Monday, August 29, 2016

Jones & Company Beclown the Europhysics News

In terms of our usual metric, TTFLMO (time to first lie, mistake or omission) this one actually does pretty well; it is almost three paragraphs into the article.  Talking about why high-rise buildings usually do not collapse due to fires, they write:
2) Most high-rises have fire suppression systems (water sprinklers), which further prevent a fire from releasing sufficient energy to heat the steel to a critical failure state;
True enough as far as it goes, but it omits one critical detail: when WTC-2 (the South Tower) collapsed, it took the water mains with it, and thus there were no sprinklers running in WTC-1 and WTC-7 to prevent the fires from spreading.  As a practical matter, I suspect that the sprinklers in WTC-1 and WTC-2 were already not functioning after the plane impacts, but even if they were they would have been insufficient to put out the massive fires in those two buildings.

But after that, the errors and omissions abound.  Next paragraph:

3) Structural members are protected by fireproofing materials, which are designed to prevent them from reaching failure temperatures within specified time periods; and
Ignores the obvious, which is that the impact of the plane debris stripped away a good deal of the fireproofing.  This is the usual Truther nonsense of focusing solely on the fires and not considering the enormous energy released by the two 757s (correction: 767s) when they hit the two towers.

4) Steel-framed high-rises are designed to be highly redundant structural systems. Thus, if a localized failure occurs, it does not result in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.
Which ignores the unusual tube-in-tube design of the towers, which were not as capable of shifting the enormous loads they encountered on 9-11 as conventional skyscrapers.

The total collapse of WTC 7 at 5:20 PM on 9/11, shown in Fig. 2, is remarkable because it exemplified all the signature features of an implosion: The building dropped in absolute free fall for the first 2.25 seconds of its descent over a distance of 32 meters or eight stories [3]. Its transition from stasis to free fall was sudden, occurring in approximately one-half second. It fell symmetrically straight down. Its steel frame was almost entirely dismembered and deposited mostly inside the building’s footprint, while most of its concrete was pulverized into tiny particles. Finally, the collapse was rapid, occurring in less than seven seconds.
All the signature features of an implosion?  Sorry, Dr Jones, but I have watched quite a few controlled demolition implosions of buildings before and there were several missing from WTC-7's collapse on 9-11:

1. No deafening explosions of the shaped charges which (Jones admits) are usually used in controlled demolitions.

2. No prior removal of the glass and other materials which might impede the collapse (not to mention the belongings inside the buiding.

3. No miles of detonation cord as is commonly used to ensure the simultaneous (or nearly) loss of load-bearing supports to the building.

And of course, when it comes to the towers, the usual focus on why the NIST report didn't go past the moment that collapse became inevitable:

Whereas NIST did attempt to analyze and model the collapse of WTC 7, it did not do so in the case of the Twin Towers. In NIST’s own words, “The focus of the investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower....this sequence is referred to as the ‘probable collapsesequence,’ although it includes little analysis of the structural behaviour of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable.”[5]
Gee, I don't know, maybe it's because the collapse became, you know, inevitable?  After that, there are too many variables to really measure, but it doesn't really matter.

Thus, the definitive report on the collapse of the Twin Towers contains no analysis of why the lower sections failed to arrest or even slow the descent of the upper sections—which NIST acknowledges “came down essentially in free fall” [5-6]—nor does it explain the various other phenomena observed during the collapses. When a group of petitioners filed a formal Request for Correction asking NIST to perform such analysis, NIST replied thatit was “unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse” because “the computer models [were] not able to converge on a solution.”
 If NIST really acknowledges that the Twin Towers came down "essentially in free fall" then bad on them.  As for why the lower sections failed to arrest (they did slow) the descent of the upper floors, it is blindingly obvious: The floors were connected to the exterior and central columns of the building.  As the weight from above collapsed on each floor, it pulled in on the connections until they snapped on the exterior.  Very quickly the exterior portions of the building peeled away from the floors, leaving nothing to support them.  This is why you can see, in aerial photographs of the devastation, large sections of the exterior walls virtually intact.

The references section contains four footnotes from JONES, and one from the ridiculous Bentham paper.  I hope that there will be some vigorous pushback on this article from the magazine's subscribers.


At 29 August, 2016 13:09, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

At 29 August, 2016 13:10, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

"The building dropped in absolute free fall for the first 2.25 seconds of its descent over a distance of 32 meters or eight stories [3]. Its transition from stasis to free fall was sudden, occurring in approximately one-half second."

And of course the East Mechnical Penthouse is wholly ignored.

It fell symmetrically straight down.


-East Mechanical Penthouse

-Hit Fitterman Hall and the Verison Building

-Leaned north while collapsing.

"Its steel frame was almost entirely dismembered and deposited mostly inside the building’s footprint"

So? The Towers didn't and yet they still think it was magical explosives.

while most of its concrete was pulverized into tiny particles.

No evidnece to support this

Finally, the collapse was rapid, occurring in less than seven seconds.

Nope, try closer to 15 seconds. Again, ignoring the East Mechanical Penthouse.

At 30 August, 2016 16:16, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

At 30 August, 2016 16:17, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

It's also blatantly dishonest in claiming the 1st 2.25 seconds of its descent was free fall. That occurred midway they the north walls descent and as you mentioned, was well after much of the internal supports had already failed, as evidenced by the penthouse failure.

At 30 August, 2016 18:27, Blogger Ian said...

BTW, I love that Brian Good waited, waited, waited for the last thread to be closed before spamming it. I guess he was afraid I or we would humiliate him. Assuming he's not back in the mental hospital, he should show up here soon enough, as this post is crack for his brand of mental illness.

At 05 September, 2016 11:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

Pat, what evidence have you that the fires in the towers were "massive"? If they were so massive, how come only 3 of NIST's 236 steel samples showed heating above 480 F? NIST admitted that the jet fuel burned off in less than ten minutes.

The enormous energy of the airplane impact was dissipated within seconds. Dr. Thomas Eagar of MIT likened it to "a bullet hitting a tree."

Your litany of the things that have to be done before a controlled demolition is quite silly. It's like claiming you can't kill someone by pushing him off a cliff because executions require last rites, last meals, last miles, and lethal injections.

We have many times in these blog comment discussed NIST's statement in section 2.6.16 of NCSTAR-1 that the towers came down "essentially in free fall".

It is not sufficient to allege that a collapse was inevitable. An explanation is required. Death is inevitable too--but that does not relieve detective of the responsibility to determine how it happened. A report on the towers can hardly be considered "definitive" when it dodges the ten essential mysteries of the collapses and when it is claimed that the investigation did not analyze the collapses.

GMS, the fact that some flying debris hit Fetterman Hall does not change the fact that WTC7 fell straight down. If you bather to watch the videos you can see that the west wall and the east wall fall simultaneously and vertically. The video taken from the NW shows that WTC7 developed a southward tilt, not a northward tilt, at the last stage of its collapse.

Explosives are quite prosaic and perfectly capable of bringing a building down. There's no need that they be magical.

The close proximity of buildings adjacent to WTC7 necessitated that any demolition op be an implosion to avoid damaging the other buildings. It was a spectacular success.

If NIST expects us to believe that a massive interior collapse took place in WTC7 in the 7 seconds before the roofline began to descend, they need to explain 1) how such a collapse could proceed in absolute silence, and 2) why the exterior walls did not fold up as their computer models indicated they should and 3) they need to provide their thermal-expansion calculations for public scrutiny instead of pretending that these are a Natioonal Secutirty secret.

They also need to find another collapse initiation mechanism because their girder-walkoff theory required so much fudging of the input data to even appear to be plausible. They removed the shear studs, removed flange stiffener plates, and shrunk the size of the girder seat--all changes necessary to make their theory work. Failure to do any one of those changes to the structural system would have made their theory impossible.

Sham, it is hardly dishonest to express an educated opinion that the first 2.25 seconds of WTC7's collapse was in free fall. What's dishonest is for you to pretend that the collapse of the penthouse is the same as the collapse of the building. Any competent demo op would need to create the impression of an invisible interior collapse as a cover story for the otherwise inexplicable simultaneous failure of 83 columns to permit symmetrical collapse. The most foolproof way to create this impression was to cut the floor structure a couple stories under the east penthouse.

Lyin Ianinny, the reason I waited until the end of the posting period was because I wanted to prove my point that this forum is a ghost town because you and people like you have driven all the informed posters away.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home