PDA

View Full Version : WTC Collapse Simulator - DEMOLITION PROOF.....

UNLoVedRebel
14th November 2008, 04:15 PM
Says the title of these videos that claim to debunk Dr. Greening.

(Embedding is a pain in the #@\$.)

These videos were hot among the YouTube Truthers, (YouTruthers) for a while, until the videos' author got suspended. She (yes it is a she) had her fellow YouTruthers upload her videos, and is currently available on different channels. The original author is back, posting under a sock puppet.

I am not trained in energetics, so I don't know exactly what she is trying to say (besides, of course, "proof" of explosives.) One of the now defunct videos was titled "Proof of no resistance" and yet you could clearly see the debris outpacing the rest of the structure.

If someone can explain how she has "debunked" Dr. Greening, it would be greatly appreciated. She posted her calculations here.

I am also about to release a paper detailing specifically why the paper released by Greening is a total distortion of the truth. The simulator allows the usage of values calculated by Greening, but rather than state a value, and then NOT use it, as Greening does, the simulator includes ALL the identified energy sinks.

The paper will include a full rebuttal and a calculation of the true values involved. To illustrate, here are a few values which will be addressed:

“As we have noted before, the energy required to crush all of the concrete in one tower to 60 (pm) particles = 3.2 * 10^11 J which is only slightly less than the 5 * 10^11 J of kinetic energy available”

PE (FEMA) = 4 * 10^11 = 400000000000
PE (greening) = 5 * 10^11 = 500000000000

PE (greening) = 10 ^ 12 = 1000000000000 (HE STATES THE AVAILABLE IN THE QUOTE ABOVE, THEN DOUBLES IT !!!)

Energy to break supports (greening) = 6.29 * 10 ^ 8 * 94 = 59126000000 (ignoring stage 2)
Energy to break supports (greening) = 1 * 10 ^ 11 = 100000000000

Energy to crush concrete (greening 60) = 2.9 * 1000000000 * 110 = 319000000000
Energy to crush concrete (greening 60) = 3.2 * 10^11 = 320000000000
Energy to crush concrete (greening 100) = 1.9 * 10^11 = 190000000000

These values are pointer for reference, but the value I want to highlight specifically here is this, from quoted values in the paper:

Greening states the AVAILABLE energy to crush concrete on first floor impact = 2.4 * 10^9

In subsequent statements he IGNORES the FACT that the 2.4 is the INITIAL value and decreases on each floor, even though he shows a calculation showing the decreased value for the next floor impact. (2.3)

Simply multiplying the value 2.4 for each floor = 2.4 * 10^9 * 94 = 225600000000

Assuming proportional reduction (1st floor = 2.4, 2nd floor = 2.3, we have…factor 0.958333… per floor) These are not the exact values, but I’m simply highlighting the fact that the available energy decreases and that it is not constant…the sim and paper include full and precise values, but are computationally expensive to show here in isolation.

94 2.4, 93 2.3, 92 2.2, 91 2.1, 90 2.0, 89 1.9, 88 1.86, 87 1.78, 86 1.71, 85 1.64, 84 1.57, 83 …., 80 1.21, 70 0.79, 60 0.52, 50 0.34, 40 0.22, 30 0.14, 20 0.095, 10 0.062, 5 0.05, 4 0.048, 3 0.046, 2 0.044, 1 0.042

total = 56.6 * 10^9 = 56600000000 J

To summarise:

320000000000 J (Energy used to crush concrete)
225600000000 J (Energy available if we IGNORE the FACT that the available energy decreases)
56600000000 J (Energy available by the method above)

By EITHER method, the energy required to crush the concrete is more than the available energy.

An over simplification, but I don’t want to spam this comment section. I’ll ensure the paper is made available to you when I complete it.

Look at Greenings paper in the meantime, and note the assumptions made, and also that values which have already been quantified are then not included in subsequent calculations.

Greenings Paper on WTC Energetics

Page 15

* The value E1 stated is Greenings calculation for the energy required to break the support structures, per floor = 0.6GJ

* The value stated for the energy to crush concrete to 60micron avg. per floor = 2.9GJ

* Elsewhere in the paper Greening cites a value for crushing concrete to a lesser extent, 100micron avg. per floor = 1.9GJ

Page 16

Greening shows a graph of Collapse Time against the value of E1, but IGNORES the value cited for crushing concrete, which OBVIOUSLY should be included.

Q: What is the collapse time from Greenings graph, if even the lower value for crushing concrete is included, as it should be ?

This means adding the concrete sink to E1…

E1 = 0.6 + 1.9 = 2.5

A: The value is off the scale of the graph.

The graph only goes up to 2.4 for very good reason.
If the value is 2.5, then by Greenings own calculation methods, collapse would fail at initiation due to insufficient energy being available.

Now I wonder WHY Greening decided to IGNORE the concrete crush energy sink in the value used to plot the graph ?

You can find the rest of her arguments here. (http://memosphere.wordpress.com/2007/09/18/the-911-fantasyreality-%e2%97%84%e2%96%baupdating%e2%97%84%e2%96%ba/)

jhunter1163
14th November 2008, 04:56 PM

ellindsey
14th November 2008, 05:14 PM
Is she assuming that all of the concrete on every floor had to be crushed in order for the collapse to continue? That seems clearly wrong, as the concrete wasn't doing much if anything to hold the building together - it was just there to give a flat floor surface for the building contents.

R.Mackey
14th November 2008, 05:21 PM
Bingo. Even Steven Jones has argued against this, for well over a year. This is a very old, very well debunked (http://www.911myths.com/html/pulverised_concrete.html) strawman.

Will the last one to leave the Truth Movement, please turn off the bubble machine (http://www.themadmusicarchive.com/song_details.aspx?SongID=11556)? Thank you.

mrbaracuda
14th November 2008, 11:01 PM
(Embedding is a pain in the #@\$.)

No it's not! (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4202223&postcount=6) :p

Travis
14th November 2008, 11:02 PM
So, by analogy, if my house is to collapse every single piece of lumber needs to be reduced to sawdust?

Somehow I don't think my house is that resilient.

Heiwa
14th November 2008, 11:57 PM
Quite interesting - assuming of course that the upper, red part, with its superstrong bottom floor is rigid and undestructible all the time and that perfect alignment between upper part and lower structure columns is maintained at every impact and that upper part lands on rubble (not included) afterwards.

Of course on videos of the real event we see complete sections of wall columns/spandrels being ejected sideways for which you require energy applied horizontally. But gravity is a vertical force.

And the upper part bottom floor is not superstrong. It fails to destroy the 'spire' of core columns that is seen.

In my world the upper part should just bounce once against the lower structure while local parts in contact fail and the the upper part would then get stuck up top.

mrbaracuda
15th November 2008, 12:09 AM
In my world

Well, fortuneately we aren't in yours.

Travis
15th November 2008, 12:25 AM
In my world the upper part should just bounce once against the lower structure while local parts in contact fail and the the upper part would then get stuck up top.

I suggest you start charging admission to "your" world because it sounds most entertaining in comparison to the "real" world.

GlennB
15th November 2008, 01:36 AM
Of course on videos of the real event we see complete sections of wall columns/spandrels being ejected sideways for which you require energy applied horizontally. But gravity is a vertical force.

Drop a pencil - inclined at some angle to the horizontal - onto the edge of your kitchen table. It will be "ejected sideways" with absolutely no energy being "applied horizontally" in any active sense.

A snowplough pushing snow off the road whilst driving straight along the road would be another example.

I think the concept is known as "vectors".

gumboot
15th November 2008, 01:48 AM
Of course on videos of the real event we see complete sections of wall columns/spandrels being ejected sideways for which you require energy applied horizontally. But gravity is a vertical force.

The first ever physics class I had, at the tender age of 10, was on levers. I guess you missed that basic class.

Heiwa
15th November 2008, 01:51 AM
I suggest you start charging admission to "your" world because it sounds most entertaining in comparison to the "real" world.

Well in fantasy world three strong steel structures (office towers) suddenly collapsed due to gravity only after being initiated by fire, which has never happened before and will never happen again. Luckily. So welcome to the real world. Admission is free. Tough times are comig up fast though, so be prepared. Soon many office towers will be empty as companies cannot afford to rent offices there and there will be no power to run the elevators and nobody wants to scale 50 floors in a stair case to go to the office. So what to do? Just start a fire up top and the whole tower collapses? Sorry, it does not work. But you can always try.

Heiwa
15th November 2008, 01:55 AM
Drop a pencil - inclined at some angle to the horizontal - onto the edge of your kitchen table. It will be "ejected sideways" with absolutely no energy being "applied horizontally" in any active sense.

A snowplough pushing snow off the road whilst driving straight along the road would be another example.

I think the concept is known as "vectors".

Yes, yes - that's the real world (the pencil bounces off the kitchen table! If the kitchen table is horizontal is remains on the table).

In fantasy world the pencil either destroys the kitchen table or punches a hole in it due to gravity only.

Toke
15th November 2008, 02:14 AM
Heiwa, boil some almonds and then squese them between your fingers.

Report back on wether they fly acros the room.

PixyMisa
15th November 2008, 02:41 AM
Yes, yes - that's the real world (the pencil bounces off the kitchen table! If the kitchen table is horizontal is remains on the table).
No.

HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP
15th November 2008, 03:00 AM
Heiwa, boil some almonds and then squese them between your fingers.

Report back on wether they fly acros the room.Or better yet, do a pizza box "experiment".

Heiwa
15th November 2008, 04:50 AM
Heiwa, boil some almonds and then squese them between your fingers.

Report back on wether they fly acros the room.

I didn't boil the almonds but applied a horizontal force on them as instructed and they moved (actually accelerated) sideways and I haven't seen them since. Yes, windows were open and there they went. Gravity could not do that. Boil the almonds, etc.

Heiwa
15th November 2008, 04:51 AM
Or better yet, do a pizza box "experiment".

Already done! Debunked Bazant & Greening 150%. But you remind me - time for lunch. No pizza today.

PixyMisa
15th November 2008, 06:09 AM
I didn't boil the almonds but applied a horizontal force on them as instructed and they moved (actually accelerated) sideways and I haven't seen them since. Yes, windows were open and there they went. Gravity could not do that. Boil the almonds, etc.
What were the force vectors involved?

Come on, you're an engineer or something, this should be child's play for you.

Heiwa
15th November 2008, 06:40 AM
What were the force vectors involved?

Come on, you're an engineer or something, this should be child's play for you.

The resulting force vector was horizontal = no gravity. I (or something) applied the force. Controlled Force Application; CFA (similar to CD).

It is amazing that some 911-liers suggest that gravity force vector works horizontally and pushes the walls of WTC1 sideways outwards 100+ meters!!

That only happens in fantasy world. In the real world gravity acts only vertically. Even Bazant agrees with that, but his world is just 1-D - a line down - crush down - and up - crush up. Nothing is ejected sideways. Actually Bazant suggests that the upper part and the ground are suddenly rigid and that the WTC1 structure between is just squeeezed like an almond that does not slip away (not possible in 1-D) but is chrushed down. By gravity alone. And when this crush down is terminated, the rigid ground rubble heap crush up the rigid upper part - by gravity. We are back into fantasyland.

Or did the WTC1 walls bounce on something - a slooping kitchen table? - and was ejected sideways. Or was it another force pushing sideways?

BTW - my lunch was pretty good.

Heiwa
15th November 2008, 07:00 AM
Drop a pencil - inclined at some angle to the horizontal - onto the edge of your kitchen table. It will be "ejected sideways" with absolutely no energy being "applied horizontally" in any active sense.

A snowplough pushing snow off the road whilst driving straight along the road would be another example.

I think the concept is known as "vectors".

Maybe I misunderstood your dropping an inlined pencil on a kitchen table edge. I thought the pen was parallell to the edge (one pencil end hitting the edge and a little later the rest of the pen contacting the edge) but maybe you meant it was perpendicular to it = one piece of the pen being outside the edge, the other inside on top of the table?

Well - certainly that part on the outside does not contact anything when it drops by the edge.

But some part of the pen will contact the edge - and if the pen is soft and the edge is strong (and friction is great), the pen breaks into two - it fractures! The upper pen part drops on the table and the lower pen part continues straight down.

No sideways ejection as far as I can see.

OK, let's assume that the pen is not so soft that it fractures but is elastic and just deforms like a spring at contact. Evidently the spring is compressed at contact and a little later decrompressed and bounces. As the spring is inclined the compression is both horizontal and vertical and the horizontal decompression pushes the pen outwards. Has nothing to do with gravity, though.

Lennart Hyland
15th November 2008, 08:30 AM
Well in fantasy world three strong steel structures (office towers) suddenly collapsed due to gravity only after being initiated by fire, which has never happened before and will never happen again. Luckily. So welcome to the real world. Admission is free. Tough times are comig up fast though, so be prepared. Soon many office towers will be empty as companies cannot afford to rent offices there and there will be no power to run the elevators and nobody wants to scale 50 floors in a stair case to go to the office. So what to do? Just start a fire up top and the whole tower collapses? Sorry, it does not work. But you can always try.

Did you miss the plane?

And please dont start to compare different buildings with the WTC. NO other tower in the whole world was designed as WTC. NO other tower in the whole world has been struck by a Boeing 767 and exposed to extreme fire.

rwguinn
15th November 2008, 08:36 AM
once again, the trolls reveal themselves to be one-trick ponies.
Goe awaie, lest the billy goats find thee!

Thunder
15th November 2008, 08:45 AM
Well in fantasy world three strong steel structures (office towers) suddenly collapsed due to gravity only after being initiated by fire, which has never happened before and will never happen again. .

i have a question for you and i would like an honest answer. why did you fail to mention the impact and damage caused by the plane? was it just a forgetful moment or are you actually trying to make it appear that only fire caused the towers to come down?

cant you argue your views without ignoring such incredibly important facts?

Toke
15th November 2008, 09:00 AM
In heiwas world it makes no difference if the upper part of the towers drop 3.7m or two miles before hitting.
In that context the damage from the planes is insignificant

Thunder
15th November 2008, 09:05 AM
do any truthers understand that if the top 40 floors fell, all together, 2 floors, that the floor that was impacted by the above floors was not built to handle such a load?

it was built to handle a static load....not 40 floors moving downwards. but we all know this.

Grizzly Bear
15th November 2008, 09:48 AM
In heiwas world it makes no difference if the upper part of the towers drop 3.7m or two miles before hitting.
In that context the damage from the planes is insignificant

Better yet if one floor could withstand the impact of 15-30 floors as Heiwa suggests, then how does Heiwa explain the planes plowing through them? Somehow Heiwa's claims remind me of the nutters that claim the planes should have bounced off the facade of the building on impact :boggled:

Thunder
15th November 2008, 09:53 AM
if one floor of the wtc can withstand the force of impact of 40 floors falling 2 levels...then i will become a no-planer. causes there is NO WAY the wtc would be hurt by a plane.

Heiwa
15th November 2008, 10:39 AM
i have a question for you and i would like an honest answer. why did you fail to mention the impact and damage caused by the plane? was it just a forgetful moment or are you actually trying to make it appear that only fire caused the towers to come down?

cant you argue your views without ignoring such incredibly important facts?

Evidently the WTC1 structure was also locally damaged when the fire started an hour earlier, but the structure did not collapse due to that. Later you could see two persons waving from the big hole in the wall, etc. You can see cut off wall columns, etc. All that is mentioned in my first paper at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm . There were just local failures of some structural parts and due to redundancy they were not serious. Topic is what happened later.

We are then told that the fire (in severel locations up top) weakened the remaining columns and that suddenly they all failed, virtually simultaneously.

This we do not see on any videos, but if it happened, the upper part above would of course displace downwards and contact the lower structure.

What I see on all the videos is that the upper part is destroyed - it implodes - before anything happens to the lower structure. The upper part is 95% air, so there is plenty of empty space for the solid structure to implode into.

But assuming that the upper part did not implode but displaced downwards, the failed columns in the fire zone would act as an effective damper; they bend due to heat, then plastic hinges develop and finally fractures develop while the columns crumble in the fire zone. It is like when two cars (or ships) collide.

Of course potential energy is released (vertically - gravity you know) but in my view all that energy would be absorbed by the lower structure acting as a spring or mattress. The upper part would only bounce against the lower structure while the lower structure deforms like a mattress!! There would have been further local failures due to this bounce - weak parts would fail in both upper part and lower structure at the contact points - but the primary structure would not. So I would expect the upper part to remain up top after this short drop - if it took place. All due to gravity.

That the drop was going to initiate a global collapse of 95 floors below is actually nonsense. The Bazant paper proves it. Bazant assumes that the upper part is rigid, super solid, with a superstrong bottom floor that crushes the 95 floors below that are weak and flexible. The ground is also rigid, superstrong. But the upper part is neither rigid nor supersolid and it has no superstrong bottom. It is all fantasy. It was as weak and flexible as the lower structure. Like a bale of cotton, actually! And you do not collapse a bale of cotton by dropping another bale of cotton on it.

I have actually seen plenty structural damages due to more solid loads being dropped on or pushed into structures. Marble blocks dropping from cranes into ship holds, whole cranes dropping down, ships having collided, etc. No global collapses follow. Just local failures.

Of course ignorant people believe steel tower structures collapse when something is dropped on them, but luckily that is not the case. This is the message in my papers. An honest effort to clarify matters.

Lennart Hyland
15th November 2008, 11:42 AM
Evidently the WTC1 structure was also locally damaged when the fire started an hour earlier, but the structure did not collapse due to that. Later you could see two persons waving from the big hole in the wall, etc. You can see cut off wall columns, etc. All that is mentioned in my first paper at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm . There were just local failures of some structural parts and due to redundancy they were not serious. Topic is what happened later.

We are then told that the fire (in severel locations up top) weakened the remaining columns and that suddenly they all failed, virtually simultaneously.

This we do not see on any videos, but if it happened, the upper part above would of course displace downwards and contact the lower structure.

What I see on all the videos is that the upper part is destroyed - it implodes - before anything happens to the lower structure. The upper part is 95% air, so there is plenty of empty space for the solid structure to implode into.

But assuming that the upper part did not implode but displaced downwards, the failed columns in the fire zone would act as an effective damper; they bend due to heat, then plastic hinges develop and finally fractures develop while the columns crumble in the fire zone. It is like when two cars (or ships) collide.

Of course potential energy is released (vertically - gravity you know) but in my view all that energy would be absorbed by the lower structure acting as a spring or mattress. The upper part would only bounce against the lower structure while the lower structure deforms like a mattress!! There would have been further local failures due to this bounce - weak parts would fail in both upper part and lower structure at the contact points - but the primary structure would not. So I would expect the upper part to remain up top after this short drop - if it took place. All due to gravity.

That the drop was going to initiate a global collapse of 95 floors below is actually nonsense. The Bazant paper proves it. Bazant assumes that the upper part is rigid, super solid, with a superstrong bottom floor that crushes the 95 floors below that are weak and flexible. The ground is also rigid, superstrong. But the upper part is neither rigid nor supersolid and it has no superstrong bottom. It is all fantasy. It was as weak and flexible as the lower structure. Like a bale of cotton, actually! And you do not collapse a bale of cotton by dropping another bale of cotton on it.

I have actually seen plenty structural damages due to more solid loads being dropped on or pushed into structures. Marble blocks dropping from cranes into ship holds, whole cranes dropping down, ships having collided, etc. No global collapses follow. Just local failures.

Of course ignorant people believe steel tower structures collapse when something is dropped on them, but luckily that is not the case. This is the message in my papers. An honest effort to clarify matters.

You cant compare ships to a building like the WTC. To bad you will never understand this.

As I understand (I'm no engineer) when structural parts such as columns gets destroyed their load that they were carrying gets transformed over to other columns. Sometimes that can get some nasty results as the new load to the other columns arent always even spread out.

I dont understand your point about all columns virtually simultaneously fail. Why cant some columns fail making it alot harder for the other columns to bear the weight (as I explained)? That doenst happen simultaneously.

Show me one single video where the upper block implodes and destroys itself.

Show me your calculations for that assumption and your energy calculations too.

You claiming to be an engineer but since day one on this forum you havent showed us, not a single one, evidence that support your ideas. Calculations, photos or well documented experiments isnt your thing right?

Your opponents on the other hand has done great in documenting their expriments, photos and calculations proving their theory. Its called the NIST report.

tanabear
15th November 2008, 02:51 PM
I dont understand your point about all columns virtually simultaneously fail. Why cant some columns fail making it alot harder for the other columns to bear the weight (as I explained)? That doenst happen simultaneously.

If the columns don't almost all fail simultaneously, then how can you get a 3.7 meter free-fall or near free fall of the upper block onto the lower block?

Show me one single video where the upper block implodes and destroys itself.

Point to the upper block in this picture:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_21186488fb64299d01.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13236)

Your opponents on the other hand has done great in documenting their expriments, photos and calculations proving their theory. Its called the NIST report.

NIST really hasn't proved anything in regards to the dynamics of the collapse. Their report is primarily a pre-collapse analysis. Please, show me the experiment NIST did that proved Bazant's "crush-down/crush-up" hypothesis.

Lennart Hyland
15th November 2008, 03:03 PM
If the columns don't almost all fail simultaneously, then how can you get a 3.7 meter free-fall or near free fall of the upper block onto the lower block?

No idea. Sorry I'm no engineer.

EDIT: Oh near free-fall I forgot about that. Well then probably did the columns fail almost simultaneously.

Point to the upper block in this picture:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_21186488fb64299d01.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13236)

The point Heiwa makes is that the upper block destroys itself before making damage to the lower tower.

Which clearly isnt the case:
http://www.waarheid911.nl/wtc2collapse.jpg

NIST really hasn't proved anything in regards to the dynamics of the collapse. Their report is primarily a pre-collapse analysis. Please, show me the experiment NIST did that proved Bazant's "crush-down/crush-up" hypothesis.

Well you are certainly right on that. I just wanted to make clear that why the WTC collapses are well documented and proven in their report.

Mangoose
15th November 2008, 03:17 PM
He takes no account of the concrete in the core.

What concrete core?

Toke
15th November 2008, 03:23 PM
Heiwas model of physics have friction and opposing force arrest a drop wether it is one floor or two miles.
I find that somewhat suspect.

beachnut
15th November 2008, 03:29 PM
Already done! Debunked Bazant & Greening 150%. But you remind me - time for lunch. No pizza today.

[truther math; caution-warning – using truther math can cause damage to equipment and personnel]
Debunked 150 percent. ???
[/truther math]

Got physics?

UNLoVedRebel
15th November 2008, 04:57 PM
If the columns don't almost all fail simultaneously, then how can you get a 3.7 meter free-fall or near free fall of the upper block onto the lower block?

This has already been explained to you. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3928523&postcount=497)

PixyMisa
15th November 2008, 05:22 PM
The resulting force vector was horizontal = no gravity. I (or something) applied the force.
What was the vector of the force you applied?

It is amazing that some 911-liers suggest that gravity force vector works horizontally and pushes the walls of WTC1 sideways outwards 100+ meters!!
A vertical force vector can result in horizontal movement. Every person on the planet sees this in action ever day.

Except you.

That only happens in fantasy world.
Try again.

What are the force vectors involved?

In the real world gravity acts only vertically.
The force of gravity is vertical. A vertical force can and very often does result in horizontal motion.

Even Bazant agrees with that, but his world is just 1-D - a line down - crush down - and up - crush up.
A lie.

Nothing is ejected sideways. Actually Bazant suggests that the upper part and the ground are suddenly rigid and that the WTC1 structure between is just squeeezed like an almond that does not slip away (not possible in 1-D) but is chrushed down.
A lie.

By gravity alone. And when this crush down is terminated, the rigid ground rubble heap crush up the rigid upper part - by gravity.
A lie.

We are back into fantasyland.
One of us is, yes.

Or did the WTC1 walls bounce on something - a slooping kitchen table?
Drop a pencil on a perfectly flat kitchen table. When it hits the table, it will move sideways. 100% of the time. It is not possible for you not to have observed this.

and was ejected sideways. Or was it another force pushing sideways?
You tell me. You're an engineer or something. What are the force vectors involved?

PixyMisa
15th November 2008, 05:26 PM
Maybe I misunderstood your dropping an inlined pencil on a kitchen table edge. I thought the pen was parallell to the edge (one pencil end hitting the edge and a little later the rest of the pen contacting the edge) but maybe you meant it was perpendicular to it = one piece of the pen being outside the edge, the other inside on top of the table?
The latter is correct.

Well - certainly that part on the outside does not contact anything when it drops by the edge.
Correct.

But some part of the pen will contact the edge - and if the pen is soft and the edge is strong (and friction is great), the pen breaks into two - it fractures! The upper pen part drops on the table and the lower pen part continues straight down.
No, that won't happen.

No sideways ejection as far as I can see.
You haven't tried it, have you?

OK, let's assume that the pen is not so soft that it fractures but is elastic and just deforms like a spring at contact. Evidently the spring is compressed at contact and a little later decrompressed and bounces. As the spring is inclined the compression is both horizontal and vertical and the horizontal decompression pushes the pen outwards. Has nothing to do with gravity, though.
What are the force vectors involved, Heiwa?

Yes. Is there any on the world where you live?

Zipster
15th November 2008, 07:53 PM
Did Heiwa just claim that if you drop a pencil on the edge of a desk that it will instantly shear apart when it hits?? Is he using candy pencils?

Wow, and it thought the whole bathroom scale fiasco was stupid...

Heiwa
15th November 2008, 11:12 PM
The force of gravity is vertical. A vertical force can and very often does result in horizontal motion.

Drop a pencil on a perfectly flat kitchen table. When it hits the table, it will move sideways. 100% of the time. It is not possible for you not to have observed this.

You tell me. You're an engineer or something. What are the force vectors involved?

I have just dropped a pencil on a perfectly flat kitchen table. The pencil, also horizontal, every time, bounces straight up. And it is not due to gravity! Gravity is a force acting vertically down - all the time.

A vertical force F down always produces vertical motion down. If the motion is in another direction, up or sideways, it is due to another force.

So if you think that big chunks of WTC1 walls are ejected horizontally out by gravity, you are simply wrong.

GlennB
15th November 2008, 11:53 PM
I have just dropped a pencil on a perfectly flat kitchen table. The pencil, also horizontal, every time, bounces straight up. And it is not due to gravity! Gravity is a force acting vertically down - all the time.

A vertical force F down always produces vertical motion down. If the motion is in another direction, up or sideways, it is due to another force.

So if you think that big chunks of WTC1 walls are ejected horizontally out by gravity, you are simply wrong.

The original point was that a pencil dropped at an angle on the edge of of table will move sideways. You have carefully ignored this.

But even if the pencil is dropped horizontally there will still be sideways movement if a greater length is overhanging the edge than is hitting the table. Try it.

The same applies to WTC. Components falling vertically will experience a degree of sideways movement when they collide with other components that are fixed horizontally.

leftysergeant
16th November 2008, 03:05 AM
The whole problem with femr2's and Heiwa's theories is that they assume that the only damage was done by one floor falling on another, in succession, and does not take into account the effect that the piling up of dbris has on the perimeter columns. Once mass is set in motion, it can be stopped only by meeting another moving mass or running into an unmoveable obstacle from which it cannot be diverted. The mass which contacts a floor may be slowed by that contact until enough mass arrived from above to break the floor. The arriving mass may, then, be travelling faster than the mass ahead of it. Since it is not all of a coherent piece, some of that mass will be deflected outward, thus applying pressure of the surfaces copntaining it.

Since, in this case, the containing surfaces were assembled in three storey segments, it is to be expected that the mass which has not come into contact with a given floor may already be exerting a force on the columns one or two floors below the topmost in tact floor.

The falling debris just basicly blew the towers open.

Bazant may be wrong in some aspects, but he is less wrong than all those who think of the collapse as a single, linear process with force applied in only one direction.

PixyMisa
16th November 2008, 03:19 AM
I have just dropped a pencil on a perfectly flat kitchen table. The pencil, also horizontal, every time, bounces straight up.
You are lying.

And it is not due to gravity!
Really?

Gravity is a force acting vertically down - all the time.
And?

A vertical force F down always produces vertical motion down. If the motion is in another direction, up or sideways, it is due to another force.
Yes. Which is why I am asking you to describe all the force vectors, not just one of them.

So if you think that big chunks of WTC1 walls are ejected horizontally out by gravity, you are simply wrong.
A vertical force can and very often does result in horizontal motion. Dropping a pencil on a table is just one of an infinite number of ways to demonstrate this.

Of course, if you lie about your results, you won't get very far.

Heiwa
16th November 2008, 10:22 AM
You are lying.

Really?

And?

Yes. Which is why I am asking you to describe all the force vectors, not just one of them.

A vertical force can and very often does result in horizontal motion. Dropping a pencil on a table is just one of an infinite number of ways to demonstrate this.

Of course, if you lie about your results, you won't get very far.

No, gravity does not cause lying. It is just a vertical downward force.

That a vertical downward gravity force F result in horizontal motion is not possible. There must be some other effects doing that. You agree?

Example: dropping a pencil that contacts a table edge may produce some effects. OK? But, none is caused by gravit! You agree? Probaly not??? But gravity just caused the dropping. You agree! Yes. The cause of the contact is that the table edge happened to be in the way of the drop - but gravity did not put the table edge there. You understand? No! OK, read above a couple ot times! Gravity does not put table edges under dropping pencils. Someone else does, but not gravity.

The contact with the table edge thus caused the other effects. The table edge has no idea that what contacted it was caused by gravity. It could have been you contacting it and you are not gravity.

So let's say the table edge caused horizontal motion. But not gravity.

BTW, Bazant assumes that the whatever, let's call it X, drops on the table edge and destroys the table edge (no energy required for that) and that X remains intact and continues to accelerate to destroy other table edges. No horizontal motions are caused by gravity in the Bazant 1-D fantasy world. When X has destroyed 100+ table edges, X suddenly contacts a rubble heap on ground and ground/rubble heap destroys X in a crush-up.

Here I should put some laughing dogs, if I knew how, but it is not really necessary. The Bazant theory is so stupid that only mad dogs (and silly Americans) believe it and I just feel sorry.

16th November 2008, 10:54 AM
Here I should put some laughing dogs, if I knew how, but it is not really necessary. The Bazant theory is so stupid that only mad dogs (and silly Americans) believe it and I just feel sorry.

So, 'silly Americans' are the only ones who believe it? Dude. The whole filppin' world believes it. YOU'RE the anomaly.

Lennart Hyland
16th November 2008, 11:01 AM
Heiwa:

Have you presented your "findings" to Bazant or NIST?

Sunstealer
16th November 2008, 11:44 AM
Ever tried to eat one of these Heiwa?

http://www.satterth.co.uk/graphics/bavarian.jpg

What happens to all the vanilla custard in the custard slice as you bite down? What happens to the custard if you just push the top part of the slice down with your hand?

A W Smith
16th November 2008, 11:50 AM
Heiwa:

Have you presented your "findings" to Bazant or NIST?

He lacks the confidence in his beliefs, Anders Bjorkman will never ever publish a real scientific paper outside of making comments on a forum or his own free personal web space. He knows he is wrong. We have proven he is wrong. Hes just a 60 something agenda driven flippant troll.

Grizzly Bear
16th November 2008, 11:53 AM
That a vertical downward gravity force F result in horizontal motion is not possible. There must be some other effects doing that. You agree?
You either don't care or you don't understand what you are being told. If you place a ball on a sloped surface gravity will produce a downward motion component and the sloped surface will produce a horizontal element to the motion. The result will be that the ball rolls down the slope with a horizontal motion vector. The concept is essentially the same for the pencil model with different dynamics.

So let's say the table edge caused horizontal motion. But not gravity.
Garbage... the interaction between the pencil and the table influences the way in which the pencil lands due to gravity. Stand the pencil vertically on the surface of the table and then release the pencil. The pencil will tip over, and fall on it's side. That alone should demonstrate that horizontal motion vectors happen in everyday practice. Without the need for math.

Here I should put some laughing dogs, if I knew how, but it is not really necessary.
No laughing dogs needed, you made more than just a fool out of yourself with your argumentation. The pleasure is all mine:

http://www.wtv-zone.com/caseman/3/ani/laughdog.gif

The Bazant theory is so stupid that only mad dogs (and silly Americans) believe it and I just feel sorry.
If you're going to antagonize an entire population for believing in sound engineering principals, at least get your demographics right. Not everyone on this forum is American, and political ideologies are worlds apart. Of course it's only natural that you'd could come up with silly ad hom tactics, I guess I shouldn't be too surprised.

Heiwa
16th November 2008, 12:53 PM
You either don't care or you don't understand what you are being told. If you place a ball on a sloped surface gravity will produce a downward motion component and the sloped surface will produce a horizontal element to the motion. The result will be that the ball rolls down the slope with a horizontal motion vector. The concept is essentially the same for the pencil model with different dynamics.

??? This is exactly what I say. Gravity produces downward motion (only) and the sloped surface a horizontal motion.
But there are no sloped surfaces in WTC1!
So what ejects big chunks of perimeter wall panels 100 meters horizontally?

The floors? There are no floors below the perimeter wall panels.

So get your vectors together when you look at the demolition of WTC1 and try to figure this out.

The beauty with gravity is that it only produces downward motion and - luckily - there is often something in the way stopping this downward motion. If not you and me would drop to the centre of the earth.

Silly Americans think that if you drop an upper part, flexible, light weight, mostly air, of WTC1 on the lower structure, the lower structure collapses in 100 000's+ pieces.

Well, it is not as simple as that, even if NWO criminals want you to believe that fantasy. It is even simpler; the upper part would just cause some local damage up top and remain there, because the lower structure is in the way. It will not collapse. It arrests the drop.

Read my paper at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm and you will understand.

Lennart Hyland
16th November 2008, 01:07 PM
I guess I'm still under ignore huh?

Grizzly Bear
16th November 2008, 02:56 PM
But there are no sloped surfaces in WTC1!
So what ejects big chunks of perimeter wall panels 100 meters horizontally?

There doesn't need to be... Think of a column as an elastic piece, when you compress it it bows, but it resists that flexing through its stiffness. If you apply a dynamic compressive force and then suddenly release it, the column 'snaps' for lack of better wording back into alignment... This is what causes some of the horizontal ejection, but of course it's not the only dynamic in the collapse.

If you don't understand the analogy I sat up for the column compression then think about a rubber band. The more you stretch it, the more potential energy you give it, and the farther it shoots when you release it...

If you still don't understand then perhaps someone has a better way to word this... but if that fails then I have no way of helping you...

PixyMisa
16th November 2008, 05:40 PM
No, gravity does not cause lying.
Then why are you lying?

It is just a vertical downward force.
And?

That a vertical downward gravity force F result in horizontal motion is not possible.
Wrong!

There must be some other effects doing that. You agree?
There must be something else involved, yes. But without the gravity, there would be no movement at all in these cases.

Example: dropping a pencil that contacts a table edge may produce some effects. OK?
Yes.

But, none is caused by gravit! You agree? Probaly not??? But gravity just caused the dropping. You agree! Yes. The cause of the contact is that the table edge happened to be in the way of the drop - but gravity did not put the table edge there. You understand? No! OK, read above a couple ot times! Gravity does not put table edges under dropping pencils. Someone else does, but not gravity.
How is any of that relevant to anything?

You drop the pencil on the table, or on the edge of the table, and you get sideways motion. Every time.

The contact with the table edge thus caused the other effects. The table edge has no idea that what contacted it was caused by gravity. It could have been you contacting it and you are not gravity.
So what? The reason the pencil fell and hit the table was gravity.

So let's say the table edge caused horizontal motion. But not gravity.
Try the experiment in zero gravity. Look - no horizontal motion.

BTW, Bazant assumes that the whatever, let's call it X, drops on the table edge and destroys the table edge (no energy required for that)
He doesn't assume anything of the sort.

and that X remains intact and continues to accelerate to destroy other table edges.
X need not remain intact.

No horizontal motions are caused by gravity in the Bazant 1-D fantasy world. When X has destroyed 100+ table edges, X suddenly contacts a rubble heap on ground and ground/rubble heap destroys X in a crush-up.
Wrong again.

Here I should put some laughing dogs, if I knew how, but it is not really necessary. The Bazant theory is so stupid that only mad dogs (and silly Americans) believe it and I just feel sorry.
So, all your ranting aside, you accept that gravity can result in horizontal motion?

PixyMisa
16th November 2008, 05:48 PM
??? This is exactly what I say. Gravity produces downward motion (only)
Wrong!

Gravity is a downwards force. It can produce motion in any direction, including upwards, depending on the situation.

and the sloped surface a horizontal motion.
Gravity acting on a ball on a sloped surface produces horizontal motion. A ball on a sloped surface in zero gravity does not move.

But there are no sloped surfaces in WTC1!
There were once the beams started to give way.

So what ejects big chunks of perimeter wall panels 100 meters horizontally?
Well, that didn't happen, as far as I know.

But the answer in general is boiled almonds.

The floors? There are no floors below the perimeter wall panels.
Irrelevant.

So get your vectors together when you look at the demolition of WTC1 and try to figure this out.
We have. It works.

Now, you try it.

The beauty with gravity is that it only produces downward motion
Wrong.

Silly Americans think that if you drop an upper part, flexible
It was not particularly flexible.

light weight
And it was not light weight, by any normal measure.

mostly air
Mostly air by volume. Irrelevant.

of WTC1 on the lower structure, the lower structure collapses in 100 000's+ pieces.
Indeed. And this is precisely what we saw happen.

Well, it is not as simple as that, even if NWO criminals want you to believe that fantasy. It is even simpler; the upper part would just cause some local damage up top and remain there, because the lower structure is in the way. It will not collapse. It arrests the drop.
Place a bowling ball on an empty matchbox. What happens, Heiwa?

Heiwa
17th November 2008, 12:07 AM
Think of a column as an elastic piece, when you compress it it bows, but it resists that flexing through its stiffness. If you apply a dynamic compressive force and then suddenly release it, the column 'snaps' for lack of better wording back into alignment... This is what causes some of the horizontal ejection, but of course it's not the only dynamic in the collapse.

I agree that if you load a vertical column it will both elastically compress/deform vertically and deform sideways/horizontally between supports. It acts like a spring. And if you remove the load, it springs back into its vertical shape. All described at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist1.htm#7 and the energy required for that.

If the load is bigger, plastic hinges will develop in the column between supports and fractures will start to develop at these hinges and cut through the column. It also required energy.

Sooner or later one, only one, fracture will cut through the column completely. The column is then in two pieces, evidently, and the load is no longer applied to the lower part ... that should spring back into vertical shape with a deformed top. The ends of both parts are plastically deformed/bent.

So what happens to the upper part? Well, no column supports it any longer so it ends up, somewhere else and not on top of the same column. One reason is that the upper part column has now displaced below the top surface of the lower part column.

So the bent ends of the two parts of the column will never meet again. The force vector of the upper part cannot be applied to the lower part.

However, according to Bazant & Co (fantasy world or NWO representatives) the upper part will, strangely, contact the lower part again ... and break it again ... 100 times or so!

In my analysis there is too little energy available to produce a fracture that will cut through the column in the first place and that is the reason why the destruction is arrested before that; only local failures, plastic hinges, would develop. And the whole upper part would remain up top.

It is quite simple to understand as soon as you get your vectors and energy calculations right.

So the destruction you see on all videos is not caused by release of potential energy. All that energy could not even fracture completely the columns.

So we are back to the big chunks of wall panel sections being ejected horizontally. If gravity did not assist in this, what did?

uruk
17th November 2008, 11:19 AM
So we are back to the big chunks of wall panel sections being ejected horizontally. If gravity did not assist in this, what did?

Grab a bundle of chopsticks and drop them straight down on a table with thier ends pointing down. Notice how the potential energy provided by gravity caused some of the chopsticks to collide with each other as they impacted on the table to fly outward horizontaly.

Heiwa
17th November 2008, 02:23 PM
Grab a bundle of chopsticks and drop them straight down on a table with thier ends pointing down. Notice how the potential energy provided by gravity caused some of the chopsticks to collide with each other as they impacted on the table to fly outward horizontaly.

Yes, yes. But it has nothing to do with gravity. It is the table that arrests the chop sticks and cause them to collide with each other. Gravity did not put the table there! Gravity did not cause the chopsticks to collide. The table did!

BUT, according Bazant, NIST, Greening, Seffen & Co the table should collapse if you drop rigid chopsticks on it. This is evidently fantasy world and you just confirmed it. The table evidently stops the chop sticks!

Gravity is actually a quite weak force. Cannot ever bring WTC1 down. Or eject big chunks of walls sideways out.

Thanks for your post. Pls join the truther movement, actually common sense people like myself using basic physics to explain things.

lapman
17th November 2008, 02:57 PM
Yes, yes. But it has nothing to do with gravity. It is the table that arrests the chop sticks and cause them to collide with each other. Gravity did not put the table there! Gravity did not cause the chopsticks to collide. The table did!

BUT, according Bazant, NIST, Greening, Seffen & Co the table should collapse if you drop rigid chopsticks on it. This is evidently fantasy world and you just confirmed it. The table evidently stops the chop sticks!

Gravity is actually a quite weak force. Cannot ever bring WTC1 down. Or eject big chunks of walls sideways out.

Thanks for your post. Pls join the truther movement, actually common sense people like myself using basic physics to explain things.
Now, make the combined weight of those chopstics 250 times the load capacity of the table and watch what happens. Drop them into the center of the table and watch what happens to the legs.

uruk
17th November 2008, 03:01 PM
Yes, yes. But it has nothing to do with gravity. It is the table that arrests the chop sticks and cause them to collide with each other. Gravity did not put the table there! Gravity did not cause the chopsticks to collide. The table did!
What energy does the table impart onto the chopsticks that was not initialy provided by the potential energy supplied by gravity?

Potential energy provides motion and momentum in a particular vector. When the the chopsticks impact on the table surface the downward momentum gets converted into momentum in a different vector depending on the orientation of the chopstick to the direction of impact on the table and the elasticity of the chopstick and table surface.

BUT, according Bazant, NIST, Greening, Seffen & Co the table should collapse if you drop rigid chopsticks on it. This is evidently fantasy world and you just confirmed it. The table evidently stops the chop sticks! That is because the table is a much more massive, durable and stable structure than the chopstick. Try dropping the bundle of chopsticks on a structure of other chopsticks and see what happens then.

Gravity is actually a quite weak force. Cannot ever bring WTC1 down. Or eject big chunks of walls sideways out. Gravity may be weak on the subatomic scale but it is much more powerfull on the macro scale. That is because gravity is constant and always in effect. Gravity is powerfull enough to keep the Earth in orbit around the Sun. It is powerfull enough to bend light and keep you from flying off into space when you take a good running jump. Sure you can easily overcome gravity whenever you lift something or jump, but you always come back down to earth because the energy in your jump is over come by the constant pull of gravity. Gravity is so powerful on the macroscale that it takes tons of fuel to accelerate the space shuttle into a low Earth orbit.

Gravity is also always accumulative. The greater the mass, great is the gravitational field, and greater is the effect of mass in motion in a gravitational field. Drop a feather and a bowling ball on a cardboard box (say a pizza box). Guess which one is going to flatten the box.

Why? Because of the greater mass of the bowling ball in the gravitational field.

Thanks for your post. Pls join the truther movement, actually common sense people like myself using basic physics to explain things. Unfortunately you don't seem to funderstand* physics where gravity, potential energy and momentum is concerned.

Gravity does not stop acting on an object after an initial impact especially when there is still potential energy due to its mass and position in a gravitational field.

* Wow, I created a new word by accident. "Funderstand" the joy of understanding.

Heiwa
18th November 2008, 01:29 AM
What energy does the table impart onto the chopsticks that was not initialy provided by the potential energy supplied by gravity?

Potential energy provides motion and momentum in a particular vector. When the the chopsticks impact on the table surface the downward momentum gets converted into momentum in a different vector depending on the orientation of the chopstick to the direction of impact on the table and the elasticity of the chopstick and table surface.

That is because the table is a much more massive, durable and stable structure than the chopstick. Try dropping the bundle of chopsticks on a structure of other chopsticks and see what happens then.

Gravity may be weak on the subatomic scale but it is much more powerfull on the macro scale. That is because gravity is constant and always in effect. Gravity is powerfull enough to keep the Earth in orbit around the Sun. It is powerfull enough to bend light and keep you from flying off into space when you take a good running jump. Sure you can easily overcome gravity whenever you lift something or jump, but you always come back down to earth because the energy in your jump is over come by the constant pull of gravity. Gravity is so powerful on the macroscale that it takes tons of fuel to accelerate the space shuttle into a low Earth orbit.

Gravity is also always accumulative. The greater the mass, great is the gravitational field, and greater is the effect of mass in motion in a gravitational field. Drop a feather and a bowling ball on a cardboard box (say a pizza box). Guess which one is going to flatten the box.

Why? Because of the greater mass of the bowling ball in the gravitational field.

Unfortunately you don't seem to funderstand* physics where gravity, potential energy and momentum is concerned.

Gravity does not stop acting on an object after an initial impact especially when there is still potential energy due to its mass and position in a gravitational field.

Yes, gravity is always present but nobody blames gravity when you drop something. Then you have to study both objects involved at contact and see what happens.

You cannot, like Bazant, Nist & Co, assume that the smaller object, the WTC1 upper part, is rigid while the bigger object is weak, etc. That is cheating from the start.

In this case the smaller object has exactly the same structure as the bigger object, i.e. an assembly of strong columns, weaker beams and thin concrete floor slabs. Not rigid at all!

And when the smaller object contacts the bigger objects there are serious local failures at points of contacts due to the high pressures developing there. The energy applied is transformed into all these failures ... and that's it. The worst that can happen is that the complete smaller object is destroyed while the bigger object is just partially damaged. Actually, it is the stronger parts of both objects, the columns, that will damage the weaker parts of both objects, beams and floor slabs, and after a while the weaker damaged parts get entangled into one another and friction between these parts starts to play its role.

All described in my papers that nobody has debunked so far.

To suggest that the smaller object (read assembly of parts) can completely destroy the bigger object is just fantasy and has nothig to do with physics or gravity.

It is interesting to note that Bazant, Nist & Co regard the smaller object not only as rigid but also as solid, with uniform density, inflexible, undestructible, etc, etc. It has nothing to do with reality.

Same thing with WTC7. Nist suggests that if you pour diesel oil in the basement and ignites it, the whole 47 storeys structure above suddenly collapses. Just fantasy; the diesel oil just burns on the floor (actually it is the gas of the diesel above the oil that burns) and most heat is just vented away with the smoke. Local heating of structure in the ceiling will be small and all parts will thermally expand and any local failures will be minor. The columns are spaced far apart and will not heat more than a couple of hundred degrees = no problem. Just ask NYFD and they will confirm it. Or do my experiment at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist1.htm#6 .

Please, come up with a better argument than that I have no idea about physics and structural engineering.

PixyMisa
18th November 2008, 02:17 AM
Yes, gravity is always present but nobody blames gravity when you drop something. Then you have to study both objects involved at contact and see what happens.
Without gravity, it would be impossible to drop anything. Open your hand and the object would just sit there.

You cannot, like Bazant, Nist & Co, assume that the smaller object, the WTC1 upper part, is rigid while the bigger object is weak, etc. That is cheating from the start.

In this case the smaller object has exactly the same structure as the bigger object, i.e. an assembly of strong columns, weaker beams and thin concrete floor slabs. Not rigid at all!But the mass is identical.

And when the smaller object contacts the bigger objects there are serious local failures at points of contacts due to the high pressures developing there.Yes.

The energy applied is transformed into all these failures ... and that's it.No.

The worst that can happen is that the complete smaller object is destroyed while the bigger object is just partially damaged.If that were true, no small object could ever break a large object. This is obviously absurd.

Actually, it is the stronger parts of both objects, the columns, that will damage the weaker parts of both objects, beams and floor slabs, and after a while the weaker damaged parts get entangled into one another and friction between these parts starts to play its role.It depends on how strong the structure is. If it's not strong enough to withstand these dynamic forces, it will collapse.

You can't just claim this doesn't happen, for then no building would ever collapse. You have to do the calculations. NIST did the calculations, and show how the collapse would happen.

ll described in my papers that nobody has debunked so far.But if your posts here are any indicator, I expect that you have thoroughly bunked them.

To suggest that the smaller object (read assembly of parts) can completely destroy the bigger object is just fantasy and has nothig to do with physics or gravity.I can build a house of cards, and then drop another card on it, and the whole thing will collapse.

It depends on the forces and the material strengths. Your blanket statements are fatuous.

It is interesting to note that Bazant, Nist & Co regard the smaller object not only as rigid but also as solid, with uniform density, inflexible, undestructible, etc, etc. It has nothing to do with reality.
Your statements have nothing to do with reality.

Same thing with WTC7. Nist suggests that if you pour diesel oil in the basement and ignites it, the whole 47 storeys structure above suddenly collapses.They say nothing of the sort.

Just fantasyFantasy, yes, but your fantasy.

the diesel oil just burns on the floor (actually it is the gas of the diesel above the oil that burns) and most heat is just vented away with the smoke. Local heating of structure in the ceiling will be small and all parts will thermally expand and any local failures will be minor. The columns are spaced far apart and will not heat more than a couple of hundred degrees = no problem. Just ask NYFD and they will confirm it. Or do my experiment at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist1.htm#6 .So to add to your claim that buildings can't fall down, you now claim that buildings can't catch fire?

At least the insurance rates must be low in your world.

Please, come up with a better argument than that I have no idea about physics and structural engineering.You have no idea about physics, structural engineering, or reality.

18th November 2008, 06:16 AM
Heiwa how many people who know what they are talking about need to tell you you are full of it before you at least start THINKING there may be something to what they say?

Forget about JREF. Perhaps a trip to a couple major university physics departments? I wonder what the consensus of physics professors would be toward your theory? Don't YOU wonder?

Heiwa
18th November 2008, 10:47 AM
PixyMisa - pls refer to my new thread - Heiwa's Match Box Experiment - for answers to any questions.

uruk
18th November 2008, 11:15 AM
Yes, gravity is always present but nobody blames gravity when you drop something. Then you have to study both objects involved at contact and see what happens. I'll repeat Pixy Mixa here. Without gravity the object will not fall. It is gravity that provides the energy to the interaction between the object and the floor when that object is dropped on the floor.

You cannot, like Bazant, Nist & Co, assume that the smaller object, the WTC1 upper part, is rigid while the bigger object is weak, etc. That is cheating from the start.I do not assume the upper section of the building is ridged as a structural whole. I am more concerned with the mass and momentum of the upper floors. Even if the structures of the upper section of the building were completely disarticulated the aggregate or combined mass of the upper section is still there and it is still in motion. This point will become clearer below with a picture I will attach

In this case the smaller object has exactly the same structure as the bigger object, i.e. an assembly of strong columns, weaker beams and thin concrete floor slabs. Not rigid at all! But the individual parts of the structure will still contain some ridgitiy as in the columns. I will explain more toward the end of this post.

And when the smaller object contacts the bigger objects there are serious local failures at points of contacts due to the high pressures developing there. The energy applied is transformed into all these failures ... and that's it. No, that is not quite it. You are assuming that all of the energy is being expended at one time by the failures. You are forgetting that gravity is still appling potential energy to all the parts that have undergone structural failure and those parts will go on to impact and cause damage to other structures.

If the part has failed to the point that it has become disarticulated or disconnected from its support structure it is free to move. Gravity will continue to pull the newly freed object downward to impact the structures below it. And remember that the debris that damaged that newly freed structure is also still in motion. It still has momentum/potential energy due to it's position in a gravitational field in refrence to the ground.

The worst that can happen is that the complete smaller object is destroyed while the bigger object is just partially damaged. No, the worst that can happen is a cascade failure as the smaller object cause parts of the larger structure to disarticulate and impact further structures farther on down which causes them to become disarticulate also and so on and so on.

Its like knocking over bowling pins but verticaly. You knock over the single pin at tha apex of the arrangment and it falls and knocks over two pins and those two pins each knock over two other pins and so forth untill all the pins are knocked down. And all this from just pushing over one single pin. Knocking down dominoes is another example.

Actually, it is the stronger parts of both objects, the columns, that will damage the weaker parts of both objects, beams and floor slabs, and after a while the weaker damaged parts get entangled into one another and friction between these parts starts to play its role. Agreed. It is the columns that have become the most damaging projectiles in the structure. They would act like the shot in a shot gun cartridge.

Again you are forgeting about gravity/potential energy and the nature of the structures and the failures. All the columns do not fall and impact at the same time so alot of the energy and damage will be spread out and accumulate over time. A structure may be able to with stand a single column impact, but it may not hold up to the impacts of the other columns in the upper parts of the upper structure as it falls or moves into the structure below it..

To suggest that the smaller object (read assembly of parts) can completely destroy the bigger object is just fantasy and has nothig to do with physics or gravity. Wrong, it has everything to do with physics and in this case gravity. There is such a thing as cascade failure, or rather catastrophic failure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophic_failure

It is interesting to note that Bazant, Nist & Co regard the smaller object not only as rigid but also as solid, with uniform density, inflexible, undestructible, etc, etc. It has nothing to do with reality. More than likely not, but think it had more to do with simplification and explination rather than analysis.

Same thing with WTC7. Nist suggests that if you pour diesel oil in the basement and ignites it, the whole 47 storeys structure above suddenly collapses. Just fantasy; the diesel oil just burns on the floor (actually it is the gas of the diesel above the oil that burns) and most heat is just vented away with the smoke. Local heating of structure in the ceiling will be small and all parts will thermally expand and any local failures will be minor. The columns are spaced far apart and will not heat more than a couple of hundred degrees = no problem. Just ask NYFD and they will confirm it. Or do my experiment at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist1.htm#6 . If I am not mistaken, I think that NIST found that the the collapse of WTC 7 was more due to key structural damage by falling debris from WTC 1 or 2 than the diesel fire. I could be wrong though. I haven't finished reading it.

Anyhoos there is acouple of problem with your assesment. The fire is in an enclosed space. thermal effects will be greater than in a open area. Since the area is enclose the smoke will make contact with more surfaces and transfer it heat to those structures on it way out of the enclosed structure.
Also if the fire is spread over a large surface area more structures will be affected. Heat expansion will cause deformation and displacement. And heat will cause steel to loose some of it's strength. Steel does not have to melt to fail.

Please, come up with a better argument than that I have no idea about physics and structural engineering.
Well, you certainly seem to be overlooking quite a few aspects of the physics of the collapse.

Here is something I wanted to point out. Take a look at athe picture below (or above) notice the building that I circled. Notice the massive holes in the building. Those were made by not by the entire upper structure of the WTC but by the debris that fell on it. Notice how the roof stuctures were knocked loose and impacted the structures below along with the debris that knocked the roof structures in the first place.
Did the debris that struck and knock down the roof section expend all of its energy hitting and damaging the roof? or did gravity also cause that initial debris to also fall into the structurs below?

So how much mass impacted the structures below the roof? Just the roof structures or the roof + initial impacting debris?

Also think about what would have happened to the building if there were a falling debris field that covered the entire area of the building. Probably be considerably less of the structure still standing if any at all.

Now Think about when the upper section of the WTC started to fall into the structures below. It looks to me like it coverd the entire area of the floor below?

When all that moving debris impacted on the floor below would there not be more than sufficient energy to completly disarticulate the structures of that floor? would all that newly disarticulated debris now then impact the floor below along with all the mass of the upper structure that initially started to fall?

I hope you are begining to see my point.

Grizzly Bear
18th November 2008, 08:41 PM
In this case the smaller object has exactly the same structure as the bigger object, i.e. an assembly of strong columns, weaker beams and thin concrete floor slabs. Not rigid at all!

And when the smaller object contacts the bigger objects there are serious local failures at points of contacts due to the high pressures developing there. The energy applied is transformed into all these failures ... and that's it. The worst that can happen is that the complete smaller object is destroyed while the bigger object is just partially damaged...

<snip>

To suggest that the smaller object (read assembly of parts) can completely destroy the bigger object is just fantasy and has nothig to do with physics or gravity.

So then, what is your opinion regarding any occurrence of progressive collapse (http://www.aisc.org/Content/ContentGroups/Documents/freePubs/Blast_Symposium_Proceedings.pdf)?

Given that a progressive collapse is classified as a "the collapse of all or a large part of a structure precipitated by damage or failure of a relatively small part of it", shouldn't this be rendered impossible by your interpretation: "The worst that can happen is that the complete smaller object is destroyed while the bigger object is just partially damaged..."

???

1337m4n
18th November 2008, 08:48 PM
Heiwa, why have you not commented on MY pizza box experiment? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=128001)

PixyMisa
18th November 2008, 09:59 PM
Heiwa:

Why Buildings Stand Up (http://www.amazon.com/Why-Buildings-Stand-Up-Architecture/dp/0393306763)
Why Buildings Fall Down (http://www.amazon.com/Why-Buildings-Fall-Down-Structures/dp/039331152X)

Classics, and so clearly written that even an engineer can understand them.

Heiwa
19th November 2008, 12:03 AM
It seems that there is confusion between drop and contact.

An object drops due to gravity. But it doesn't contact another object due to gravity! It contacts the other object as it happens to be in the way.

It seems also my previous experiments (Pizza Boxes, Bathroom Scale) are too difficult to execute for JREF posters and that, regardless, many persons do not understand the objective of the experiments and the results, i.e. that a smaller object dropping on a bigger object (both objects have same structure, unit weights, etc) will not destroy the bigger object.

All you need is 11 match boxes of exactly the same type (structure, unit weight, etc). Pls don't play with the matches. Keep them inside the boxes.

Start of experiment

You put 10 match boxes and put them on top of one another on a table. That is the bigger object/lower structure - quite similar to WTC1, actually.

Execution of experiment

Now, drop the 11th match box on this bigger object. The 11th match box is the upper part of WTC1 allegedly dropping down. You can chose the height of drop; the height of a match box, or whatever. Gravity will take care of the drop. The bigger object will take care of the contact as it is in the way!

Result

What is the result? Does the 11th match box destroy, one after the other, the 10 match boxes constituting the bigger object/lower structure in a 'global collapse'?

Evidently not! I hope everybody agrees!

Analysis

So why doesn't the 11th match box destroy the 10 boxes below.

Aha, lack of energy! Lack of speed?

And that's what should have happened to WTC1 on 9/11 IF the upper part actually dropped, which it didn't as no drop is seen on any video.

Conclusion

A smaller object cannot destroy a bigger object when dropping on it, when both objects have same structure and unit weight.

Explain why the 11th match box cannot destroy the 10 boxes below using simple language and correct assumptions and proper physics.

PS

Do not assume that the 11th match box is rigid and has the mass of a bowling ball. The 11th match box is not rigid and has the mass 1/10th of the lower object.

Good luck!

Anybody that can prove that the 11th match box can destroy the 10 other boxes only with assistance of gravity in a global collapse will get a prize!

dtugg
19th November 2008, 12:18 AM
Heiwa, congratulations, you have come up with three of the stupidest experiments in the history of the twoof movement. I won't bother explaining why the latest one is stupid since you are oblivious to physics, logic, and reality. But rest assured, it is very stupid.

Heiwa
19th November 2008, 12:22 AM
So then, what is your opinion regarding any occurrence of progressive collapse (http://www.aisc.org/Content/ContentGroups/Documents/freePubs/Blast_Symposium_Proceedings.pdf)?

Given that a progressive collapse is classified as a "the collapse of all or a large part of a structure precipitated by damage or failure of a relatively small part of it", shouldn't this be rendered impossible by your interpretation: "The worst that can happen is that the complete smaller object is destroyed while the bigger object is just partially damaged..."

???

I have nothing against the definition of progressive collapse. My point is that most local failures for any reason do not lead to progressive collapse but rather to collapse arrest! Collapse arrest occurs when the destruction runs out of energy and a new equilibrium of the structure is established.

I have proposed to NIST to do that analysis - collapse arrest - as it is quite simple! Just identify the local failures and calculate the energies required to cause them and what energy is available. When the energy available cannot produce more local failures, the destruction is evidently arrested.

We can establish the available energy. Say it is 1.2 GJ (33 000 tons dropping 3.7 meters at g = 9.82 m/s², which is unlikely). It may sound a lot but is not enough to deform elastically and plastically and then fracture completely 280+ columns once! You simply need more energy for that.

And not to talk about shearing off complete chunks of wall column sections and ejecting them sideways in four directions (north, south, east,west). Gravity cannot produce that energy and the structure being contacted cannot produce the reaction forces required to push those chunks sideways.

So the question remains! Where did the energy come from?

Heiwa
19th November 2008, 12:27 AM
Heiwa, congratulations, you have come up with three of the stupidest experiments in the history of the twoof movement. I won't bother explaining why the latest one is stupid since you are oblivious to physics, logic, and reality. But rest assured, it is very stupid.

Thanks! So? If it is stupid, why not bother explaining? Too difficult? Or you can't? You'll get a prize if you can show by calculation and/or experiment that the 11th match box can destroy a tower of 10 similar boxes!

Curious to know what the prize is?

dtugg
19th November 2008, 12:41 AM
Thanks! So? If it is stupid, why not bother explaining? Too difficult? Or you can't? You'll get a prize if you can show by calculation and/or experiment that the 11th match box can destroy a tower of 10 similar boxes!

Curious to know what the prize is?

Of course the 11th box will not destroy the other 10 boxes. That is not the point. Your stupid matchbox tower in no way models the Twin Towers. It really is no different than your pizza box tower. You have been given explanations why that doesn't work and refuse to listen so I won't bother with this one.

I think you may be an elaborate troll pulling our legs. I don't know how anybody who claims to be an engineer could be so divorced from reality.

Heiwa
19th November 2008, 03:06 AM
Of course the 11th box will not destroy the other 10 boxes. That is not the point. Your stupid matchbox tower in no way models the Twin Towers. It really is no different than your pizza box tower. You have been given explanations why that doesn't work and refuse to listen so I won't bother with this one.

I think you may be an elaborate troll pulling our legs. I don't know how anybody who claims to be an engineer could be so divorced from reality.

Sorry, my 10+1 match boxes model the WTC1 + loose top part. Scale 1/1000? Reason why the loose box does not crush-down the 10 boxes is that it bounces on them. Same thing should have happened at WTC1 (if the top part dropped). Not so difficult to grasp. I am amazed that ASCE and NIST do not realize THAT! It terrorizes me.

dtugg
19th November 2008, 03:15 AM
Sorry, my 10+1 match boxes model the WTC1 + loose top part. Scale 1/1000? Reason why the loose box does not crush-down the 10 boxes is that it bounces on them. Same thing should have happened at WTC1 (if the top part dropped). Not so difficult to grasp. I am amazed that ASCE and NIST do not realize THAT! It terrorizes me.

Since you are so sure that you have debunked NIST, ASCE, Bazant, et al, why don't you write a paper complete with your experiments and submit them to some engineering journal. You could be the twoofer that finally blows the lid off the whole thing.

PixyMisa
19th November 2008, 03:39 AM
Sorry, my 10+1 match boxes model the WTC1 + loose top part. Scale 1/1000? Reason why the loose box does not crush-down the 10 boxes is that it bounces on them. Same thing should have happened at WTC1 (if the top part dropped). Not so difficult to grasp. I am amazed that ASCE and NIST do not realize THAT! It terrorizes me.
Scale changes everything.

Matchboxes - if you scale things naively - are much stronger than office buildings. Make the matchboxes out of paper-thin crystal and try it again. Tinkle, tinkle. (I once dropped a lightbulb on one of those glass dome light fittings and broke the glass dome.)

On Being the Right Size (http://irl.cs.ucla.edu/papers/right-size.html) explains it all. In language so simple, even an engineer can understand.

(Also explains why communism doesn't work, so it's a twofer.)

PixyMisa
19th November 2008, 03:44 AM
A smaller object cannot destroy a bigger object when dropping on it, when both objects have same structure and unit weight.
Epic fail.

Make a stack of 10 expensive crystal champagne flutes. Drop an 11th champagne flute on top. Sweep up the mess.

dtugg
19th November 2008, 03:51 AM
I just crashed two matchbox cars together as hard as I can. They weren't destroyed. I guess I just proved that all car accidents are really an inside job.

PixyMisa
19th November 2008, 04:25 AM
I dropped a Lego person from more than ten times his own height and he wasn't smashed to pieces. Therefore I can jump off a building without any risk of injury.

lee5
19th November 2008, 04:34 AM
Conclusion

A smaller object cannot destroy a bigger object when dropping on it, when both objects have same structure and unit weight.

<facepalm>

It is not a "smaller object" but rather multiple stories falling onto ONE story. Said story can not hold the stories above resulting in collapse. This process repeats until there are no more stories.

Get it? (probably not)

Heiwa
19th November 2008, 05:02 AM
Since you are so sure that you have debunked NIST, ASCE, Bazant, et al, why don't you write a paper complete with your experiments and submit them to some engineering journal. You could be the twoofer that finally blows the lid off the whole thing.

Thanks for the advice. But why not tell the real media?

Heiwa
19th November 2008, 05:05 AM
Scale changes everything.

Matchboxes - if you scale things naively - are much stronger than office buildings.

Sure? According Bazant the upper part (full scale) is (assumed) rigid! How do you scale that?

Heiwa
19th November 2008, 05:14 AM
It is not a "smaller object" but rather multiple stories falling onto ONE story. Said story can not hold the stories above resulting in collapse. This process repeats until there are no more stories.

Get it? (probably not)

So the 'smaller object' is now falling onto an even smaller object - ONE storey only?

OK, we will amend the experiment. The TEN match boxes remain as lower part. OK? And now we drop TWO match boxes on it. The TWO match boxes contact the ONE match box on top of the other NINE. TWO > ONE. Does TWO (boxes) collapse ONE (box)? And then TWO, THREE ... TEN (boxes)?

Sorry, you are on the wrong tack. No prize for you. Try again. Use physics!

dtugg
19th November 2008, 05:14 AM
Thanks for the advice. But why not tell the real media?

Good idea. I think that you should tell every major media outlet in the world about your experiments debunking NIST, Bazant, et al. Let us know how that works out for you.

Heiwa
19th November 2008, 05:15 AM
I dropped a Lego person from more than ten times his own height and he wasn't smashed to pieces. Therefore I can jump off a building without any risk of injury.

Of course you can! If you are a Lego person.

Heiwa
19th November 2008, 05:20 AM
Epic fail.

Make a stack of 10 expensive crystal champagne flutes. Drop an 11th champagne flute on top. Sweep up the mess.

This is a good experiment! But only two flutes will get damaged ... or just one! Guess which one!

Pls use inexpensive flutes to save cost! Spend the money on the champagne.

PS to Moderator. This is not PR for French champagne but there is no other as PixyMisa probably (doesn't) know.

240-185
19th November 2008, 05:22 AM
Now, drop the 11th match box on this bigger object. The 11th match box is the upper part of WTC1 allegedly dropping down. You can chose the height of drop; the height of a match box, or whatever. Gravity will take care of the drop. The bigger object will take care of the contact as it is in the way!

This experiment has already been done. By Richard Gage and his famous cardboard boxes.

Learn how the twin towers were built. Learn that there were steel trusses in the Twin Towers, which is a fact you deliberately ignore.

Your representations of the Twin Towers are WRONG and you don't have the mental abilities to see that. I can't believe you have reached such a high level of stupidity with your matchboxes.

But LEARN or SUBMIT YOUR FREAKING EXPERIMENTS TOWARDS STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS.

This is a good experiment! But only two flutes will get damaged ... or just one! Guess which one!
Have you ever celebrated a marriage?

[facepalm]

Heiwa
19th November 2008, 05:31 AM
This experiment has already been done. By Richard Gage and his famous cardboard boxes.

Learn how the twin towers were built. Learn that there were steel trusses in the Twin Towers, which is a fact you deliberately ignore.

Your representations of the Twin Towers are WRONG and you don't have the mental abilities to see that. I can't believe you have reached such a high level of stupidity with your matchboxes.

But LEARN or SUBMIT YOUR FREAKING EXPERIMENTS TOWARDS STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS.

Steel trusses in the WTCs? You mean the roof/antenna supports? Did they cause the global collapse?

My experiments are only made to visulize simple physics. Apply the knowledge and you will understand that WTC1 top part cannot cause global collapse.

dtugg
19th November 2008, 05:48 AM
Heiwa, I expect to be hearing on the news about how some Swedish guy proved that 9/11 was an inside job by using matchboxes, pizza boxes, and a bathroom scale.

19th November 2008, 06:34 AM
Heiwa, I expect to be hearing on the news about how some Swedish guy proved that 9/11 was an inside job by using matchboxes, pizza boxes, and a bathroom scale.

That would be a sign of the apocalypse.

240-185
19th November 2008, 06:37 AM
My experiments are only made to visulize simple physics.
No, you aren't using "simple" physics, you're *oversimplifying* physics. Extreme summarizing is not making things easier to understand.
Your analogies are like comparing a nuclear power plant with electrodes planted in lemons...

Steel trusses in the WTCs? You mean the roof/antenna supports? Did they cause the global collapse?

Cuddles
19th November 2008, 08:01 AM
And that's what should have happened to WTC1 on 9/11 IF the upper part actually dropped, which it didn't as no drop is seen on any video.

No drop was seen? What, are you now claiming that WTC1 is actually still there?

In any case, I just thought I'd let everyone know that I have an updated, even more accurate version of this experiment. As in Heiwa's experiment I used a stack of 10 matchboxes and drop an 11th on to it. However, as we all know there were fires in the WTC, so I threw some kerosene on the stack first, set fire to it and then dropped the 11th matchbox. As far as I can tell, this proves that 9/11 was an inside job because there was more than a small pile of ash left at ground zero.

Edit: Important Safety Notice! Try this at home. Fire is perfectly safe and fun to play with, and nothing could possibly go wrong when using kerosene and matches in an unsupervised, uncontrolled manner.

Heiwa
19th November 2008, 10:13 AM
No drop was seen? What, are you now claiming that WTC1 is actually still there?

No, if you read carefully the drop refers to the 10% upper part of WTC1. If it had dropped, it would have bounced on the 90% lower structure; like in the Match Box Experiment. But there is no drop! Instead the lower structure is destroyed without any drop!

The simulation (topic) shows on the other hand a top box (or 15 boxes) destroying 95 boxes below. The top box (or 15 boxes) remains intact during this performance, so it is quite strong, and can be seen intact after doing its job. The other boxes below just disappear one after the other. But as it takes time to crush 95 boxes the destruction is much slower than seen on real life video where WTC1 goes down in dust at more or less free fall speed.

No drop anywhere. Just plenty of debris being thrown sideways, which gravity cannot do.

Come on, debunk the Match Box Experiment. Win a prize!

dtugg
19th November 2008, 10:22 AM
Heiwa, you are going to go to the world media with you findings, right?

DGM
19th November 2008, 10:30 AM
Come on, debunk the Match Box Experiment. Win a prize!

Lack of attention to scaling of structural strength make the conclusions in this experiment unfounded.

What do I win?

PS This also applies to your other experiment too. Your debunked! (unless you can show how you scaled the material strength and came up with a match or pizza box)

Grizzly Bear
19th November 2008, 11:12 AM
Come on, debunk the Match Box Experiment. Win a prize!
Weak analogies are self-debunking...

uruk
19th November 2008, 11:43 AM
It seems that there is confusion between drop and contact.

An object drops due to gravity. But it doesn't contact another object due to gravity! It contacts the other object as it happens to be in the way. The object would not make contact if it wasn't for gravity. And the energy in the contact is produced by the potential energy of the moving object's mass and position in a gravitational field. Your gross denial of science and fact is truly astounding.

It seems also my previous experiments (Pizza Boxes, Bathroom Scale) are too difficult to execute for JREF posters and that, regardless, many persons do not understand the objective of the experiments and the results, i.e. that a smaller object dropping on a bigger object (both objects have same structure, unit weights, etc) will not destroy the bigger object
All you need is 11 match boxes of exactly the same type (structure, unit weight, etc). Pls don't play with the matches. Keep them inside the boxes.

Start of experiment

You put 10 match boxes and put them on top of one another on a table. That is the bigger object/lower structure - quite similar to WTC1, actually.

Execution of experiment

Now, drop the 11th match box on this bigger object. The 11th match box is the upper part of WTC1 allegedly dropping down. You can chose the height of drop; the height of a match box, or whatever. Gravity will take care of the drop. The bigger object will take care of the contact as it is in the way!

Result

What is the result? Does the 11th match box destroy, one after the other, the 10 match boxes constituting the bigger object/lower structure in a 'global collapse'?

Evidently not! I hope everybody agrees!

Analysis

So why doesn't the 11th match box destroy the 10 boxes below.

Aha, lack of energy! Lack of speed?

And that's what should have happened to WTC1 on 9/11 IF the upper part actually dropped, which it didn't as no drop is seen on any video.

Conclusion

A smaller object cannot destroy a bigger object when dropping on it, when both objects have same structure and unit weight.

Explain why the 11th match box cannot destroy the 10 boxes below using simple language and correct assumptions and proper physics.

PS

Do not assume that the 11th match box is rigid and has the mass of a bowling ball. The 11th match box is not rigid and has the mass 1/10th of the lower object.

Good luck!

Anybody that can prove that the 11th match box can destroy the 10 other boxes only with assistance of gravity in a global collapse will get a prize!

Your matchbox and pizza box experiments are incredibly missguided. They do not take into account the scale of gravity, mass, momentum and structural stresses of the materials involved. Your experiments have absolutly no relevence to reality.

At all.

uruk
19th November 2008, 12:00 PM
I have nothing against the definition of progressive collapse. My point is that most local failures for any reason do not lead to progressive collapse but rather to collapse arrest! [quote]The location oand type of local structural failures can determine if a collpase will be aressted or progressive. If key structural supports are damaged to the point of failure the collpase will continue. [quote]Collapse arrest occurs when the destruction runs out of energy and a new equilibrium of the structure is established. and it can only run out of energy of the impacted structure can dissipate the energy with out compromising it's structural integrity. If absorbing the energy compromises it's structrual integrity the collapse can continue in the case of the building because gravity will continue to pull the failed components down due to it's mass and position in the gravitational field.

I have proposed to NIST to do that analysis - collapse arrest - as it is quite simple! Just identify the local failures and calculate the energies required to cause them and what energy is available. When the energy available cannot produce more local failures, the destruction is evidently arrested. What happens if the energy is sufficient to compromise the structure's integrity? What if that failed structure is sitting 100 feet above the surface of the Earth? wont that structure continue to impact another structure with the energy provided by it's position in a gravitational field?

We can establish the available energy. Say it is 1.2 GJ (33 000 tons dropping 3.7 meters at g = 9.82 m/s², which is unlikely). It may sound a lot but is not enough to deform elastically and plastically and then fracture completely 280+ columns once! You simply need more energy for that. You over simplifing the interaction. A collapse is a chaotic event and the structural desgin and maximum stress load is a factor.
Ever heard of the round chicken joke?

And not to talk about shearing off complete chunks of wall column sections and ejecting them sideways in four directions (north, south, east,west). Gravity cannot produce that energy and the structure being contacted cannot produce the reaction forces required to push those chunks sideways. Why can it not? Just because you say so? The dropped pencil analogy was meant to illustrate that the shape of the object and the angle in which it impacts can play a role in determining vector the impact energy can move an object.

So the question remains! Where did the energy come from? Potential energy.

Your error is that you are looking at the collapse in an oversimplified manner.

19th November 2008, 01:13 PM
Your error is that you are looking at the collapse in an oversimplified manner.

That's a very kind way of putting it.

Heiwa
19th November 2008, 01:39 PM
The object would not make contact if it wasn't for gravity. And the energy in the contact is produced by the potential energy of the moving object's mass and position in a gravitational field. Your gross denial of science and fact is truly astounding.

Sorry! Gravity only accelerates the object (with mass m). The contact is due to the fact that something else, another object, not gravity, is in the way of the moving object.

At contact the moving object applies a force F on the other object.

At contact, the other object applies a force on the moving object that happens to be -F. Newton has established that and everybody agrees today (except NIST, Bazant, Greening and other cl-wns).

If the moving object is fairly solid you may expect force -F to stop the moving object; it may, e.g. bounce. Like a ball!

If the moving object is a weak structure - like the upper part of WTC1; just columns spread around, some beams and thin concrete floors and plenty of air (95% of total volume) with total mass m - you should know that force -F will destroy the moving object when applied locally on its weakest parts, e.g. a thin floor.

Bazant assumes that this is not the case. He assumes that the bottom floor of the moving object is SUPERSTRONG and can demolish anything it contacts (except the rubble on the ground).

Same thing is assumed in the videos - topic of this thread.

But I am sorry to say that the bottom floor of the upper part of WTC1 was only designed to carry persons and furniture at a max capacity of 300 kgs/m² (or less). If you had dropped a grand piano on that floor, it (or its legs) would have made a hole in the floor.

Note that force -F is not applied to the total upper part with mass m. It is applied locally to a thin floor that has very little mass, and even less local strength and -F produces a very high pressure on the mowing objects floor. So -F destroys the first floor it contacts in the upper part. And then the second, and third ... and then probably the destruction stops.

Why does the local destruction stops. Simply because now, after destruction/arrest force -F = m*g is applied to the upper part via plenty of contact points, and -F happens to be the weight of the upper part. Equilibrium is reinstated.

The upper part, that tried to destroy the other object, now only applies F = m*g, on the other object. No big deal. Happens every time you drop something on something and when the action is arrested.

Except according Bazant, of course! BUT then what you dropped must be rigid, SUPERSTRONG, and what was dropped on must be SUPERWEAK and that was not the case on 9/11. But that is what the authorities want you to believe - have FAITH son - and it terrorizes me.

Hints re the solution to the Match Box Experiment problem can be found above. It has nothing to do with scale.

Biscuit
19th November 2008, 01:40 PM
Heiwa,

What would you expect to happen if you did it this way?

Put one matchbox on a table in a fixed position, use a rubber band and connect ten other match boxes together. Now drop the ten match boxes onto the one.

Would you expect the single matchbox to be destroyed by the other 10? Would you expect the ten to be destroyed by the fall? Would you expect them to just bounce off?

Let me know what you think would happen.

Heiwa
19th November 2008, 02:11 PM
Heiwa,

What would you expect to happen if you did it this way?

Put one matchbox on a table in a fixed position, use a rubber band and connect ten other match boxes together. Now drop the ten match boxes onto the one.

Would you expect the single matchbox to be destroyed by the other 10? Would you expect the ten to be destroyed by the fall? Would you expect them to just bounce off?

Let me know what you think would happen.

OK - now the moving object is 10 times bigger and the object it drops on is 10 times smaller. The energy involved is 10 times bigger so local deformations and pressures will be greater and maybe something will break at the contact point(s) and cause local failures. When the energy required for deformations and local failures is equivalent to energy applied, action is arrested.

Say that the single match box is compressed 50%, then you may expect that the bottom box of your 10 box assembly is also compressed 50%. But the total 10 box assembly is only compressed 5%.

The bigger object always wins!

PixyMisa
19th November 2008, 02:21 PM
This is a good experiment! But only two flutes will get damaged ... or just one! Guess which one!
Several, and very likely all, of them.

Pls use inexpensive flutes to save cost! Spend the money on the champagne.
Inexpensive flutes tend to be made of thicker glass, and hence stronger.

Lithrael
19th November 2008, 02:34 PM
Wow. Are all Truther threads like this? Does Heiwa understand why there are no giant ants?

uruk
19th November 2008, 03:25 PM
Sorry! Gravity only accelerates the object (with mass m). The contact is due to the fact that something else, another object, not gravity, is in the way of the moving object. You are making a non-point. And you are still, seemingly purposly, ignoring an important aspect.

No impact is possible or could a kinetic force be applied from one object to another unless one of the objects is in motion in relation to the other object.

Gravity is what caused the motion of the upper section of the WTC to impact into the floors below it. Gravity gives and object potential energy due to it's position in a gravitational field in refrence to a specific point. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_energy

Once the support gave out from under the upper section of the WTC, the upper section was free to go into motion. It's potential energy was converted into momentum.

Momentum is mass times velocity. (Or rather p=mv) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum

Gravity provides the velocity and the mass times the velocity determins the kinetic energy the mass will impart into the object it comes into contact with. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy

At contact the moving object applies a force F on the other object. And guess where that force comes from. Guess what causes the object to move in the first place.
That force is the product of mass and the velocity which is provided by potential energy which is provided by gravity.

At contact, the other object applies a force on the moving object that happens to be -F. Newton has established that and everybody agrees today (except NIST, Bazant, Greening and other cl-wns). Yes, equal and opposite reaction and all that.

The issue is can the structures involved survive the forces of the impacts. If the energies involved are greater than the load bearing or structural integrity of the objects they will fail. And if the structures fail they will not be able to arrest the movenment of the object in motion.

And in the case of WTC those structures that have failed and become disconnected from thier support structures will become part of the mass in motion since they 1. failed to arrest the moving mass and 2. Also have potential energy due to thier mass and position in a gravitational field. Not to mention and residual energy left over from the initial impact that caused thier failure. Gravity, in the form of potential energy, is constanly applying extra energy into the reaction as the failing structures become free to move on thier own.

That means that the moving mass has increased and is still in motion and would impart an even larger force to the structures below. If the first floor was not able to withstand the initial impact what the chances the floor below it would also be able to withstand the impacts?

If the moving object is fairly solid you may expect force -F to stop the moving object; it may, e.g. bounce. Like a ball! Except that the WTC as an architectural structure is not solid. The individual components that make up the WTC make be considered solid object (i.e columns, beams, etc.)

If the moving object is a weak structure - like the upper part of WTC1; just columns spread around, some beams and thin concrete floors and plenty of air (95% of total volume) with total mass m - you should know that force -F will destroy the moving object when applied locally on its weakest parts, e.g. a thin floor. You are forgetting that the moving upper section of the wtc is also applying a force on the lower section which is made up of the very same materials as the upper floors.

Remember the floors were connected to the columns so if any deformation takes place in the floor structures due to impacts, the displacement of the floor structures will cause stress to the columns and the loss of the integrity or support of the floor structures will weaken the column structure's integrity.

Bazant assumes that this is not the case. He assumes that the bottom floor of the moving object is SUPERSTRONG and can demolish anything it contacts (except the rubble on the ground)

Same thing is assumed in the videos - topic of this thread. And you seem to be assuming that the lower section is super strong and can arrest any mass impacting upon it.

Remember the structural integrity of the upper floors may be destroyed but the aggregate mass of the materials that make up the upper section is still there and all that mass is still moving down due to gravity.

All those columns, floor sections and concrete and wall sections will continue to impact on the floors below.
And because the moving mass has volume all the energy of the entire upper section will not be expended all at once. The individual components of the upper section will cause a multitude of local failures. All those local failures will add up and some cases a local failure in a key location or support structure can lead to a progressive collapse. All it takes is a lucky impact in the right location.

But I am sorry to say that the bottom floor of the upper part of WTC1 was only designed to carry persons and furniture at a max capacity of 300 kgs/m² (or less). If you had dropped a grand piano on that floor, it (or its legs) would have made a hole in the floor. As are the upper floors of the lower part of the WTC. The lower part of the WTC is made up of the same materials of the upper section. that would mean that the upper floor of the lower section is only designed to carry the same capacity of the lower floor of the upper section.

Imagine a million grand pianos all making holes in the upper floor of the lower section of the WTC.

Note that force -F is not applied to the total upper part with mass m. It is applied locally to a thin floor that has very little mass, and even less local strength and -F produces a very high pressure on the mowing objects floor. So -F destroys the first floor it contacts in the upper part. And then the second, and third ... and then probably the destruction stops. You are over simplifying the interaction. The structural integrity of the entire building is compromised when the upper section became disconnected from the lower section.

Please review the architectural structure of the WTC towers. The building had a clolumn tube with in a tube structure. The upper section had what was called a hat truss structrure that connected the inner column structure to the outer column structure. Along with the floors this provided structural integrity to the building as a whole.

Once the upper section became detached the WTC lost a large part of its structural integrity. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/hattruss.html

Why does the local destruction stops. Simply because now, after destruction/arrest force -F = m*g is applied to the upper part via plenty of contact points, and -F happens to be the weight of the upper part. Equilibrium is reinstated. Again you are oversimplifing the interaction. The collapse was a very chaotic event, there were many factors involved that you seem to be overlooking. You are applying tha math as if the upper and lower section were solid mass. They are not.

Once the materials become disarticulated from the structures you have many different individual interactions that can all cause local failures that can accumulate with the possibilty of progressive collapse depending on where and how structures were impacted.

The upper part, that tried to destroy the other object, now only applies F = m*g, on the other object. No big deal. Happens every time you drop something on something and when the action is arrested. that is unless the forces involved are greater that the maximum structural stress of the objects involved. Which happens when you drop a glass bottle on another glass bottle.

Except according Bazant, of course! BUT then what you dropped must be rigid, SUPERSTRONG, and what was dropped on must be SUPERWEAK and that was not the case on 9/11. But that is what the authorities want you to believe - have FAITH son - and it terrorizes me. And you are assuming the opposite that a super weak is being dropped on a super strong. I'd say it was more like a weak is being dropped on another weak.

Hints re the solution to the Match Box Experiment problem can be found above. It has nothing to do with scale. Your matchbox experiment is completly missguided and has no relation to reality in refrence to the WTC.

uruk
19th November 2008, 03:32 PM
OK - now the moving object is 10 times bigger and the object it drops on is 10 times smaller. The energy involved is 10 times bigger so local deformations and pressures will be greater and maybe something will break at the contact point(s) and cause local failures. When the energy required for deformations and local failures is equivalent to energy applied, action is arrested.

Say that the single match box is compressed 50%, then you may expect that the bottom box of your 10 box assembly is also compressed 50%. But the total 10 box assembly is only compressed 5%.

The bigger object always wins!

You are missing the point. (maybe purposly)

Biscuit is asking that you actually do the experiment and see what in reality will happen to the single matchbox.

If you will notice that dropping the 10 matchboxes on the single match box does not destroy the single match box below, then maybe you will realize why your experiments are seriously flawed.

But of course you can always deny reality.

19th November 2008, 04:42 PM
Why is it that the rest of the world complains about the American school system, yet we have to sit here and be confronted with these absurdities from Heiwa and 911 Investigator in numerous threads? Obviously the school systems of other countries are in just as sad of shape.

beachnut
19th November 2008, 04:58 PM
...
At contact the moving object applies a force F on the other object.

At contact, the other object applies a force on the moving object that happens to be -F. Newton has established that and everybody agrees today (except NIST, Bazant, Greening and other cl-wns).

If the moving object is fairly solid you may expect force -F to stop the moving object; it may, e.g. bounce. Like a ball! ...

You believe the top falling is F, and the lower structure is -F, thus stopping the fall.

Get help with physics; you spew fantasy physics based on your F, -F junk science.

The bigger object always wins!
No one can kill me with a bullet, I am invincible!

UNLoVedRebel
19th November 2008, 05:53 PM
Why is it that the rest of the world complains about the American school system, yet we have to sit here and be confronted with these absurdities from Heiwa and 911 Investigator in numerous threads? Obviously the school systems of other countries are in just as sad of shape.

HA! I was thinking the exact same thing. I love how British twoofers try to throw in as much scientific jargon in one sentence as they can (apologies to our British debunkers here.) It ends up not making one stitch of sense.

Need I remind everyone that European Skyscraper is an oxymoron?

Heiwa
19th November 2008, 11:48 PM
Remember the structural integrity of the upper floors may be destroyed but the aggregate mass of the materials that make up the upper section is still there and all that mass is still moving down due to gravity.

All those columns, floor sections and concrete and wall sections will continue to impact on the floors below.

The parts of the upper section may not be destroyed, but will be destroyed and that is the beginning of the collapse arrest. The destruction of the upper section will, i.a. cause deceleration. Sure, the mass is still there but it has been slowed down and is in pieces rubbing against each other and friction and further local failures take care of the rest. All energy available is used up.

So nothing will continue to impact anything. Physically impossible even if Bazant and NIST suggest the opposite. Sorry that the Match Box experiment didn't teach you that. You have completely misunderstood what gravity does. It terrorizes me!

Heiwa
20th November 2008, 12:07 AM
You are missing the point. (maybe purposly)

Biscuit is asking that you actually do the experiment and see what in reality will happen to the single matchbox.

If you will notice that dropping the 10 matchboxes on the single match box does not destroy the single match box below, then maybe you will realize why your experiments are seriously flawed.

But of course you can always deny reality.

Not at all. You cannot refute reality. In the original Match Box Experiment you drop one Box on a tower of ten Boxes! Very real and easy to do.

By careful observation you notice the deformations of the two objects at contact and observe that the dropped box is deformed X mm and that the 10 boxes are also deformed X mm. The deformation is then reduced as the single Box bounces up. The energy transmitted at contact causing the deformations is transformed into other types of energy. The dropped box motion is arrested.

In the revised Experiment you drop an assembly of ten Boxes on one Box. Also easy to do.

Now the energy involved is 10 times bigger. By careful observation you notice the deformations of the two objects at contact and observe that the dropped ten boxes are deformed 10X mm and that the single box also deforms 10X mm. The deformation is then reduced as the 10 boxes being dropped bounce up. Energy is transformed from one state to another as explained before.

Thus, whatever you drop on anything is affected at contact and the bigger object is always less affected than the smaller object. Just keep your eyes open and observe carefully.

Bazant and Nist close their eyes and assume (conveniently, lazy?) the opposite and suggest that whatever you drop becomes SUPERSTRONG, rigid, and affects (read destroys) anything below it, while it itself is not affected at all by the contact. Global collapse thus ensues ... whenever you drop a object on anything. In any scale!

Such stupidity really terrorizes me. On whose side are they? OBL's?

Dave Rogers
20th November 2008, 01:23 AM
In the revised Experiment you drop an assembly of ten Boxes on one Box. Also easy to do.

Now let's try a further revision. Take an assembly of eleven matchboxes, raise them by the height of one matchbox, and drop them on the ground. This simulates the well known case of a controlled demolition in which the lowest storey supports are severed by explosives, leading to collapse of the entire structure. Since we know from a wealth of data that structures treated in this way will usually collapse, we would expect that, if matchboxes are a good model for structural collapse, the stack of matchboxes will collapse.

But look: they don't. The assembly is undamaged by the drop.

What can we conclude from this?

We can conclude that a stack of matchboxes doesn't behave the same way as a multi-storey building, and that conclusions drawn from one are worthless in predicting the behaviour of the other. So simple, a child, an idiot or a maritime engineer from Sweden could understand it.

Dave

PixyMisa
20th November 2008, 03:39 AM
Thus, whatever you drop on anything is affected at contact and the bigger object is always less affected than the smaller object. Just keep your eyes open and observe carefully.
Wrong.

It might happen that way. It might not. It depends on all sorts of factors. As a blanket statement, though, it's pure idiocy.

Look again at your matchbox experiment.

Drop one matchbox on a stack of ten matchboxes: No damage.

Drop a stack of ten matchboxes on one matchbox: No damage.

Doesn't this make you pause, even for a moment, to consider that maybe there's a problem with your experiment? Did you give any consideration at all to material strengths, failure modes, scaling factors, static vs. dynamic loads? And if so, why did you create such a silly experiment?

Cuddles
20th November 2008, 08:00 AM
Come on, debunk the Match Box Experiment. Win a prize!

I just did. Did you not read the rest of my post? If you perform a more realistic experiment including jet fuel and fires, the matchboxes will be destroyed. I have to admit that I haven't yet tried flying an airliner into the stack since I don't have a pilot's license. However, I'm fairly sure that will not make the small pile of ash any more structurally stable.

Toke
20th November 2008, 09:02 AM
I am still waiting to get my orangegun (spudgun?) involved in a Heiwa experiment.

Heiwa
20th November 2008, 09:59 AM
Now let's try a further revision. Take an assembly of eleven matchboxes, raise them by the height of one matchbox, and drop them on the ground. This simulates the well known case of a controlled demolition in which the lowest storey supports are severed by explosives, leading to collapse of the entire structure. Since we know from a wealth of data that structures treated in this way will usually collapse, we would expect that, if matchboxes are a good model for structural collapse, the stack of matchboxes will collapse.

But look: they don't. The assembly is undamaged by the drop.

What can we conclude from this?

We can conclude that a stack of matchboxes doesn't behave the same way as a multi-storey building, and that conclusions drawn from one are worthless in predicting the behaviour of the other. So simple, a child, an idiot or a maritime engineer from Sweden could understand it.

Dave

OK - the 11 Match Boxes Experiment (or 9/11 Match Boxes Experiment).

We drop an assembly of 11 match boxes (object dropped) on the ground (object contacted). At contact with the ground both objects deform (if you look carefully) and the smaller object (11 match boxes) bounces - up!

Now, what caused the bounce? Gravity? No, gravity is a force directed - down. So another magic force it at play. It is not really magic! Newton has explained it 300+ years ago.

And this is what should have happened on 9/11. You drop the upper part of WTC1 on the lower (bigger) part ... and the upper (and lower) part should deform and the upper part should bounce up ... or be destroyed ... or partly destroyed and get stuck up top. There is no chance that the upper part remains intact ... and destroys the lower part in a global collapse. All experiments prove it - scale doesn't matter - as long as both objects have same structure, etc.

Only if you assume, in fantasy world, that the upper, smaller part becomes rigid (or its bottom floor) at contact, it will destroy the lower part - but just locally. After a while you run out of energy, if it is only supplied by gravity. But the upper part cannot become rigid - it self-destroys at contact with the lower part.

If you can prove the opposite - you win a prize.

Heiwa
20th November 2008, 10:05 AM
Wrong.

It might happen that way. It might not. It depends on all sorts of factors. As a blanket statement, though, it's pure idiocy.

Look again at your matchbox experiment.

Drop one matchbox on a stack of ten matchboxes: No damage.

Drop a stack of ten matchboxes on one matchbox: No damage.

Doesn't this make you pause, even for a moment, to consider that maybe there's a problem with your experiment? Did you give any consideration at all to material strengths, failure modes, scaling factors, static vs. dynamic loads? And if so, why did you create such a silly experiment?

Plenty of deformation and bounce up though = damage actually. No problem there. Match boxes do not like being dropped on. They react to contact! You just do not observe enough. Such persons are easy to fool. So I created the experiment for you.

20th November 2008, 10:38 AM
Of course on videos of the real event we see complete sections of wall columns/spandrels being ejected sideways for which you require energy applied horizontally. But gravity is a vertical force.

Your notion (that gravity can't impart a horizontal vector) is debunked by inclined planes:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1253246af79b4934f2.gif

Water flowing downhill ruins your argument.

Lennart Hyland
20th November 2008, 11:12 AM
How can Heiwa be so sure that scale doesnt matter?

PixyMisa
20th November 2008, 11:18 AM
Plenty of deformation and bounce up though = damage actually.
There's some temporary deformation, sure. Absolutely.

But it's temporary, because the matchboxes have the strength and elasticity to recover. Correct?

Now, what would happen if the matchboxes weren't as strong?

Heiwa
20th November 2008, 02:07 PM
Your notion (that gravity can't impart a horizontal vector) is debunked by inclined planes:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1253246af79b4934f2.gif

Water flowing downhill ruins your argument.

As far as I can see the gravity vector applied to the object is vertical.

Then there is an inclined plane. What is it doing there? Did gravity put it there? OK, if the inclined plane doesn't collapse, at it should according to Bazant, I am inclined to agree that the inclined plane may affect the object (it looks solid) on it. But it is not gravity that does it - it is the inclined plane. Or more correct, not shown, the force that the inclined plane applies to the object perpendicular to the inclined plane.

I am glad to see that friction between object and inclined plane is mentioned. According Bazant friction does not exist in global collapses!

Now, if this friction coefficient has a certain value, you can be sure that the object will not accelerate ... or even move ... down the inclined plane, thus a = 0. Acceleration is zero! Reason is that the friction vector is heading up the inclined plane to the left in the other direction (not shown in the figure).

Pls, include all forces in your diagram.

Re water flowing downhill, it is only due to the force that downhill applies to the water. If no downhill, the water would drop ... like rain assuming gravity is strong enough! A wind might blow the rain upwards or side ways. In Holland the rain seems to be moving horizontally most of the time and it is due to Holland being a flat land, half of it below water (that is pumped out all the time), with a strong breeze applied to it. The strong breeze drives wind mills that pump out the water. Clever Dutch!

When there is not a strong breeze applied to Holland, balloons released in Holland fly straight up ignoring gravity, and the wind mills do not pump any water. Strange country, Holland. But do not worry. It is all due to physics.

dtugg
20th November 2008, 02:11 PM
Heiwa, I am waiting to hear about your findings on the news. When is it going to happen?

uruk
20th November 2008, 02:12 PM
The parts of the upper section may not be destroyed, but will be destroyed and that is the beginning of the collapse arrest.[quote] if the lower floors of the upper section causes damage to the floors below, guess what is going to happen when the rest of the upper section plows through.
[quote]The destruction of the upper section will, i.a. cause deceleration. Only temporarily. As the strcutures below fail they can no longer provide any resistance to the mass of the upper section. And there is still the potential energy due to gravity.
Sure, the mass is still there but it has been slowed down and is in pieces rubbing against each other and friction and further local failures take care of the rest. That is stupid. If the structures have failed they can no longer provide resistance to the upper section. If they have failed to the point where they are free to move gravity will pull them into the lower floors causing yet more damage.

Friction of the parts of the upper mass rubbing against each other does not subtract from the kentic energy of the mass moving down. That is like saying two choppsticks that are falling towards the floor will slow down if they are rubbing up against each other. Is that what you are impling or have I missinterpreted something?

All energy available is used up So nothing will continue to impact anything. Physically impossible even if Bazant and NIST suggest the opposite. Sorry that the Match Box experiment didn't teach you that. You have completely misunderstood what gravity does. It terrorizes me! You still don't understand why your matchbox experiment is silly and does not relate to reality. It has everything to do with the structural integrity and arrangement of components of the buildings and the forces involved as the masses are moving into each other.

What frightens me is your apparent lack of simple physics and yet you are employed as a engineer.

Heiwa
20th November 2008, 02:35 PM
There's some temporary deformation, sure. Absolutely.

But it's temporary, because the matchboxes have the strength and elasticity to recover. Correct?

Now, what would happen if the matchboxes weren't as strong?

At contact there is deformation. Sure. Deformation is there, as long as there is contact. Everywhere.

No, the deformation is not temporary. It varies due to the energy applied during contact and is different in various locations; more deformation close to the contact point, less deformation far away from the contact point.

It means that the deformation can become permanent in certain locations, even resulting in failures, close to the contact point and can be just elastic in other locations, far from the contact point.

Same thing happens when the matchboxes are less strong.

And when the energy applied has produced the relevant deformations and failures, the action stops. Permanent deformations and failures then remain.

Scale does not matter.

You can be sure that the single match box dropping on the 10 boxes will be destroyed before the 10 boxes.

Of course, in this experiment the boxes have same strength, so it is the single box dropping and the uppermost box of the 10 boxes that get destroyed first ... and that's it - if strength is not sufficient. The nine other boxes just deform elastically

In WTC1 the upper part is evidently weaker than anything below that carries it, so it is destroyed first at contact. Quite basic, actually.

To confuse the public, Bazant assumes that the upper part is stronger than anything below - he makes the top part rigid - and then, and only then, global collapse may take place without destroying the upper part first and if there is enough energy available. But there is not enough energy available.

And if there were enough energy available, it would destroy the upper part first.

Heiwa
20th November 2008, 02:38 PM
Heiwa, I am waiting to hear about your findings on the news. When is it going to happen?

What news? Fox? CNN? ABC, NBC? You must be joking. News?

uruk
20th November 2008, 02:39 PM
Not at all. You cannot refute reality. In the original Match Box Experiment you drop one Box on a tower of ten Boxes! Very real and easy to do.

By careful observation you notice the deformations of the two objects at contact and observe that the dropped box is deformed X mm and that the 10 boxes are also deformed X mm. The deformation is then reduced as the single Box bounces up. The energy transmitted at contact causing the deformations is transformed into other types of energy. The dropped box motion is arrested. Don't you understand that the matchboxes are capable of sustaining the forces involved?

It does not apply to the WTC because the building could not structurally withstand the forces involved. The plane impact and fires severly compromised the structural integrity of the buildings.

10 matchboxs can in no possible way come anywhere near to simulate what happend to the WTC. At least not in any sane mind.

In the revised Experiment you drop an assembly of ten Boxes on one Box. Also easy to do.

Now the energy involved is 10 times bigger. By careful observation you notice the deformations of the two objects at contact and observe that the dropped ten boxes are deformed 10X mm and that the single box also deforms 10X mm. The deformation is then reduced as the 10 boxes being dropped bounce up. Energy is transformed from one state to another as explained before. Again, the match boxs are structuraly capable of sustaining the forces involved. The forces you are using in your matchbox experiments are on many magnatudes less than what the WTC had to sustain in relation to scale. There is no comparison between the matchboxes and the WTC towers. If you cannot see that you are truly hopeless.

Thus, whatever you drop on anything is affected at contact and the bigger object is always less affected than the smaller object. Just keep your eyes open and observe carefully. That is an oversimplification. You are forgeting about structural integrity, Load capacities, structural design, avenues for progressive collpase, etc.

Just because something is bigger does not mean that the smaller object cannot destroy the larger object or that the bigger object is structuraly stronger that the smaller object. That is being completely infantile
You are ignoring the forces involved, the design and structure of the objects, the structural integrities.

Bazant and Nist close their eyes and assume (conveniently, lazy?) the opposite and suggest that whatever you drop becomes SUPERSTRONG, rigid, and affects (read destroys) anything below it, while it itself is not affected at all by the contact. Global collapse thus ensues ... whenever you drop a object on anything. In any scale! Wow, now you are just making things up.

Such stupidity really terrorizes me. On whose side are they? OBL's? I fear for your clients. Especially considering you Pizza box and matchbox experiments.

20th November 2008, 02:42 PM
But it is not gravity that does it - it is the inclined plane. Or more correct, not shown, the force that the inclined plane applies to the object perpendicular to the inclined plane.

Re water flowing downhill, it is only due to the force that downhill applies to the water. If no downhill, the water would drop ... like rain assuming gravity is strong enough!

So, what you're admitting here, is that depending on the direction of the resistance to the force of gravity, there can be a horizontal component to the acceleration vector of a falling object.

Thanks.

I had to snip out a lot or rambling to get to the pith of it.

Heiwa
20th November 2008, 02:43 PM
That is stupid. If the structures have failed they can no longer provide resistance to the upper section.

Yes, that is stupid! But it is the upper section that should have failed and not the structure below, so the undamaged structure below now provides resistance to the failed structure above.

Please, try to get your parts in order. The upper part is not rigid. It is the first one to be destroyed.

dtugg
20th November 2008, 02:46 PM
What news? Fox? CNN? ABC, NBC? You must be joking. News?

It doesn't matter to me. Whichever you choose to send your earth shattering evidence to. One in Europe, or Al Jazeera perhaps if you think the American media is crap.

240-185
20th November 2008, 02:48 PM
According Bazant friction does not exist in global collapses!
No, he didn't say that. He says that air friction is negligible when a debris comes down, because a WTC debris is mooooooooooooooore heavier than a paper sheet.

Minadin's schema is somewhat incomplete; here's a better one:

http://pagesperso-orange.fr/laurent.buchard/CroquisLaurent/croquis4.gif

The three forces that are needed are represented. This is called "principle of inertia". It's a base of Newton's physics. And you aren't able to understand basic physics that students learn in high school. How shameful.

Heiwa
20th November 2008, 03:00 PM
So, what you're admitting here, is that depending on the direction of the resistance to the force of gravity, there can be a horizontal component to the acceleration vector of a falling object.

Thanks.

I had to snip out a lot or rambling to get to the pith of it.

No, I am not saying anything like that. What are you talking about?

"Depending on the direction of the resistance to the force of gravity". What is that?

"There can be a horizontal component to the acceleration vector of a falling object". What are you talking about???

I do not write like that. Bazant may!

What resistance to the force of gravity? An inclined plane? Friction? Deformation? The force of gravity on a mass m is constant as far as I am concerned, as long as g is constant.

Horizontal component to the acceleration vector of a falling object?

You mean g? It's acceleration is vertical and there is no horizontal component (in a standard frame of reference).

Try to be more clear, please!

Heiwa
20th November 2008, 03:05 PM
No, he didn't say that. He says that air friction is negligible when a debris comes down, because a WTC debris is mooooooooooooooore heavier than a paper sheet.

Air friction? Yes it is negligible. But we talk about friction between parts like columns, beams, floors rubbing against each other and that is considerable. And Bazant ignores it.

Heiwa
20th November 2008, 03:14 PM
Minadin's schema is somewhat incomplete; here's a better one:

http://pagesperso-orange.fr/laurent.buchard/CroquisLaurent/croquis4.gif

The three forces that are needed are represented. This is called "principle of inertia". It's a base of Newton's physics. And you aren't able to understand basic physics that students learn in high school. How shameful.

Not too bad. But P + R = F can also be 0, i.e. the object does not move at any angle alfa. Solve it for alfa = 90°! Explain why object does not drop straight down!

Grizzly Bear
20th November 2008, 03:36 PM
Air friction? Yes it is negligible. But we talk about friction between parts like columns, beams, floors rubbing against each other and that is considerable. And Bazant ignores it.

Reading this sentence does remind me of one thing... you criticize Bazant for simplifying his figures in assuming the upper section is rigid during crush down, but it seem you treat the entirety of the lower section as if it's utterly invincible. The only difference is where Bazant does this to simplify the math you're assumming this as a real life scenario.

Friction is only one element, if the constituent parts are unable to sustain such a load then friction or no friction, the structural components will fail. It not only a matter of whether the columns can sustain these loads but whether or not the connections can do the same. The collapse mechanism you keep asserting should have happened with the trade centers sounds more like a mechanism that would be more realistic in a more traditional steel frame structure (http://www.debunking911.com/steelweb.jpg), not that of the trade centers (http://www.debunking911.com/perimeter.jpg).

You've oversimplified it beyond any reasonable measure...

PixyMisa
20th November 2008, 05:53 PM
At contact there is deformation. Sure. Deformation is there, as long as there is contact. Everywhere.
No, wrong.

Deformation can only be everywhere if forces are transmitted without loss throughout the structure, an for that to happen the structure would have to be perfectly rigid, and if it's perfectly rigid it can't deform in the first place.

No, the deformation is not temporary.Wrong.

The matchbox compresses, just a little, and then rebounds. The deformations is temporary.

It varies due to the energy applied during contact and is different in various locations; more deformation close to the contact point, less deformation far away from the contact point.Or none at all.

It means that the deformation can become permanent in certain locations, even resulting in failures, close to the contact point and can be just elastic in other locations, far from the contact point.Or it can be elastic throughout the structure.

Or it can cause permanent failure throughout the structure.

Same thing happens when the matchboxes are less strong.Yes indeed.

And when the energy applied has produced the relevant deformations and failures, the action stops.You still have the force of gravity bearing down. Gravity never switches off.

Permanent deformations and failures then remain.That is what permanent means, yes.

Scale does not matter.Build a matchbox 1000 times as large in all dimensions, and it will instantly collapse under its own weight.

Scale always matters.

You can be sure that the single match box dropping on the 10 boxes will be destroyed before the 10 boxes.No, you can't be sure of that. Not only that, but a destroyed matchbox has the same weight as an undestroyed matchbox, and can be used to destroy other matchboxes.

Of course, in this experiment the boxes have same strength, so it is the single box dropping and the uppermost box of the 10 boxes that get destroyed first ... and that's it - if strength is not sufficient. The nine other boxes just deform elasticallyWhat if they're not strong enough?

They deform, you say. If they deform, that means that the dynamic load is greater than the static load. So if they were strong enough to sustain the static load, but not strong enough to sustain the increased dynamic load, they will collapse.

By your own logic, they will collapse.

In WTC1 the upper part is evidently weaker than anything below that carries it, so it is destroyed first at contact. Quite basic, actually.Quite absurd, actually.

You have all sorts of materials and failure modes going on, and even if the upper part is "destroyed", it weighs just as much as it did before and is applying just as much force as it did before.

To confuse the public, Bazant assumes that the upper part is stronger than anything below - he makes the top part rigid - and then, and only then, global collapse may take place without destroying the upper part first and if there is enough energy available. But there is not enough energy available.You keep claiming that there is not enough energy available. NIST shows that you are wrong.

And if there were enough energy available, it would destroy the upper part first.No, and in any case, irrelevant.

Biscuit
20th November 2008, 06:54 PM
I am guessing that you didn't actually try and drop ten boxes on one and despite the fact that others have explained the point I was making you seem to completely ignore the fact that matchboxes and buildings have absolutely NOTHING in common.

Do you think that structural engineers use matchboxes to test the strengths of their designs? Do they use Popsicle stick bridges to test for weight limits? Do auto companies crash matchbox cars to test for safety? Does boeing put paper airplanes into wind tunnels?

Does concrete and steel perform in the same manner as paper and wood? Why aren't buildings made of the same material as matchboxes?

PixyMisa
20th November 2008, 10:34 PM
You've oversimplified it beyond any reasonable measure...
Yep. He's taken a statement that is true for certain structures under certain conditions, and asserted that it is true for all structures under all conditions, in defiance of mathematics, physics, engineering, and reality in general.

240-185
20th November 2008, 10:57 PM
Not too bad. But P + R = F can also be 0, i.e. the object does not move at any angle alfa. Solve it for alfa = 90°! Explain why object does not drop straight down!

Alpha = 90°, the slope does not apply any force R to the object, P equals practically F (plus some negligible air friction).
Go back to school.

Heiwa
20th November 2008, 11:37 PM
Alpha = 90°, the slope does not apply any force R to the object, P equals practically F (plus some negligible air friction).
Go back to school.

Good that you realize that the slope or inclined plane does not apply any force R. That was my point. Gravity P thus has nothing to do with R! R is just a function of the force applied by the inclined slope on the object (which is what?)

But imagine now that the object still does not drop in spite of alfa = 90°. It is possible if the object is glued to the inclined plane = very big friction. Then P = F someway is transmitted to the inclined (vertical) plane, don't you agree.

Do same with alfa = 180° (object glued to ceiling)! Why doesn't the object drop due to gravity?

Heiwa
20th November 2008, 11:47 PM
You have all sorts of materials and failure modes going on, and even if the upper part is "destroyed", it weighs just as much as it did before and is applying just as much force as it did before.

Even if? Of course the upper part is destroyed and the interface upper part/lower structure changes and the load it applies to the lower structure is redistributed, local pressures at contact points are reduced and further destruction is arrested.

You always reason as if the upper part remains unchanged after contact. It doesn't. You are reasoning exactly as Bazant! In the real world the upper part could not have remained unchanged, and when it starts to change after contact you have to look again what happens.

That's why the videos, topic of this thread, are wrong showing the upper part intact all the time.

But the videos are still quite good. If the upper part for any reason would have remanied intact, the destruction that follows would have taken much longer time than seen in reality.

So the destruction seen including horizontal ejections of big chunks of wall sections cannot be due to energy provided by gravity.

240-185
20th November 2008, 11:53 PM
But imagine now that the object still does not drop in spite of alfa = 90°. It is possible if the object is glued to the inclined plane = very big friction.
No. Although there will be a non-negligible air friction, gravity applies a bigger force. A glued object interacts each other with the wall he's stuck to.

Do same with alfa = 180° (object glued to ceiling)! Why doesn't the object drop due to gravity?
Because the glue interacts with the ceiling and the object...

Disenchanted
21st November 2008, 12:00 AM
Air friction? Yes it is negligible. But we talk about friction between parts like columns, beams, floors rubbing against each other and that is considerable. And Bazant ignores it.

Have you submitted your criticism of Bazant to a peer review journal, so it could be viewed by civil and structural engineers?

Bazant got his paper published in such a journal and so far has withstood scrutiny with in the peer review process.

If you believe you can refute his work why not submit your criticism?

beachnut
21st November 2008, 12:06 AM
...

So the destruction seen including horizontal ejections of big chunks of wall sections cannot be due to energy provided by gravity.
How can you just wave your hands and produce another anti-intellectual statement?
Gravity was the only energy needed to eject the parts from the WTC. Once again you state false information. Why?

With over 576,000,000,000 Joules, there is more than enough energy to do the job? Your F, -F junk science is pathetic. Did you know how much energy was released on 9/11 due to gravity?

Do you understand gravity or energy in the WTC system? What is the energy involved in a WTC falling? Why not use numbers?

PixyMisa
21st November 2008, 01:16 AM
Even if? Of course the upper part is destroyed
No.

After all, what do you even mean when you say "destroyed"? With a structure like WTC? Columns are bent? Broken? Welds broken? Floors cracked? Shattered? Reduced to dust?

What? Some of these happen to some degrees in some circumstances, but it all depends on the circumstances.

and the interface upper part/lower structure changes and the load it applies to the lower structure is redistributed, local pressures at contact points are reduced and further destruction is arrested.
No. You've demonstrated yourself why you cannot claim this.

You always reason as if the upper part remains unchanged after contact.
I never said anything of the sort.

What I said was that it doesn't matter.

It doesn't.
Yeah.

You are reasoning exactly as Bazant!
What we know, and you are having trouble with, is that it's not that important.

In the real world the upper part could not have remained unchanged, and when it starts to change after contact you have to look again what happens.
Yes.

And it might be that the top of the structure crumbles, leaving the rest of the structure standing.
Or it might be that the entire structure collapses.

You pointed out yourself that the rest of the structure undergoes deformation. You said that.

If the rest of the structure is not strong enough to withstand that deformation, it will collapse. The precise sequence of events depending on a huge variety of factors, of course, all of which you have chosen to ignore.

That's why the videos, topic of this thread, are wrong showing the upper part intact all the time.
No.

It doesn't matter.

Whether it's a single perfectly rigid million-ton structure, or a million tons of concrete kibble, it's still a million tons coming down on a weakened structure not designed to support that load in that way.

But the videos are still quite good. If the upper part for any reason would have remanied intact, the destruction that follows would have taken much longer time than seen in reality.
And what is the basis for this claim? You just said that it couldn't happen at all.

So the destruction seen including horizontal ejections of big chunks of wall sections cannot be due to energy provided by gravity.
Utter nonsense.

Take a normal drinking glass. Drop it on a tiled or concrete floor. Bits of it will fly all over the room.

That's your "horizontal ejection of big chunks of wall sections" right there.

Dave Rogers
21st November 2008, 02:04 AM
OK - the 11 Match Boxes Experiment (or 9/11 Match Boxes Experiment).

We drop an assembly of 11 match boxes (object dropped) on the ground (object contacted). At contact with the ground both objects deform (if you look carefully) and the smaller object (11 match boxes) bounces - up!

Now do the same with a large building, by removing the ground floor supports with explosives. What happens, Heiwa? Are you scared to admit that the building behaves totally differently to a stack of matchboxes? Or would you like to try and convince people that buildings bounce?

Dave

Bananaman
21st November 2008, 02:25 AM
Just face it guys, wasting time trying to explain things to Heiwa is pointless.

He's a *********** idiot. End of story.

Bananaman.

Heiwa
21st November 2008, 03:01 AM
No. Although there will be a non-negligible air friction, gravity applies a bigger force. A glued object interacts each other with the wall he's stuck to.

Because the glue interacts with the ceiling and the object...

Yes, but you can better than that. Where are the vectors? How can glue overcome force of gravity?

Heiwa
21st November 2008, 03:04 AM
Now do the same with a large building, by removing the ground floor supports with explosives. What happens, Heiwa? Are you scared to admit that the building behaves totally differently to a stack of matchboxes? Or would you like to try and convince people that buildings bounce?

Dave

No, you just make my point. The upper, weaker, smaller part, above the modified interface in the structure, is deformed (and destroyed) when in contact with the object below.

.13.
21st November 2008, 05:14 AM
No, you just make my point. The upper, weaker, smaller part, above the modified interface in the structure, is deformed (and destroyed) when in contact with the object below.

Why don't the matchboxes disintegrate when they hit the ground? Surely they are weaker than the object below (the ground)?

Dave Rogers
21st November 2008, 05:45 AM
No, you just make my point. The upper, weaker, smaller part, above the modified interface in the structure, is deformed (and destroyed) when in contact with the object below.

Not with matchboxes, it isn't.

Dave

Heiwa
21st November 2008, 05:49 AM
Why don't the matchboxes disintegrate when they hit the ground? Surely they are weaker than the object below (the ground)?

They, the matchboxes, have two possibilites! Bounce or destroy themselves. So they decided to bounce. All explained above.

The upper part of WTC1 had the same choice.

Personally I would bounce.

Heiwa
21st November 2008, 05:51 AM
Just face it guys, wasting time trying to explain things to Heiwa is pointless.

He's a *********** idiot. End of story.

Bananaman.

Is the Moderator sleeping?

dtugg
21st November 2008, 05:52 AM
They, the matchboxes, have two possibilites! Bounce or destroy themselves. So they decided to bounce. All explained above.

The upper part of WTC1 had the same choice.

Personally I would bounce.

This has to be a stundie.

Heiwa
21st November 2008, 05:53 AM
Not with matchboxes, it isn't.

Dave

Oh, yes. They deform ... and bounce. Didn't your experiment confirm that?

Cuddles
21st November 2008, 06:17 AM
I am still waiting to get my orangegun (spudgun?) involved in a Heiwa experiment.

I like your thinking. OK, new experiment:

Equipment
11* Matchboxes (with matches)
1* Potato
1* Spud gun
1* Paraffin
1* Lighter

Setup
Stack 10 matchboxes on top of each other.
Soak potato in paraffin and place in spud gun.

Method
Fire potato at top of matchbox tower.
Use lighter to set fire to impact point.
Leave for several hours.
Drop 11th matchbox from a point directly above where you built the stack from a height of 12 matchboxes.

Conclusion
If the dropped matchbox lands on the stack and stays in place, the WTC towers could not have collapsed.
If the dropped matchbox causes a progressive collapse in a downwards direction, the NIST report into the collapse is correct.
If the dropped matchbox lands in a small pile of ash where the stack used to be, possibly a pile of matchboxes isn't a valid comparison to a hundred story steel-framed skyscraper.

Any comments on this updated, more accurate version of Heiwa's "experiment"? Clearly, including the fire and impact damage makes this a much more valid comparison than Heiwa's attempt. As far as I can see, this is pretty much an exact replication of the events of 11/9/01. Apart from the lack of skyscrapers and aeroplanes, but those are just minor details that obviously have nothing to do with skyscrapers collapsing due to collisions with aeroplanes.

.13.
21st November 2008, 06:39 AM
They, the matchboxes, have two possibilites! Bounce or destroy themselves. So they decided to bounce. All explained above.

The upper part of WTC1 had the same choice.

Personally I would bounce.

Does that mean that matchboxes don't behave like buildings?

Toke
21st November 2008, 09:36 AM
YES, orange cannon in action

Heiwa
21st November 2008, 12:12 PM
Does that mean that matchboxes don't behave like buildings?

No, same laws of physics apply. Should be evident by now. Of course a lot of NWO-posters think laws of physics are subject to scale, etc. and that big weak objects become rigid when dropping, etc. But I do not blame them. Prof. Bazant and NIST make the same error.

Toke
21st November 2008, 12:17 PM
So, you will get the same result whether is it a building, a pizzatower, or some machtboxes that burns for two hours?

.13.
21st November 2008, 01:58 PM
No, same laws of physics apply. Should be evident by now. Of course a lot of NWO-posters think laws of physics are subject to scale, etc. and that big weak objects become rigid when dropping, etc. But I do not blame them. Prof. Bazant and NIST make the same error.

But don't buildings and matchboxes appear to behave differently?

stateofgrace
21st November 2008, 03:55 PM
Air friction? Yes it is negligible. But we talk about friction between parts like columns, beams, floors rubbing against each other and that is considerable. And Bazant ignores it.

Does he?

I don't see where you get this from, maybe you could explain fully, in a non emotive, scientific post exactly where you got this from. Please include your calculations.

PS, here is a clue for anybody that as taken the time to read the works of Bazant (which you clearly have not), he does not model the collapse, he models the best case scenario based on ideal conditions, i.e. the columns falling onto each other and the upper section staying intact, during the collapse. In all the conditions, which are fully backed up with calculations and fact, the towers collapse. If you can offer a better case scenario, backed fully with calculations, do so.

Put up or shut up. Better still get in touch with this man whom you have continually accused of being complacent in mass murder and put your "mathematics” to him.

Please stop, you are fooling nobody other than yourself.

uruk
21st November 2008, 06:15 PM
Yes, that is stupid! But it is the upper section that should have failed and not the structure below, so the undamaged structure below now provides resistance to the failed structure above. WHAT!?!? Are you saying the lower section is indestructable? The lower section is composed of the same material as the upper section. You are guilty of the very same assumtion that you are accusing Bazant of.

Please, try to get your parts in order. The upper part is not rigid. It is the first one to be destroyed.Neither is the lower section. It will suffer destruction same as the upper section.

A W Smith
21st November 2008, 07:07 PM
Come on, debunk the Match Box Experiment. Win a prize!

drop an ant from 10 times its length onto another ant,

drop a six foot human from 60 feet onto another human,

compare which ones survived.

matchbox experiment debunked, show me my winnings.

NobbyNobbs
21st November 2008, 07:22 PM
Well in fantasy world three strong steel structures (office towers) suddenly collapsed due to gravity only after being initiated by fire, which has never happened before and will hopefully never happen again.

What happened to the Hindenburg will hopefully never happen again. Therefore, the Hindenburg was a matter of arson.

What happened to the Titanic will hopefully never happen again. Therefore, the Titanic was a matter of sabotage.

What happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki will hopefully never happen again. Therefore....oh, never mind. It's wasted breath.

Of course on videos of the real event we see complete sections of wall columns/spandrels being ejected sideways for which you require energy applied horizontally. But gravity is a vertical force.

Heiwa, try this little experiment. Take a wedge of wood to the ice skating rink. Place it on the ice so that a slanted side is up. Press straight down on the thin end and observe what happens. Do not apply a horizontal force.

Report back.

Heiwa
21st November 2008, 09:49 PM
WHAT!?!? Are you saying the lower section is indestructable? The lower section is composed of the same material as the upper section. You are guilty of the very same assumtion that you are accusing Bazant of.

Neither is the lower section. It will suffer destruction same as the upper section.

?? If you have read my post, you know very well that the upper part has exactly the same structural arrangement as the lower part; very strong vertical wall and core steel columns supported by spandrels at outside walls and horizontal beams at core, steel floor beams (actually lightweight trusses) between wall/core columns and then concrete floor slabs between the floor beams. The floors can carry 300 kgs/m². Not very strong! Reason for this is that the structure is mostly air and that the floors only carry furniture, etc.

As the lower part carries the upper part via the columns, the lower part columns are stronger than the upper part columns.
It is suggested that all 280+ columns between the upper and lower part fail at some time - buckle - three plastic hinges develop in every columns, two of these hinges fracture through completely and the piece in between drops out. Sounds fantastic but that is the official story.
And the the upper part drops on the lower part. What happens?

Well, the bottom floor and some floors above of the upper part - these floors are very thin - will be demolished, i.e. punched through by the lower part columns that are very strong! Evidently the upper part columns will punch through the top floors of the lower part, if they can! Two outside walls are however outside the part below and contacts nothing.

Result? A lot of damaged floors get entangled into one another and that will cause collapse arrest. The columns are not really damaged! The floors cannot damage those. Two walls of the top part may shear off and drop down outside.

And that's it. The lower structure columns remain intact and there are some damaged floors up top. What remains of the top part, rests up top on the lower part. A loose top part cannot produce global collapse of the lower part. It is quite basic.

Anyone suggesting that the top part - its lowest, thin floor - can crush columns in the lower part doesn't know anything about structural damage analysis.

So what you see on all videos of the destruction is not the top part crushing the lower part. QED.

Thunder
21st November 2008, 09:54 PM
there is no "upper section" and "lower section".

there is the total weight of the damaged section and the floors above it. all of these floors came crashing down on one floor. that floor couldnt handle the stress...so it collapsed onto the one below it. and so on..and so on.

every floor works together. they were built to hold a static load. once it becomes dynamic..its all over. but we all know that now dont we.

:D