9/11 Collapse Theory Discussion Thread II

jas wrote:

I think I'll just quote something I say above instead:

Quote:

Are the columns "irrelevant" to the building being able to stay vertical for 40 years? And, is it your understanding that the floors "broke"? If they did, they would fall onto the next 240 perimeter columns and 47 massive, core box columns. They wouldn't simply "pass" through them as if through sand. The columns buckling might explain an initial floor collapse--around the core. It does not explain subsequent floor collapses, and total core disintegration, despite what Pants tries to claim. You cannot have all columns (or beams!) failing simultaneously even on one floor, let alone on numerous floors at once, in fractions of a second. Nothing natural could explain this. And, as has also been pointed out, with that kind of failure you would see a slower, punctuated kind of collapse. That would also arrest. Because the building, like most buildings, is designed to withstand gravity's pull, and to bear increased loads of up to 2000% of "design live loads", according to Kevin Ryan, who cites the building designers.

I see.

Please note that you have yet to provide any evidence that Bazant or Greening are incorrect in their calculations concerning the pulverisation of concrete.

As to your specific claim about the simultaneous destruction of so many columns, I will also repeat one of my posts. If you want to know where it is in the thread, it is right after the post you repeated.

Pants-of-dog wrote:

Let us go back to an earlier discussion about the difference between a column and a beam.

Columns go up and down. The are vertical. Beams are horizontal.

Now, the beams are not the only horizontal structural members. There are also floor joists (though they seem to call them trusses in the WTC reports) and the floor deck itself. To make things a little easier, I am going to speak in terms of horizontal structural members and vertical ones.

Think of a table. The legs of the table are the verticals, and the tabletop is the horizontal structure. You put the load (your food or books or whatever) on the tabletop, which pushes down on th etable top. The table top then pushes down on the legs, an dthe legs push on the floor.

Let's start stacking tables. But let's do it in a specific way. We are going to stack them so that the legs of the table on top line up with the legs of the table underneath. Just like columns in a high rise building.

Now, what happens if we drop something (a rigid block of tables, say) that is moving fast enough that it can break through the tabletops but not the table legs.

It falls on the tabletops and breaks them, not necessarily all at the same time. The attached legs are no longer attached to anything, so they fall over, again not necessarily all at the same time.

No buckling required. Nor do they all have to fail at the same time.

jas wrote:

I have. We've actually gone over this specific discussion at least three times. You tend to just repeat your original claim, insisting it's correct, without dealing with any of the criticisms raised. I'm not going to find the quotes for you right now.

Here is where I first present the evidence. Hopefully that will help you find your reply to me. (post 19 in this thread)

jas wrote:

Your discussion about columns versus beams is 100% irrelevant. It is already understood that, in your theory, the floors "sags", pulling the perimeter columns in. This would explain only the first floor collapse.　It cannot explain subsequent collapses through 80 and 90 levels in under 13 seconds, as well as the disintegration of the core structure. And no, your math doesn't explain it either, as it relies on a number of  made-up assumptions and does not account for the normal resistance the building design naturally provides.

It is entirely relevant. It shows that your claim about demolishing all the structural columns of each floor in one fell swoop is not applicable.

Floor sagging has nothing to do with the progression of collpase. That was only part of the initiation of collpase. Try not to confuse the issues, jas.

Please explain how my math is based on unfounded assumptions. I assume that you will claim atht you have already done so. if that is the case, please provide links to where you have done so. Thank you.

jas wrote:

If you disagree with this, provide a step-by-step description of how this failure occurs through the subsequent levels, including what happens to the core strructure. And please decide which upper block model you're going to use. Thank you.

I have already provided a very clear description of the collapse here.

jas wrote:

Pants-of-dog wrote:

The upper block starts to fall,...The upper block hits the first floor, demolishing it and turning the structure of the first floor to rubble...

The rubble and then the upper block impact the next floor down, one closely following the other.... The cycle would continue...

on each floor is that the rubble mass under the upper block gets larger ...

Here is the relevant information from that description. I'm really, really tired of wasting my time with you, pants.

I asked for a step-by-step description of what happens following the collapse below the impact zone. Describe what happens. What happens to these floors. How do the beams fail. How does that affect the columns. What do the columns do. What happens to the core structure. What kind of timeline are we talking about when all this is going on. What upper block model are you using. What happens then on each subsequent floor. How do the columns fail again. And again. And again. And again. How much time does it take for each floor to fail. Please provide these details.

If you can't provide a plausible description of the theory you claim to defend, then what are you doing here?

It would be far easier of you could simply point to the part you feel is wrong, rather than have me carefully describe the model in minute detail.

If you cannot provide even an indication of what the problem is, then what are you criticisng here?

jas wrote:

I have already pointed out most of the parts I feel are wrong, numerous times throughout our previous threads. Then we get lost in a discussion of particular detail without actually seeing how it works in the bigger picture.

What I haven't seen is anyone who defends this theory describe it in a step-by-step story, so that we can see or visualize the mechanism of the floor collapses, how the beams fail, how the columns then fail, how that translates for each successive floor, the time it takes to do this, what happens to the core structure, what the properties are of the upper block of storeys -- and of course whether any of this accords with the visual evidence.

For example, in this post of the How Facts Backfire thread, I posted a simplified illustration of the Bazant/NIST hypothesis so that people could understand what the official story is now officially saying. What is missing there is all your detailed knowledge of how exactly the beams, as you insist, then the columns fail, and then how that translates down for each of the 80 or 90 successive floors in the time frame that we witnessed.

If you have any specific questions, I will help clarify the issue. However, I simply do not wish to explain the tiny details of building collapse over and over again.

jas wrote:

So, in the initial collapse, the floors supposedly sag due to heat from the fires that are smoking black and near which people are observed standing and waving out the holes of the building. This sagging from extreme heat that the people seem nevertheless able to withstand then supposedly pulls in the perimeter columns in the impact zone. What happens to the core structure? Start here, then you can take it from there. Thanks.

Please provide evidence of the bolded claim.

Yup, nailed it.  In words of one syllable.

The reason that you only get pants in this thread is that no one else has the patience to deal with you.

jas wrote:

So folks, defenders of the NIST theory, fans of Pants-of-dog, here is Pants describing his detailed collapse sequence for you. This is his opus, the sum total of all the details we've been hashing through in the past few weeks. The reason why he is demanding our time and attention.

When push comes to shove, this is the best he can do:

.....

You thought that was my best?

I thought my best was the math, because of how easy it is to defend. Math always make an elegant argument.

I also thought my various descriptions of different simple experiments were quite useful. I believe they clarified the different principles of physics quite clearly, if I do say so myself.

But now I'm feeling like you're flattering me, jas. Let's get back to the discussion, shall we?

Do you know if spray on nano-thermite has to be sprayed directly on the steel?

Because if it has to be sprayed directly on the steel, the people who set up the controlled demolition would have to remove the fire-proofing wherever they needed to spray.

Was there any evidence that anyone had tampered with the fire-proofing in the time preceding 9/11?

jas wrote:

Please provide a step-by-step description of the mechanics of the so-called progressive collapse, starting from the alleged perimeter column failure in the impact zone, describing what that does to the core structure mechanically, what happens to the beams and then the columns of the first floor, and then each floor thereafter, the times it takes for each floor, and the properties of the upper block. Thanks.

Are you asking me because you do not understand?

jas wrote:

No. I am asking because I have never seen a complete collapse description by you or NIST or Bazant or any of their supporters. I am asking because we have spent several weeks arguing over a lot of details, some pertinent, some irrelevant. I want to see if you can describe the mechanics of the floor failures and how this works for each successive floor, including what happens to the core structure throughout.

If you understood, you would be able to tell me what the problem is with the gravitational collapse (GC) model. You seem unable to do so.

The fact that you have never seen or read a complete description is not my problem, nor is it an argument against the GC model. I suggest starting with Wikipedia, then looking at the websites in the footnotes.

As for your wish that I describe, in minute detail, all the relevant mechanics of the floor failures for the entire duration of both collapses, I simply will not do so. I hope you understand why I do not wish to type such epic amounts of incredibly dry prose. Especially when the relevant information is already available on the internet.

One such example:

http://sydney.edu.au/engineering/civil/wtc.shtml

Further links.

double post.

Pants, I'm merely asking you flesh out this:

Quote:

The upper block starts to fall,...The upper block hits the first floor, demolishing it and turning the structure of the first floor to rubble... The rubble and then the upper block impact the next floor down, one closely following the other.... The cycle would continue... the rubble mass under the upper block gets larger ...

to include your beams vs. columns theory -- what happens mechanically to the beams, what then happens to the columns, how this affects the perimeter columns, what this does to the core structure, how long does this take -- for at least 15 floors, so we can get a sense of whether this is mechanically workable or not. I recognize your theory requires repetition for 80 or 90 floors. We need to see whether the repetition is viable through at least a significant portion of the buildings.

If you do, then we just need you guys to fill us in on what is happening mechanically between C and A, then B and A, then C and B, as it pertains to the column failures, and what that's doing to the core structure. Also, the physical properties of C both before and during collapse.