Was "Global collapse truly inevitable"?

[ozeco41]

Hello econ:

Hi. Actually I said hello in the first line of my first post on this forum.

Where did you compute and report the horizontal velocity of the top of the south tower?

It was a qualitative think through the issues - work out what the mechanisms could be stage. So typical first stage assessment as in work out what you are going to apply the maths to plus the next two questions "Do you need maths?" and "Can you apply maths?" Since it is an integral part of the cascade failure of the initiation stage there is no way that we would ever have enough data to feed into an FEA engine. So almost certain you could never use maths at the detail level. And using maths at the macro level has all the usual problems and limitations. Nobody was arguing against me so I had no reason to take it any further.

It was on the 9/11Forum - seems to be about a year back. I'll check.

The pivot issue is the pivot if you allow the word play. Some sort of fulcrum is needed to pivot the rotation or tilt. But failure of columns stating from one side is also needed to allow the tilt. And failed columns are no use as a pivot. So it is inherently a race between the tilt and the drop factors. So much being obvious. The problem then is how to determine which one wins. And I cannot remember the reasoning without going back and refreshing my memory.

Cheers.

PS Found It!!

It is this thread..and be warned - it is high level thinking in NLP "Visual" mode - so may not suit your preferred paradigms of physical models etc. But as far as it goes the arguments seem to be seamless. If you want some fun we could edit the core arguments down and bring them over here. Seeing that this thread is almost certain to stalemate due to lack of interest (The two opposing sides are too far apart for a single span bridge) the "tilt' topic would give us a start on "initiation".

 

[Menard_K]

Just my bit on this subject, given that the South tower had
its top most section tilt such that the center of gravity was
displaced aprox. 60 ft off-center, should that then clearly indicate
that the "collapse" event should then progress off-center, and
as such, the side that was getting the greatest pressure would fail first
and form a slope to allow tons of rubble to slide off & down to street level
thus depriving the "pile driver" of mass and the "collapse" event would then
halt and the building would be damaged, but not destroyed.

There are LOTS of other possible out-comes
rather than "total collapse was inevitable ...... "

Can U dig it?

 

[mike2810]

ozeco41

Thanks for bringing some sanity to this forum. I have enjoyed your posts you have done on other forums as well.

IMO, most posters who believe the towers were brought down by explosives or nukes will not engage in a technical discussion.
If you provide any technical explanation they tend to say well its from a govt. paid source. It is good to see rational posts again.

 

[Menard_K]

the "tilt' topic would give us a start on "initiation".

actually ..... The TILT topic has some pretty serious material for debate right there.
The observed behaviour of the top of the south tower tipping and then
disappearing in a cloud of dust,
is quite impressive, but just exactly how is it done without explosives? do tell....... (?)

 

[ozeco41]

Can U dig it?

Yes. The core two starting points of your comments seem reasonable.

The first one:

Just my bit on this subject, given that the South tower had
its top most section tilt such that the center of gravity was
displaced aprox. 60 ft off-center, should that then clearly indicate
that the "collapse" event should then progress off-center,....

That is true except that it presumes only one factor acting. There were broadly two factors, or two groups of factors, in competition.
1) The factors associated with tilt, off-centre and rotation. Those all part of the one overall aspect that you correctly identify.

2) The downwards forces and dynamics. The lot your haven't included so far.

As per my earlier post those two were inherently (and unavoidably?) in a race. The "race" being described in the think through process I linked above for psikey. It originated from a slightly different moot claim - "Would the top(s) have toppled if the plane(s) struck lower down?" But the reasoning is mostly common to both scenarios. I can condense it and bring the topic over here if there is interest.

Your conclusions from the first point:

as such, the side that was getting the greatest pressure would fail first
and form a slope to allow tons of rubble to slide off & down to street level
thus depriving the "pile driver" of mass and the "collapse" event would then
halt and the building would be damaged, but not destroyed....

I have a lot of issues with that but let it lie on the table for now. The actual event didn't go that way so the point is moot.

Your Second Point:

There are LOTS of other possible out-comes
rather than "total collapse was inevitable ...... "

Sure but... There are two distinct stages - initiation and progression. "tilt" is part of initiation.
To be logically rigorous "total collapse was inevitable ...... " is not an outcome of what we are discussing i.e. the initiation process. The outcome of "initiation" was "progression". "total collapse was inevitable ...... " is a feature of progression rather than an outcome in its own right.

Bottom line is that my explanation of "Global collapse was inevitable" which is the OP of this thread stands independent of these questions of "tilt or topple"

 

[psikeyhackr]

Hi. Actually I said hello in the first line of my first post on this forum.

But you haven't said anything interesting enough to respond to until now?

I don't talk about 9/11 to socialize.

It is this thread..and be warned - it is high level thinking in NLP "Visual" mode - so may not suit your preferred paradigms of physical models etc. But as far as it goes the arguments seem to be seamless.

That is about tower 1. It was not a 30 story section tilting at least 20 degrees.

psik

 

[ozeco41]

actually ..... The TILT topic has some pretty serious material for debate right there.
The observed behaviour of the top of the south tower tipping and then
disappearing in a cloud of dust,
is quite impressive, but just exactly how is it done without explosives? do tell....... (?)

Can do but...
...not at this stage - reasons below - nor in this thread - because it is off-topic.

Let me explain:
The collapses of the Twin Towers involved two distinct stages viz:
1) "Initiation" - what happened from Aircraft Impact through fire to "Top Block" starts to fall; THEN
2) "Progression" - the rapid collapse to near enough ground level after the Top Block started moving downwards.

"Progression" is the topic of this thread. It is relatively simple to understand and that is the reason I posted it. To test the waters of interestplus some of your comments gavew me a legitimate entry to he topic.

"Initiation" is at least one, probably two orders more complex. Pragmatism says "If we cannot discuss 'progression' there is no hope for "initiation".

That said "tilt" does offer a soft entry into the complexities of "initiation". Why not have a read of the thread I referenced over on 911Forum and form your own opinion.

BTW You may have noticed that nothing I have posted on this forum to date says anything either way about "CD" or "OMHI" ["Other Malicious Human Interventions"]

Since there were three points of time in the collapse sequences for WTC1 and WTC2 where CD or OMHI was feasible for rigorous logic we should include a third stage. It comes first so:

0) Pre cutting of core columns somewhere in the tower - two plausible options - near ground or near impact zone.

And we can deal with the CD/OMHI issue either pre-emptively up front OR as any discussion progresses.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Just my bit on this subject, given that the South tower had
its top most section tilt such that the center of gravity was displaced aprox. 60 ft off-center,

How did you come up with that number? Where was the center of mass? On which level. 95, 90?

psik

 

[ozeco41]

But you haven't said anything interesting enough to respond to until now?

I don't talk about 9/11 to socialize.

Your lack of self awareness hasn't changed. What is the sole purpose of trolling if it is not socialising?

That is about tower 1. It was not a 30 story section tilting at least 20 degrees.

Makes not the slightest difference to the reasoning but remember I stated the risk diplomatically. "it...may not suit your preferred paradigms..." I was being polite but I was well aware that you don't do "reasoning". Put differently I can assist equus getting into close proximity of aqueous fluids. I cannot force imbibing.

 

[Menard_K]

["Other Malicious Human Interventions"]

Great! a definition! I can Dig it OMHI!
Thank U for the definition.

Just my bit on the subject, there had to have been somekinda
OMHI because there were PLENTY of opportunities for the whole
sequence of events to end at the 50th floor, (or?) but certainly
short of getting all the way down to the street level. .....

 

[Menard_K]

How did you come up with that number? Where was the center of mass? On which level. 95, 90?

psik

its an estimate based on the tilt, I stand ready to be corrected if somebody has
a better number handy. what have you got?

 

[ozeco41]

Great! a definition! I can Dig it OMHI!
Thank U for the definition...

I put it into the public domain. No royalties applicable.

...Just my bit on the subject, there had to have been somekinda
OMHI because there were PLENTY of opportunities for the whole
sequence of events to end at the 50th floor, (or?) but certainly
short of getting all the way down to the street level. .....

If the progression stage was OMHIed you would have to feel very sorry for the perpetrators.

Having successfully planned and executed an OMHI then to see that the actual collapse didn't need all their secret work and ran too fast for the sequencing of their devices.....It must have made them cry. And an anticlimax when the camouflage and security plan also worked and no one in the clean up found any traces of the activity.

Poor Fellows.

 

[ozeco41]

ozeco41

Thanks for bringing some sanity to this forum. I have enjoyed your posts you have done on other forums as well....

Thanks. what you see is what you get. My background public sector utilities management at senior level. Leading, managing, guiding, cajolong, motivating staff part of the job. And making the best of narrow focussed technical engineers who routinely lose the forest for the trees or get so busy fighting alligators that they forget "Drain the Swamp" -- so this level of comments was all bread and butter. Plus ~15 years army reserve engineers.

IMO, most posters who believe the towers were brought down by explosives or nukes will not engage in a technical discussion.
If you provide any technical explanation they tend to say well its from a govt. paid source. It is good to see rational posts again.

Two decisions I made when first got involved in Internet forum discussion. A lot of the debate I entered kept getting lost between "Explain CD or not at WTC" and "NIST wuz wrong". The two are independent but "both sides" would play one objective off against the other.

[derailing-rant]
Decode the "41' and you see I come from the Saturday Arvo movies scene. Cowboy flicks where the bad guys wore black hats and the hero wore white. Ditto the bad guys played dirty trick but the good guys always Marquess of Queensbury.

Translation - I expect the truthers to wear black hats and play dirty - false logic, lies whatever. But us white hat guys should be pure. So I loath poor argument from debunkers more than I worry about truther trickery. We should know better. They cannot.

[/end-derailing-rant]
So I determined never to allow dual objectives - "this didn't happen on 9/11 because NIST says..x.y.z". Nonsense. If NIST said "WTC X fell because it was hit with custard from Santa's pudding as the sleigh passed overhead on a test run" that would not make the explanation true.. more subtly nor does it make WTC collapse false because NIST got it wrong. So I avoid the confusion of mixed or dual objectives.

 

[psikeyhackr]

its an estimate based on the tilt, I stand ready to be corrected if somebody has a better number handy. what have you got?

I admit that we don't know where the center of mass was which is a black eye on the physics and structural engineering professions by itself after 12 years. The EXPERTS don't discuss it.

I avoid using numbers I can't explain as much as possible. I point out when the EXPERTS don't give us data. Like not specifying the total amount of concrete in the towers. Wouldn't that affect the center of mass?

psik

 

[psikeyhackr]

Makes not the slightest difference to the reasoning but remember I stated the risk diplomatically. "it...may not suit your preferred paradigms..."

The core of WTC2 is 85 by 135 feet and supported 53% of the building's weight according to the NIST. So theoretically the center of mass would only have to move horizontally 43 feet to be beyond the perimeter of the core.

But of course that is just one of my "preferred paradigms". Physics has nothing to do with it.

Now with the top north tower titling less than 5 degrees and only being 14 stories or less the tilt could not move the center of mass outside the perimeter of the core.

But that is only my delusion of not socializing in the name of trolling.

psik

 

[SanderO]

I admit that we don't know where the center of mass was which is a black eye on the physics and structural engineering professions by itself after 12 years. The EXPERTS don't discuss it.

I avoid using numbers I can't explain as much as possible. I point out when the EXPERTS don't give us data. Like not specifying the total amount of concrete in the towers. Wouldn't that affect the center of mass?

psik

Why would the weight of the floors.. assuming they were identical change the CG or the structure if they were a different mass? ?

 

[psikeyhackr]

Why would the weight of the floors.. assuming they were identical change the CG or the structure if they were a different mass??

What do you mean by FLOORS?

Do you mean each 12 foot high LEVEL?

How could each LEVEL be identical if the core columns got thicker down the building? That would make them heavier. I have seen no data on the variation in thickness of the horizontal beams in the core down the building.

But the higher the center of mass in the 30 story upper portion of the south tower the farther it moved horizontally and the more likely it would be outside of the perimeter of the core.

psik

 

[SanderO]

What do you mean by FLOORS?

Do you mean each 12 foot high LEVEL?

How could each LEVEL be identical if the core columns got thicker down the building? That would make them heavier. I have seen no data on the variation in thickness of the horizontal beams in the core down the building.

But the higher the center of mass in the 30 story upper portion of the south tower the farther it moved horizontally and the more likely it would be outside of the perimeter of the core.

psik

I think we have a miscommunication here.

The columns weight of the core incremented (decressed) as you went up 3 floors. The facade was more woven since the panels were staggered.

The floor SLABS were the same for all floors except the mech floors and probably the WOW and observation floor slab.

The weight of the floor slabs can easily be calculated from the engineers spec, and the notes which are addenda in the NIST reports if I recall correctly.

The inside the core slabs would vary because of the elevator layout.

The floors slabs IIRC were about 90,000 in total (my calc.)

Why does it matter if the CM move outside the core which is you assumption? MOST of the mass of the tipping top was always over the footprint.. and ENOUGH of it was to drive the ROOSD... and this led to the complete collapse.

 

[psikeyhackr]

I think we have a miscommunication here.

The columns weight of the core incremented (decressed) as you went up 3 floors. The facade was more woven since the panels were staggered.

The cause of miscommunication is obvious. Do you know what the words mean?

The perimeter wall panels still got lighter up the building but the NIST has not provided the weights and number of each grade of panel.

I am not assuming anything like you and your ROOSD garbage. I have admitted that I do not know where the center of mass was. This is why:

Rollover - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Exact same concept. There could not have been weight on the perimeter on the side away from the tilt. That meant more weight on the tilted side. If the center of mass was outside of the core then there would be even more weight on the perimeter on that side. So why wouldn't the top keep tilting?

Why haven't EXPERTS been talking about that center of mass? TWELVE YEARS of defective physics.

psik

 

[SanderO]

The cause of miscommunication is obvious. Do you know what the words mean?

The perimeter wall panels still got lighter up the building but the NIST has not provided the weights and number of each grade of panel.

I am not assuming anything like you and your ROOSD garbage. I have admitted that I do not know where the center of mass was. This is why:

Rollover - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Exact same concept. There could not have been weight on the perimeter on the side away from the tilt. That meant more weight on the tilted side. If the center of mass was outside of the core then there would be even more weight on the perimeter on that side. So why wouldn't the top keep tilting?

Why haven't EXPERTS been talking about that center of mass? TWELVE YEARS of defective physics.

psik

CM is not critical to understand the processes which destroyed the twin towers. They did not act as blocks. The facades did act like tubes but it's more than likely that the insides had broken up leaving only the tubes which we observe.

I have calculated and sized the perimeter system of steel in the facade. Of course one needs to make some assumptions, but these don't change the overall results of the calculations.

We know the size of config of all the core columns posted by Len Waters some years ago - this leads to the area
We know the axial load ratio of the core and the perimeter (we can calculate the ratio... done all the time by engineers)
We can generate the area of the steel at the base
We know all the steel in the first 2 thirds of ht was ASTM A36 steel
We know the rate of wall thickness change / cross sectional area change in the core.. facade would decrease at similar rate to maitain % of load support distribution.
We know the thinnest steel used in the top third was 1/4" plate. The grade rating has impact on the axial capacity but not on the mass
We know the weight of the core steel and can calculate by % the total wt of the facade columns
We know the supposed total weight of the steel

Do you expect some hidden surprises? Have you examined the film of construction.

I did it... if you want to see the work send me a pm with an email addy and I'll email it to you.

 

[psikeyhackr]

CM is not critical to understand the processes which destroyed the twin towers. They did not act as blocks. The facades did act like tubes but it's more than likely that the insides had broken up leaving only the tubes which we observe.

Sure, something IS because SanderO says it IS even though we have plenty of video and pictures of the tilted top block of the south tower. Just throw physics out the window and say it is irrelevant and it is so because SanderO says it.

ROFL

Spend 12 years letting the EXPERTS not even specify the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level. Turn off your brain and BELIEVE. So we have the 9/11 Religion! :lol:

psik

 

[psikeyhackr]

We know the size of config of all the core columns posted by Len Waters some years ago - this leads to the area
We know the weight of the core steel and can calculate by % the total wt of the facade columns
We know the supposed total weight of the steel

His name is Lon Waters not Len Waters.

Lon Waters Ph.D.
Mathematics

So we have 3 physicists, 1 Engineer, 1 Mathematics Prof, A Social Work Prof, 2 Lawyers, a Humanities Prof, an Economics Prof, A linguistics Prof, and a couple of others with no definitive credentials given (academically).

911 - You Judge

I pointed out a couple of minor errors on his site. But it had NOTHING about the Horizontal Beams in the core.

So how could we know the DISTRIBUTION not just the total without data on the thickness of the horizontal beams down the core. That would affect the location of the center of mass.

The NIST report does not even tell us the total for the concrete.

psik

 

[SanderO]

Sure, something IS because SanderO says it IS even though we have plenty of video and pictures of the tilted top block of the south tower. Just throw physics out the window and say it is irrelevant and it is so because SanderO says it.

ROFL

Spend 12 years letting the EXPERTS not even specify the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level. Turn off your brain and BELIEVE. So we have the 9/11 Religion! :lol:

psik

Not because I said anything... but because it happens to be true.

 

[SanderO]

His name is Lon Waters not Len Waters.


911 - You Judge

I pointed out a couple of minor errors on his site. But it had NOTHING about the Horizontal Beams in the core.

So how could we know the DISTRIBUTION not just the total without data on the thickness of the horizontal beams down the core. That would affect the location of the center of mass.

The NIST report does not even tell us the total for the concrete.

psik

What do the horizontal beams have to do with the "problem"? Doesn't matter what qualifications someone has... PhD can be wrong and plumber could be right. Right doesn't care about such things. You can claim to be a physicist and know boo about physics.

 

[psikeyhackr]

What do the horizontal beams have to do with the "problem"? Doesn't matter what qualifications someone has... PhD can be wrong and plumber could be right. Right doesn't care about such things. You can claim to be a physicist and know boo about physics.

You can't even get his name right and then you want to deflect it about qualifications when it was YOU who brought him up in the first place.

What matters IS whatever SanderO says, regardless of what really IS.

psik