What caused the buildings on 9/11 collapse?

[JohnDB]

Check this out... Heavy gauge

U do realize also that there are countless alloys?
But generally speaking your hard steels are for cutting and such like drill bits. Then for fabrication its softer and has more flex... Anyway bedtime for me...


Come back to Earth John... LoL.. Look into that

High carbon vx mild steel...oh I know.

But the problem comes when it's thick...cast steel instead of forged and tempered and then subjected to rapid energies when bent.

Steel crystalization is different for various formulas. Steel made in the 70's Is different than the steel often formulated today too.
(When the Towers were built)

Just saying...

 

[Cristo Rei]

High carbon vx mild steel...oh I know.

But the problem comes when it's thick...cast steel instead of forged and tempered and then subjected to rapid energies when bent.

Steel crystalization is different for various formulas. Steel made in the 70's Is different than the steel often formulated today too.
(When the Towers were built)

Just saying...

I want to ask Jay a question seeing his in engineering...

 

[Jay Ross]

See... Case in point above... This is exactly the type of thing i was talking about...

A person cannot ask any questions of the mainstream narrative. Or else your a trouble maker or something...

And your response is to make a personal attack on the person who has commented on your post, irrespective as to whether or not that attack is justified. Your usual mode of operation is to post lots of conspiracy theories in support of the thrust of your message, irrespective of the validity of the supporting conspiracy theory. Most people appreciate logical and rational supporting evidence, but you rarely provide any in support of your posts.

Obviously unable to address two reasons I gave.
1/ Towers free fell without resistance onto its own foundations
2/ Structural steel doesn't snap, it bends.

Point one has been answered in detail in my above posts.

Point two is both right and wrong, it all depends on the energy levels being applied to the steel item. If the energy dissipation rate is low and slow, then the plate will bend as you have said, but if the energy dissipation rate is high, then the steel item will shear along the line of the energy being dissipated. The energy being applied to the steel item is relatively high and fast in its application, i.e. like a sharpie test which I assume you did observe while doing your Engineering Diploma course.

And i'll reiterate. Apart from computer simulations iv only ever seen one scaled down simulation. It didn't do what the towers did

I watched a documentary where they constructed a little mini tower all to scale including weight... I forget exactly how they delivered the heat but they delivered it to the same section of the 2nd hit building until it failed... As the steel started to turn red and orange it slowly started to warp. Nothing sudden. One side of the building got hotter and started to sag causing the top of the building to start leaning till it eventually toppled to thee side... The rest of the building below the impact remained standing

It is very difficult to scale all of the factors when building a scale model as described above. Did the model have a protective coating to stop the structure from rusting? Did the protective covering's thickness, model the thermal resistance of that covering as was used in the construction of the twin towers? It is very difficult to scale model the thermal properties of combustion and thermal properties of the trusses condensation protective covering.

Your description of how the scaled model failed, is what any good engineer would have expected to happen as the modelling did not replicate the twin tower structures and their failure. The scaled model test did not disprove the actual failure mechanisms that occurred.

John high speed steel snaps. Like a drill bit.
Steel bends. Please. Go look it up cos your anecdotal observation doesn't change the facts

Cristo Rei, it seems that you are being dishonest when you say that the anecdotal observations is not supported by engineering theory. John observed the outcome of a steel beam that fell from a of steel beams being lifted up to the "top" floor of the building being constructed. No evidence was given as to the height of the steel beam when it began to fall of how the steel beams land and on what it landed. What was described was an open system Sharpie Test and the speed of the dissipation of the energy from the been falling would have been many times above the shear strength of the steel beam in question

It is possible that terrorist's planted explosive?

For the building to fail as it did they would have had to have placed explosives on the same floor as the plane to shear ever bolted connection on that floor as a progressive and controlled explosion. The energy from the weigh of the floor(s) above falling progressively three or so metres onto the floor below would have resulted in the observed collapse of the twin tower building as they did.

The temperatures at the point where the planes had lodged in the building would have been too hot for anyone to place the explosives on the bolted connections with the skin of the building. In any case the explosive would have been unstable at such high temperatures that they would have been triggered by the high temperatures and the flames before they could have been placed on that particular floor.

The terrorist theory does not hold up to logical examination with all of the facts being in place.

If you disagree, then your your engineering knowledge to support your rebuttal.

Shalom

 

[Prayer Warrior]

And your response is to make a personal attack on the person who has commented on your post, irrespective as to whether or not that attack is justified. Your usual mode of operation is to post lots of conspiracy theories in support of the thrust of your message, irrespective of the validity of the supporting conspiracy theory. Most people appreciate logical and rational supporting evidence, but you rarely provide any in support of your posts.

You say as you launch your own personal attack, lol. But, hey, I’m staying out of this.

 

[Cristo Rei]

And your response is to make a personal attack on the person who has commented on your post, irrespective as to whether or not that attack is justified. Your usual mode of operation is to post lots of conspiracy theories in support of the thrust of your message, irrespective of the validity of the supporting conspiracy theory. Most people appreciate logical and rational supporting evidence, but you rarely provide any in support of your posts.



Point one has been answered in detail in my above posts.

Point two is both right and wrong, it all depends on the energy levels being applied to the steel item. If the energy dissipation rate is low and slow, then the plate will bend as you have said, but if the energy dissipation rate is high, then the steel item will shear along the line of the energy being dissipated. The energy being applied to the steel item is relatively high and fast in its application, i.e. like a sharpie test which I assume you did observe while doing your Engineering Diploma course.





It is very difficult to scale all of the factors when building a scale model as described above. Did the model have a protective coating to stop the structure from rusting? Did the protective covering's thickness, model the thermal resistance of that covering as was used in the construction of the twin towers? It is very difficult to scale model the thermal properties of combustion and thermal properties of the trusses condensation protective covering.

Your description of how the scaled model failed, is what any good engineer would have expected to happen as the modelling did not replicate the twin tower structures and their failure. The scaled model test did not disprove the actual failure mechanisms that occurred.



Cristo Rei, it seems that you are being dishonest when you say that the anecdotal observations is not supported by engineering theory. John observed the outcome of a steel beam that fell from a of steel beams being lifted up to the "top" floor of the building being constructed. No evidence was given as to the height of the steel beam when it began to fall of how the steel beams land and on what it landed. What was described was an open system Sharpie Test and the speed of the dissipation of the energy from the been falling would have been many times above the shear strength of the steel beam in question



For the building to fail as it did they would have had to have placed explosives on the same floor as the plane to shear ever bolted connection on that floor as a progressive and controlled explosion. The energy from the weigh of the floor(s) above falling progressively three or so metres onto the floor below would have resulted in the observed collapse of the twin tower building as they did.

The temperatures at the point where the planes had lodged in the building would have been too hot for anyone to place the explosives on the bolted connections with the skin of the building. In any case the explosive would have been unstable at such high temperatures that they would have been triggered by the high temperatures and the flames before they could have been placed on that particular floor.

The terrorist theory does not hold up to logical examination with all of the facts being in place.

If you disagree, then your your engineering knowledge to support your rebuttal.

Shalom

I read your explanation with the bolts shearing and thats all good.

The height of the twin towers are 545 meters. Dropping an object from that height takes about 10,5 seconds, disregarding any resistances or forces. The towers took 10.5 seconds. Please explain how it is possible that there was no resistance at all?

 

[Jay Ross]

You say as you launch your own personal attack, lol. But, hey, I’m staying out of this.

Then why did you post your comments? To stir the pot some more? It seems that you are doing the very thing that you are suggesting that I did. Is that not a hy . . . .

 

[Prayer Warrior]

Then why did you post your comments? To stir the pot some more? It seems that you are doing the very thing that you are suggesting that I did. Is that not a hy . . . .

LOL! Just adding some excitement to the thread.........!

 

[Jay Ross]

The height of the twin towers are 545 meters. Dropping an object from that height takes about 10,5 seconds. The towers took 10.5 seconds. Please explain how it is possible that there was no resistance at all?

Define resistance? During a Sharpie test, when the energy of the swinging pendulum exceeds the required energy to shear the test specimen, the resistance of the test specimen does not markedly make a real discernible change in the velocity of the swinging pendulum. The same was true for the building collapsing, the resistance of the connection bolts bolts to the energy of the falling mass above the respective floors would not have slowed down the floors as they fell as the impact energy of the falling floors only increased and as such the down wards velocity would not have been observable slowed at all. Physics theory supports the above observations.

Shalom

 

[Jay Ross]

LOL! Just adding some excitement to the thread.........!

That urge to add some excitement to a thread, is something that I resist all of the time. If posting a critique of a person's form on this forum is considered to be a criticism then there is no means to counter a false argument.

Cristo can play the martyr card all he want to but the other members on this forum have the intelligence to see through that rouge. He usually plays the role of a bully with his rebuttals

 

[JohnDB]

I like it when @Jay Ross says it...he has the edumakateshun to say it gooder than I can.

 

[Cristo Rei]

Define resistance? During a Sharpie test, when the energy of the swinging pendulum exceeds the required energy to shear the test specimen, the resistance of the test specimen does not markedly make a real discernible change in the velocity of the swinging pendulum. The same was true for the building collapsing, the resistance of the connection bolts bolts to the energy of the falling mass above the respective floors would not have slowed down the floors as they fell as the impact energy of the falling floors only increased and as such the down wards velocity would not have been observable slowed at all. Physics theory supports the above observations.

Shalom

Don't change the subject... This i basic physics, kinematic equations. You would of learnt this at the start of your physics course...
You remember these, right? Do u remember how to transpose equations? I tried but i had to resort to google...



This is the freefall equation to find out the time.
a is replaced by g for gravity which is 9.8m/s2.
d is displacement.
And we can ignore that v as initial velocity is at rest


Time equals the square root of 2x545/9.8...
The answer i get here is 10.546 seconds...

These are the laws of motion physics.

Force
Newtons 3rd law of motion states for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction



That man applies 20N of force to that box and there is 20N of resistance.
So if we take the bolts. Each one of them needed force to sheer, maybe 50kN. And so needed a resistance of the same. Multiply that by every bolt and we have a huge amount of resistance. It should of deccelerated but it actually kept accelerating... This is impossible...

Column buckling
The columns are really what holds the building up. Their resistance to the vertical load is enourmous. Im not even going to check cos its irrelevant how much it can take, the point is that it can take it...

Thats what happens to a column, applying enormous amounts of resistance.

So then how is it possible that this building accelerated, was pushed by gravity itself, no resistance whatso ever?
Im not interested in other lines of arguments, im looking closely at this... Because this by itself debunks the plane theory.
These are the laws of physics

 

[Prayer Warrior]

That urge to add some excitement to a thread, is something that I resist all of the time. If posting a critique of a person's form on this forum is considered to be a criticism then there is no means to counter a false argument.

Cristo can play the martyr card all he want to but the other members on this forum have the intelligence to see through that rouge. He usually plays the role of a bully with his rebuttals

I could take you more seriously if you had not launched an unwarranted attack against me a while back.

 

[marks]

Don't change the subject... This i basic physics, kinematic equations. You would of learnt this at the start of your physics course...
You remember these, right? Do u remember how to transpose equations? I tried but i had to resort to google...

View attachment 12743 View attachment 12744

This is the freefall equation to find out the time.
a is replaced by g for gravity which is 9.8m/s2.
d is displacement.
And we can ignore that v as initial velocity is at rest
View attachment 12745

Time equals the square root of 2x545/9.8...
The answer i get here is 10.546 seconds...

These are the laws of motion physics.

Force
Newtons 3rd law of motion states for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction

View attachment 12746

That man applies 20N of force to that box and there is 20N of resistance.
So if we take the bolts. Each one of them needed force to sheer, maybe 50kN. And so needed a resistance of the same. Multiply that by every bolt and we have a huge amount of resistance. It should of deccelerated but it actually kept accelerating... This is impossible...

Column buckling
The columns are really what holds the building up. Their resistance to the vertical load is enourmous. Im not even going to check cos its irrelevant how much it can take, the point is that it can take it...

Thats what happens to a column, applying enormous amounts of resistance.

So then how is it possible that this building accelerated, was pushed by gravity itself, no resistance whatso ever?
Im not interested in other lines of arguments, im looking closely at this... Because this by itself debunks the plane theory.
These are the laws of physics

This was something I remember so clearly watching over and over the tapes of the buildings falling. The top sections of the building dropped intact without resistance. And on one of the towers, I think the second, I forget, it was canted well over the side, where it would have hit the remaining structure below it, and would have fallen to the side. But instead it dropped straight down.

Much love!

 

[Cristo Rei]

@Jay Ross

In an investigation this data is what is collected first...

Then this question would need to be answered before anything else.

Why do the buildings fall at the same acceleration as gravity?
How can there possibly be no resistance?

 

[JohnDB]

Is it not possible the terrorist's planted explosives... They did try that in the past, didn't they

Yes...
Several years previously they drove a van full of explosives into the parking garage basement and set them off...it blew but didn't bring the Building down.

 

[Cristo Rei]

@Jay Ross

Maybe another way to approach the physics is like this this...

If we dropped a hammer from that height. Do we agree that its about 10.5 seconds? Yes or No?
U can search for free fall calculators and confirm this

Did the towers fall at around 10.5 as well? Yes or No?

 

[Jay Ross]

Don't change the subject... This i basic physics, kinematic equations. You would of learnt this at the start of your physics course...
You remember these, right? Do u remember how to transpose equations? I tried but i had to resort to google...

View attachment 12743 View attachment 12744

This is the freefall equation to find out the time.
a is replaced by g for gravity which is 9.8m/s2.
d is displacement.
And we can ignore that v as initial velocity is at rest
View attachment 12745

Time equals the square root of 2x545/9.8...
The answer i get here is 10.546 seconds...

These are the laws of motion physics.

Force
Newtons 3rd law of motion states for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction

View attachment 12746

That man applies 20N of force to that box and there is 20N of resistance.
So if we take the bolts. Each one of them needed force to sheer, maybe 50kN. And so needed a resistance of the same. Multiply that by every bolt and we have a huge amount of resistance. It should of deccelerated but it actually kept accelerating... This is impossible...

Column buckling
The columns are really what holds the building up. Their resistance to the vertical load is enourmous. Im not even going to check cos its irrelevant how much it can take, the point is that it can take it...

That's what happens to a column, applying enormous amounts of resistance.

So then how is it possible that this building accelerated, was pushed by gravity itself, no resistance whatso ever?
I'm not interested in other lines of arguments, I'm looking closely at this... Because this by itself debunks the plane theory.
These are the laws of physics

Yes I agree with you that the laws of Physics are applicable, but we must consider the Energy implication of the building falling and also the required energy for the shearing of each of the floors' bolted connections.

Fundamentally, the energy required to shear each of the floors' bolted connections is the same for each floor.

What was the energy required on each floor to shear all of the skin's bolted connections plus all of the core's bolted connections for the floor to pancake down to the next floor level? Let us assume that the energy level was x KJ/floor.

What was the stored energy levels in each of the twin towers? Both towers were respectfully 417 and 415 metres high and each building had 110 floors. The average height difference between floors in the towers was around 3.8 m. The weight of each building was around 500,000 tones. (Let us assume that the weight in each building is expressed in metric tonnes.) This is the dead weight for each of the towers. The live load in each tower consisting of the weight of the people working in each tower, the furniture for people to work at, the weight of paper and books etc., could have been the same as the dead weight for each of the towers. If this assumption is right then the dead and live loads for both towers would have been around 1,000,000 t, with an average weight for each floor being of the order of 9,090 tonnes.

The stored energy of each floor if it falls to the floor below, is 9,090 x 9.8 x 3.8/1000 MJ's ≈ 338 MJs per floor.

If we assume that that the collapse of the tower buildings began at floor level 93 for the northern building and floor level 77 for the southern building, then the available energy levels of each tower to shear the bolted connection after the building collapsed 3.8 m initially onto the floor below is,

For the Northern tower ≈ 5,408 MJ and for the Southern tower ≈ 12,168 MJ

If the energy needed to shear the bolted connections on each floor level was of the order of 2,500 MJ, i.e. around 7.7 PW of power, then the available energy from the building structure above the floor that collapsed is: -as the floor

For the Northern tower ≈ 2,908 MJ and for the Southern tower ≈ 12,168 MJ

The energy available to collapse the next floor level is :

For the Northern tower ≈ (2,908 +5408 + 338) MJ ≈ 8,644 MJ and for the Southern tower ≈ (9,668 + 12,168 + 338)MJ ≈ 22,175 MJ

Now if we repeat this calculation for both towers then we would observe that the energy used up to shear the bolts on each floor level as the towers collapse becomes insignificant in comparison to the total available energy for the towers themselves.

People can do the maths for themselves to confirm the above calculations.

To come to the right conclusion, we must use the right applicable laws of Physics.

Just using the velocity equations as Cristco was suggesting, is going down a rabbit hole that is not applicable.

Shalom

 

[Jay Ross]

@Jay Ross

Maybe another way to approach the physics is like this this...

If we dropped a hammer from that height. Do we agree that its about 10.5 seconds? Yes or No?
U can search for free fall calculators and confirm this

Did the towers fall at around 10.5 as well? Yes or No?

I have not put a stop watch on the videos of the towers collapsing to confirm what you are suggesting.

My understanding from the energy considerations would suggest that the time difference would not be much different.

The interesting observation from the above calculations in my previous post, is that the additional 20 or so floors of the southern town explains why the southern town began to collapse much earlier than the northern tower. There was much more stress on the columns of the southern town than on the northern tower's columns.

As the internal bracing of the individual floors began to fail, so the columns of the building began to buckle inwards into the building due to the thermal expansion of the other columns was more on the inside than the outside of the building.

It also provides an explanation for @marks observation that the southern initially tilted when the building first began to collapse and then as the building collapsed further the centre of gravity of the building structure of the floors above the initial failure would have caused those floors to return to the vertical orientation as the tower continued to collapse.

Shalom

 

[Cristo Rei]

Both towers were respectfully 417 and 415 metres high

Ok well the first thing. I was incorrect with that piece of data which give it time...

So when i plug that into the equation its only 9.2 seconds. I google how long it tells me 10 seconds but, i dunno, google.
It was 8 years ago when i last looked at this and i haven't looked at anything recently. I tried to watch the collapse but it made me sick. All i could think about were those souls. 8 years ago i had no interest in politics or humanities and watching wasn't traumatic at all.

Ok just starting to think of psychological stuff..

10.5 seconds im willing to make it that to be fair. Margin of error

Yes I agree with you that the laws of Physics are applicable, but we must consider the Energy implication of the building falling and also the required energy for the shearing of each of the floors' bolted connections.

Fundamentally, the energy required to shear each of the floors' bolted connections is the same for each floor.

What was the energy required on each floor to shear all of the skin's bolted connections plus all of the core's bolted connections for the floor to pancake down to the next floor level? Let us assume that the energy level was x KJ/floor.

What was the stored energy levels in each of the twin towers? Both towers were respectfully 417 and 415 metres high and each building had 110 floors. The average height difference between floors in the towers was around 3.8 m. The weight of each building was around 500,000 tones. (Let us assume that the weight in each building is expressed in metric tonnes.) This is the dead weight for each of the towers. The live load in each tower consisting of the weight of the people working in each tower, the furniture for people to work at, the weight of paper and books etc., could have been the same as the dead weight for each of the towers. If this assumption is right then the dead and live loads for both towers would have been around 1,000,000 t, with an average weight for each floor being of the order of 9,090 tonnes.

The stored energy of each floor if it falls to the floor below, is 9,090 x 9.8 x 3.8/1000 MJ's ≈ 338 MJs per floor.

If we assume that that the collapse of the tower buildings began at floor level 93 for the northern building and floor level 77 for the southern building, then the available energy levels of each tower to shear the bolted connection after the building collapsed 3.8 m initially onto the floor below is,

For the Northern tower ≈ 5,408 MJ and for the Southern tower ≈ 12,168 MJ

If the energy needed to shear the bolted connections on each floor level was of the order of 2,500 MJ, i.e. around 7.7 PW of power, then the available energy from the building structure above the floor that collapsed is: -as the floor

For the Northern tower ≈ 2,908 MJ and for the Southern tower ≈ 12,168 MJ

The energy available to collapse the next floor level is :

For the Northern tower ≈ (2,908 +5408 + 338) MJ ≈ 8,644 MJ and for the Southern tower ≈ (9,668 + 12,168 + 338)MJ ≈ 22,175 MJ

Now if we repeat this calculation for both towers then we would observe that the energy used up to shear the bolts on each floor level as the towers collapse becomes insignificant in comparison to the total available energy for the towers themselves.

People can do the maths for themselves to confirm the above calculations.

To come to the right conclusion, we must use the right applicable laws of Physics.

Just using the velocity equations as Cristco was suggesting, is going down a rabbit hole that is not applicable.

Shalom

Ye fair point. U have more energy too. U got your energy here

This is the dead weight for each of the towers. The live load in each tower consisting of the weight of the people working in each tower, the furniture for people to work at, the weight of paper and books etc., could have been the same as the dead weight for each of the towers

Plus each member is either flexing a bit or contracting a bit. (i think not the right terms). Its either pulling or pushing from where it settles in with the bolts. So there is more energy... ok

My though b4 returning is that it is defiantly possible for the stored energy smash bolts. But each floor is a reduction in force, and deceleration.
How much? I dunno im trying to remember energy now, it not kinetic is it, thats motion...
But its those columns. They have to actually shear for it to drop. They buckle to a point where it must tip out, the outer colmuns anyway. The core would topple in but unless those columns shear... Youngs modulus comes to mind, elasticity i think and tensile strength and two or three sheets of specs, the one u said for shear, there are so many specifications and do u know how many grades there are of structural steel? I just know there are heaps. And back then... But fab steel is still fab steel. Its gonna bend , and once it passes 15-20% its going to topple. And the decceleration...

But u have 1.3 seconds. Im an enemy of certainty in science. If there is a doubt reserve judgement. I think u might persuade me to walk away thinking i don't know, i see both are possible and might be able to just choose a more probable. Cos if our maths starts getting heavier we will start needing more and more data.

U know when u guys use these terms like conspiracy then rust and such it ruins you case... Because there are physicists and metallurgists and all kinds ists busting their brains trying to find answers. Now if they have an argument and the other side does that. Truth doesn't do that. U know censoring. Truth does not sensor, do they? Is there an example? Truth accepts debate. Butt science now shuns debate with hate... This world...

Do u know Karl Popper? Falsification. Pseudo sciences... Man science need 1000 of him, strict. He coped abuse his whole life from one part of science or another. He criticized everyones theory from Einstein to big bang and evolution, he even criticized Tesla. And he was hated and berated the poor guy... But he stood by truth and open enquiry.

He is a benchmark for how science should be conducted today. "Follow the science" no way... "Science is settled" never. He says u have to try and refute your own claim... Thes buzz words are typical false flags that u dont see from truth... Why can ther ebe a debate on this, i never found one, its just tennis they make a film i make a film.

These theoretical sciences they hide behind the reputation of real science like this, "believe in the science" all these slogans are red flags. Karl Popper red flags. Ask a question "oh shut up u tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorist" why, its just evidence of pseudodsscience mate ad hominem fallacy, ads further skepticism. Truth doesn't do that. Truth don't censor... One of the greatest thinkers of the 20th century but Karl Popper. He would be laughing at the state of science now, now medical stupidity. Im splitting anyway, on the road, disconnect from this evil place, in to bush cos im chose not be experimented on with synthetic pathogen where the company is exempt from liability, ingredients are secret, there is conjecture and at every turn, and censorship, my biggest irrate, Communists did that never truth so im goin bush screw all that. And im a paranoid tin foil hat wearing antivaxer now for making an enquiry... Obvious psudioscience. Every year 11 and 12 stufdent needs to lean Poppa falsification and pseudoscience. They have divided us. Trust government since when... The working class never trusted them. Why should i trust Gates and forced. Bloody gets me angry. I had a normal life. Now im homeless and people still yelling more. Over it mate. Society is finished in city here anyway. Anyway a mini rant. Not at you at science at the stet of this world

I trust very few humans. Anyway. God Bless

 

[Cristo Rei]

Is it possible the stored energy could pop some bolts but its speculative to be certain it would pop all of them.

What do u think about the columns? They'd have to sheer to go down that quick like that. Don't u reckon?
Without sheering the columns could it collapse that fast?