not what the stress analysis shows.

yup thats what sucks when you have a lying assed government and you need to prove everything and when you look around you discover you have no evidence to walk to the talk.

All you have is guesses probablys and mysbes and shouldas and couldas and wouldas. Good luck arguing with me on that basis especialy after it took a high school teacher to go up against nist to get them to change their fraudulent report.

 

Really?...when?, by whom and were are the reports of this happening?

 

Yeah, the core goes first and that is what WTC Chief Electrical Engineer, Richard Humenn, P.E. stated. The antenna dropped first, which was directly on top of the elevator shaft mounted to the core, which is clear evidence of core column destruction.

David Chandler explains the physics in "Experts Speak Out." The bottom portion would push back if it had maintained its structural integrity and would have decelerated the collapse.

 

I think Koko should calculate the load at the point where Koko thinks the perimeter columns are holding the building up.

Mainly because I want to know why that load is less than this:



What's the over and under on the amount of time I'll have to wait for that to ever happen?

 

its a crude drawing man to convey the idea, not to represent and "exact" PRECISION picture of the event.so you will wait a long time because its another red herring of yours. It cant be used in that manner and you should know that.

Now do I need to start throwing all sorts of eggs at you and show in detail how you are misrepsenting the problem or are you starting to get the picture?

I think you should calculate the point that no exterior columns are holding the building up and neither is it over stressed!



of course there is a limit to everything

 

Actually the antenna is connected to the perimeter columns via the hut truss.

 

Brilliant post.

 

if you do not understand it I agree

 

It's a crude drawing made by someone with a crude (and incorrect) understanding of the collapse. It contains the incorrect idea that the core was somehow weakened well below the plane of collapse. If this is the case, the load is assumed to be carried by the perimeter columns. It is your crude explanation of why the perimeter columns were pulled inward.

To support your crude claim, you could calculate the load that was transferred to the outer columns by the collapse of the core, and show me why that load does not immediately exceed the critical buckling force.

Your math should explain why it took time for the perimeter columns to collapse, if the central core columns had already been cut.

Of course, your math can't do that, so instead you post pictures and talk about eggs.

 

and the correct idea is from NIST who couldnt even get freefall correct with out it being forced upon them by a high school teacher? Is that the point you are trying to make?

The claim isnt crude the picture is crude. Um because the core was only dropped a few inches or a foot, you people think in the box, you have to expand your minds to come up to the 20th century.

it took time to prepare because they were really big columns.

you can cut a column so it sits on itself LOL I mean come on man. This stuff is so easy.






what do you think models are made of cookies and creme?

 

I understand it completely 100%. It makes no matter to me that you do not have the accumen to understand it. Its bigger than you, I get it. That's okay. Your silly attempts at sarcasm are equal to ignorance.

 

Of course his explanation violates Newton's third law of motion. We haven't achieved that ability yet not even in the 21st century. Maybe by the 22nd century someone will prove Newton's third law of motion wrong. But Perilica grad Ameriku certainly can't do it. He's got fancy numbers, tables, and stuff. All show and no go.

 

Pictures and more food.

No math.

 

I mean come on, here is NISTS chief engineer showing off steel that godzilla used for a toothpick.

Hell I couldnt get it that thin is I took a file and worked for 6 months. You can peel potatos its so paper thin.

How would you expect columns like that to hold anything up anyway?









thats exactly what you would expect to see in a cough "collapse" right?

 

found your problem. you're still stuck in the 20th century. It's the 21st century, do keep up.

 

yeh those blue thingie majiggie do jobby hickers show the stress for various missing parts of the building.

- - - Updated - - -

[video=youtube;ujIbpt-CCTY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujIbpt-CCTY[/video]

 

Math is not going to do it. People need to understand physics. David Chandler explains the physics in "Experts Speak Out" for anyone wanting to understand what happened on 9/11 WTC buildings.

 

By all means, please show your math and exactly where he went wrong. Stating so isn't good enough. Your problem here is that you don't understand the law you are grossly misquoting.

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Indeed.

The part of the equation you are leaving out is mass. The mass of the upper load (10 floors)was more than the mass of the lower load (1 floor).

 

show yours!

hell show any work you did on the issue anything at all

 

That's gotta be the quote of the day.

Would you sign that on my copy of Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica?