Apologies to wrs - thanks for the help solving the WTC collapse !

[Halophyte]

Halo,

You seem to be arguing for ZERO RESISTANCE.

True?

No sir, absolutely not. It's a matter of increasing dead weight vs fixed load limits.

The ratio goes parabolic according too peer reviewed engineering study.

But static weight (dead load) limt of each floor is a constant.

Kinetic energy increases with velocity of mass.

The debris goes thru the floors of the towers like $hit thru a goose.



.

[gpond]

Paranioa will destroy ya'
Jingo. .

[Halophyte]

Jingo. .


Yeah, yeah, I know.

Tit for tat crap ...

But no peer review.

I'm sorry gpond, you did the peer review. I'm really, really trying. Keep an eye on me please.
.

[gpond]

No sir, absolutely not. It's a matter of increasing dead weight vs fixed load limits.

The ratio goes parabolic according too peer reviewed engineering study.

But static weight (dead load) limt of each floor is a constant.

Kinetic energy increases with velocity X mass.

.Jingoist physics.

I am shocked.

I asked about RESISTANCE.

Perhaps it is futile?

[PatColo]

@Patty


Here, try a peer review instead ... but I'm sure they are all apart of your CONspiracy too.


.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/SMALL_wtc-7_1_.gif
www.WTC7.net

well if that esteemed academician has been negligent in collecting his

MILLION BUCKS (http://reopen911.org/Contest.htm),

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/SMALL_wtc-7_1_.gif
www.WTC7.net

and if you agree with his/her work sure as youve pasted it for us all to review here,

it would seem more than obvious that you should sieze the opportunity to collect that

MILLION BUCKS (http://reopen911.org/Contest.htm)

for yourself.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/SMALL_wtc-7_1_.gif
www.WTC7.net

Am I right or wrong, Halo??

[Halophyte]

Originally Posted by Halophyte
Paranioa will destroy ya'


You quoted me. I'm trying to be nice.

Read the engineering study if you want a full-blown engineer.

I never claimed to be a structural engineer; my gig's applied engineering associates.


I'm not a bean counter either.



.

[gpond]

Yeah, yeah, I know.

Tit for tat crap ...
Tit for nothing...

The things you are saying are jingoistic crap. I'm not trying to be insulting although I realize that may be the natural result. Rather, I'm stating that what you are saying literally doesn't make any coherent sense whatsoever.

[Halophyte]

well if that esteemed academician has been negligent in collecting his

MILLION BUCKS (http://reopen911.org/Contest.htm),

and if you agree with his/her work sure as youve pasted it for us all to review here,

it would seem more than obvious that you should sieze the opportunity to collect that

MILLION BUCKS (http://reopen911.org/Contest.htm)

for yourself.

Am I right, or wrong, Halo??


CT artist have no intention to pay out any such reward.

It's just a shill technique to draw people to their web sites and buy their books.

That's my belief.


.

[Halophyte]

Tit for nothing...

The things you are saying are jingoistic crap. I'm not trying to be insulting although I realize that may be the natural result. Rather, I'm stating that what you are saying literally doesn't make any coherent sense whatsoever.



Go to an expert on the subject that has actually gone thru peer review.

Unless you have a hidden agenda I'm not aware of ...

Don't look for Griffin or Jones on the reader list.

Don't look for Griffin or Jones to critique it anytime soon either.





For those who may think no one has written a peer reviewed paper on the collapse of the towers here it is...

http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/

Walter P. Murphy Professor of
Civil Engineering and Materials Science
Northwestern University

The towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur?

http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

The version linked above, to appear in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics (ASCE), was revised and extended (with Yong Zhou on September 22 and additional appendices on September 28) since the original text of September 13, which was immediately posted at various civil engineering web sites, e.g. University of Illinios. It also has been or soon will be published in a number of other journals, including Archives of Applied Mechanics, Studi i Ricerche, and SIAM News:

Z. P. Bazant and Y. Zhou, "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?", Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics News, vol. 34, No. 8 (October, 2001).

That means it's not just a document, book, web site or calculation on a forum. It's had to pass critical review by other engineering Professors.

I know there are CT sites which attack this paper but not one person has yet to disprove it's hypothesis professionally. There are still people attacking the theory of evolution. Anyone can attack, not many can produce a paper to back it up. Just as there is no "Theory of intelligent design" except in christian web sites there are no alternatives to this paper other than in CT sites and books.

Below is the list of people who peer reviewed the only paper which passed the scrutiny of peer review regarding the WTC tragedy...

The paper... http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

http://www.pubs.asce.org/journals/edem.html

Editor:
Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder
corotis@colorado.edu

Editorial Board:
Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma
Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts
Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
Henri Gavin, Duke University
Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
Nicos Makris, University of Patras
Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact

Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact

Journal of Engineering Mechanics http://scitation.aip.org/emo/

[PatColo]

CT artist have no intention to pay out any such reward.

It's just a shill technique to draw people.....
That's my belief.




http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/SMALL_wtc-7_1_.gif
www.WTC7.net

Oh dear. Oh dear.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/SMALL_wtc-7_1_.gif
www.WTC7.net

You and I are finally of like minds on this point Halo.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/SMALL_wtc-7_1_.gif
www.WTC7.net

Aint nothing worse than a shill making offers, with

"no intention to pay out any such reward" (http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=28859).

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/SMALL_wtc-7_1_.gif
www.WTC7.net

:haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha:

[Halophyte]

Yes there is ... a book or documentary making claims without professional peer review.




PS; I don't pay out rewards to liars ...or fabricated claims.

[PatColo]

Yes there is ... a book or documentary making claims without professional peer review.




...................

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/SMALL_wtc-7_1_.gif
www.WTC7.net

@Halo,

Could you please remind the lurking masses why you don't put your Big League Engineering Skills (BS for short) to work in collecting your

MILLION BUCKS??? (http://reopen911.org/Contest.htm)

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/SMALL_wtc-7_1_.gif
www.WTC7.net

Let's imagine that your concern with channeling your valuable engineering time towards more industrious use as outlined above, is due to your concern that Walters/reopen911.org may welch on their proposal (a scenario we have some experience with around here! (http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=28859&highlight=silver)).

Let's imagine you're fixated on defending the Official 911 Conspiracy Theory (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0393326713/ref=cm_cr_dp_2_1/102-0246106-2288917?%5Fencoding=UTF8&customer-reviews.sort%5Fby=-SubmissionDate&n=283155) purely out of academic pride.

In this case, why don't you devote your labors to publicly critiquing such peer reviewed academic works as :

- Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse? (http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html)
by Steven E. Jones, Ph.D.

- The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True (http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html)
by David Ray Griffin, Ph.D.

- Thinking about "Conspiracy Theories": 9/11 and JFK (http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/fetzerexpandedx.htm)
by James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/SMALL_wtc-7_1_.gif
www.WTC7.net

And lastly Halo,

I've noticed that your thorough & exhaustive assessment of the reason(s) for the abrupt, symetrical, free-fall-speed collapse of the 47 story steel-framed HOUSE OF SPOOKS, AKA WTC-7, on 9/11 afternoon, perfectly agrees with the similarly thorough & exhaustive assessment of WTC-7's collapse by the Zelikow 9/11 Whitewash Commission Report. (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0393326713/ref=cm_cr_dp_2_1/102-0246106-2288917?%5Fencoding=UTF8&customer-reviews.sort%5Fby=-SubmissionDate&n=283155)

As we're all aware, the Zelilkow 9/11 Report duly gives taxpayers the fullest possible accounting of the events of 9/11. So the fact that your assessment of the strange collapse of the House Of Spooks (WTC-7) agrees so perfectly with the assessment of same by this utterly thorough, landmark/definitive gummit report on 9/11... is cause for kudos to you. :clap2: :clap2: :clap2:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/SMALL_wtc-7_1_.gif
www.WTC7.net

But I must ask:

Did YOU get YOUR WTC-7 assessment directly from the Zelikow Commission Report, or did THEY get THEIR WTC-7 assessment directly from YOU?? :adore: :adore: :adore:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/SMALL_wtc-7_1_.gif
www.WTC7.net

[gpond]

Jingoistic bullshit.

"Gee, it sounds plausible. But it's nothing but jingoistic bullshit. Go figure."

[gpond]

I never claimed to be a structural engineer; my gig's applied engineering associates.

Applied engineering associates jingoistic bullshit.

[Halophyte]

@PatColo

I take it that the study is a bit too much for your belief system.

I know it doesn't feel that good.

Just say no to CTs.

.

[Halophyte]

Applied engineering associates jingoistic bullshit.

Sorry if the facts upset your beliefs.

Kill the messenger ....


.

[Large Sarge]

Sorry if the facts upset your beliefs.

Kill the messenger ....


.

not the messenger, just his fallacious message...

THANKS AGAIN WRS

Nice to see objective science.....

[gpond]

Whatever other sand Halo tries to kick up to obfuscate the matter, his physics is dead wrong. It is nothing but jingoism. Words strung together that sound plausible. Faux erudite claptrap.

Sadly, I think that even he knows it.

Way to go, wrs.

[Halophyte]

not the messenger, just his fallacious message...

THANKS AGAIN WRS

Nice to see objective science.....


If you believe it's a "fallacious message" that is YOUR BELIEF ... not so for competent professional peer review.

With so much white noise out there, I'm going to make it a point that newbie's are allowed access to this information at GIM.

Be seeing ya' around Large one.


.

[Large Sarge]

If you believe it's a "fallacious message" that is YOUR BELIEF ... not so for competent professional peer review.

With so much white noise out there, I'm going to make it a point that newbie's are allowed access to this information at GIM.

Be seeing ya' around Large one.


.

Actually halo,

I think your time is limited on this endeavour...

After chatting with Dr. jones recently, and hearing some other items hitting the wires, I think the whole thing is about to blow "Wide Open"

So you keep pumping the official story....

And we all wonder why Newspaper subscriptions keep falling, as well as viewing of MSM news programs....

Like I said, the momentum is building, when people awaken to the truth, they often tell a friend or family member....

"Word of mouth" & the internet...

I honestly think you just like to argue, it is obvious you are no real engineer, so maybe you are just a crusty old man who likes to fight....

Whatever your reasons are, you are entitled to spew lies and misinformation here, I and many others suspect you know what the truth is about 9/11, so that makes your actions intentional.....

you intend to mislead others...

"Judas Goat"

[Halophyte]

(have wrs see formula below ... it's a bit over my head .... his too.)



For our purpose, we may assume that all the impact forces go into the columns and are distributed among them equally. Unlikely though such a distribution may be, it is nevertheless the most optimistic hypothesis to make because the resistance of the building to the impact is, for such a distribution, the highest. If the building is found to fail under a uniform distribution of the impact forces, it would fail under any other distribution. According to this hypothesis, one may estimate that C 71 GN/m (due to unavailability of precise data, an approximate design of column cross sections had to be carried out for this purpose).

The downward displacement from the initial equilibrium position to the point of maximum deflection of the lower part (considered to behave elastically) is h + (P/C) where P = maximum force applied by the upper part on the lower part and h = height of critical floor columns (= height of the initial fall of the upper part) 3.7 m. The energy dissipation, particularly that due to the inelastic deformation of columns during the initial drop of the upper part, may be neglected, i.e., the upper part may be assumed to move through distance h almost in a free fall (indeed, the energy dissipated in the columns during the fall is at most equal to 2πX the yield moment of columns, X the number of columns, which is found to be only about 12% of the gravitational potential energy release if the columns were cold, and much less than that at 800°C). So the loss of the gravitational potential energy of the upper part may be approximately equated to the strain energy of the lower part at maximum elastic deflection. This gives the equation mg[h + (P/C)] = P2/2C in which m = mass of the upper part (of North Tower) 58·106 kg, and g = gravity acceleration. The solution P = Pdyn yields the following elastically calculated overload ratio due to impact of the upper part:

[Halophyte]

where P0 = mg = design load capacity. In spite of the approximate nature of this analysis, it is obvious that the elastically calculated forces in columns caused by the vertical impact of the upper part must have exceeded the load capacity of the lower part by at least an order of magnitude.

Another estimate, which gives the initial overload ratio that exists only for a small fraction of a second at the moment of impact, is


(have wrs see formula below ... it's a bit over my head .... his too.)


where A = cross section area of building, Eef= cross section stiffness of all columns divided by A, ρ = specific mass of building per unit volume. This estimate is calculated from the elastic wave equation which yields the intensity of the step front of the downward pressure wave caused by the impact if the velocity of the upper part at the moment of impact on the critical floor is considered as the boundary condition (e.g., Bazant and Cedolin, Sec. 13.1). After the wave propagates to the ground, the former estimate is appropriate.

[gpond]

Where's the part about the flying monkees exerting downward pressure to allow the building to fall at free-fall speeds? LOL..

Argue with the hand.

[Halophyte]

I just want to see the GREAT and POWERFUL WRS crunch those numbers ....

.

[Halophyte]

Calculating the dissipation per column line of the framed tube as the plastic bending moment Mp of one column (Jirasek and Bazant 2002), times the combined rotation angle θi = 2π (Fig. 2b), and multiplying this by the number of columns, one concludes that the plastically dissipated energy Wp is, optimistically, of the order of 0.5 GN m (for lack of information, certain details such as the wall thickness of steel columns, were estimated by carrying out approximate design calculations for this building).

To attain the combined rotation angle Σθi = 2π of the plastic hinges on each column line, the upper part of the building must move down by the additional distance of one buckle, which is at least one floor below the floor where the collapse started. So the additional release of gravitational potential energy Wg ≥ mg · 2h 2 X 2:1 GN m = 4.2 GN m. To arrest the fall, the kinetic energy of the upper part, which is equal to the potential energy release for a fall through the height of at least two floors, would have to be absorbed by the plastic hinge rotations of one buckle, i.e., Wg=Wp would have to be less than 1. Rather,

[Halophyte]

if the energy dissipated by the columns of the critical heated floor is neglected. If the first buckle spans over n floors (3 to 10 seems likely), this ratio is about n times larger. So, even under by far the most optimistic assumptions, the plastic deformation can dissipate only a small part of the kinetic energy acquired by the upper part of building.

When the next buckle with its group of plastic hinges forms, the upper part has already traveled many floors down and has acquired a much higher kinetic energy; the percentage of the kinetic energy dissipated plastically is then of the order of 1%. The percentage continues to decrease further as the upper part moves down. If fracturing in the plastic hinges were considered, a still smaller (in fact much smaller) energy dissipation would be obtained. So the collapse of the tower must be an almost free fall. This conclusion is supported by the observation that the duration of the collapse of the tower, observed to be 9 s, was about the same as the duration of a free fall in a vacuum from the tower top (416 m above ground) to the top of the final heap of debris (about 25 m above ground), which is

[Halophyte]

It further follows that the brunt of vertical impact must have gone directly into the columns of the framed tube and the core and that any delay Δt of the front of collapse of the framed tube behind the front of collapsing (‘pancaking’) floors must have been negligible, or else the duration of the total collapse of the tower, 9 s + Δt, would have been significantly longer than 9 s. However, even for a short delay Δt, the floors should have acted like a piston running down through an empty tube, which helps to explain the smoke and debris that was seen being expelled laterally from the collapsing tower.

http://www.911-strike.com/BazantZhou.htm

.

[Halophyte]

The references to “plastic hinges” in the report above is proper terminology for Elastic/Inelastic Dynamic Analysis of structural failures. "Plastic" meaning; ductile properties of metal. More specifically. it means the hindge points of later/vertical fasteners. Post and column construction.


Ductile Design of Steel Structures (Hardcover)
by Michel Bruneau, Chia-Ming Uang, Andrew Whittaker

"In the context of structural engineering, a "ductile" material is one that is capable of undergoing large inelastic deformations without losing its strength..."


.

[gpond]

It further follows that the brunt of vertical impact must have gone directly into the columns of the framed tube and the core and that any delay Δt of the front of collapse of the framed tube behind the front of collapsing (‘pancaking’) floors must have been negligible, or else the duration of the total collapse of the tower, 9 s + Δt, would have been significantly longer than 9 s. However, even for a short delay Δt, the floors should have acted like a piston running down through an empty tube, which helps to explain the smoke and debris that was seen being expelled laterally from the collapsing tower.

http://www.911-strike.com/BazantZhou.htm

.I like this part, Halo. They are saying delta T must have been very small, otherwise the tower would have taken longer to fall. BWaaaahhh...

No fooling, duh. Enter the flying monkeys. :withstupi

[Merlin]

Whatever your reasons are, you are entitled to spew lies and misinformation here, I and many others suspect you know what the truth is about 9/11, so that makes your actions intentional.....

you intend to mislead others...

Given the incredibly evil nature of the crime, to intentionally misdirect others from the truth about 9/11 is evil in itself, IMO.