Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

[aggle-rithm]

There is not one example of a structure where an upper part C can one-way crush down the lower part A (C = 1/10 A) when dropped on A by gravity.


How about two-way crush down?

[aggle-rithm]

No, if the assembly of elements of the upper part are similar to the lower part, except that the lower part previously carried the upper part and thus was slightly stronger, then the upper part can never have the momentum to destroy the lower part.


I'm not an engineer, so I don't know how to calculate static and dynamic loads.

However, you appear to not even understand the conceptual difference between the two.

I don't know where you got your engineering degree, but if I were you I would demand a refund.

[Heiwa]

Good....you at least defined what you actually mean by "smaller"....

Thats a start....



1. You seem to be using the entire structure "A" instead of the actual contact points that "C" would be applying forces to....



2. You seem to be assuming that the "deformations" in "A" and "C" will necessairly be of the exact same nature....

If "C" has already "broken free" and is essentially falling and the contact points for "A" are still attached to the rest of the structure then why would the "deformation" in both be exactly the same? Why couldnt the "deformation" in "A" consist of structural points being "deformed" to the point of breaking?





1. The energy applied by C at contact with A evidently produces forces at the contact points in interface C/A. As both C and A are assemblies of material elements/connections all elements in C and A are affected by these forces. Note, e.g. that C is not rigid as assumed by Mackey; part C being one mass M, while part A is a house of cards!

2. Evidently the forces applied on C and A due to impact C on A have different effects on the elements/connections of A and C! One reason is that A is bigger, can absorb more energy and is fixed on ground, while C is smaller and, after impact, is only in contact with A. So the deformations of elements/connections in A and C differ; actually they are a function of time after impact.

Please note that part C is not free after contact with A. C was free (actually free falling) prior contact with A and then, no forces were applied between elements/connections of C. After impact, C is subject to big forces applied by A on C.

In many cases when you drop a C on A, C bounces due to these forces. Reason being that the energy applied was too small, only elastic deformations took place, etc. In all other cases A arrests C due to local failures in and in the vicinity interface C/A and, in certain cases, interface A/ground. In no case C can one-way crush down A as suggested by Bazant, BLGB, Seffen and Mackey.

[beachnut]

I doubt that you are an engineer. You never involve yourself in technicalities.
When I see your work on 911 it is the opposite of engineering as you make up delusional nonsense of controlled demolition. Don't be surprised when people do not have to use technical jargon to expose your delusions. Your work is not applied engineering.

You also expose your failure to apply engineering skills by supporting posts of Heiwa's idiotic axioms and failed ideas. Pizza box engineering and kids jumping on beds are the tools of Heiwa; are they your tools too?

[FineWine]

Part C has simply less elements connected to one another than part A = C is smaller than A.
This means that part C can absorb less strain energy (elastic deformation) and plastic energy (plastic deformation) and requires less energy to be ripped apart (failures) than part A.

When part C applies its energy on part A, it is in the form of forces that displace elements in part A and produce elastic and plastic deformations and failures in A. However, part A - assisted by ground, applies the same forces on part C and thus produces elastic and plastic deformations and failures in C.

That's to begin with. So after a while part C is heavily damaged after the collision C/A, if the energy was sufficient to start with. Next step is what damaged part C can do later! Can it continue to one-way crush down part A? The answer is no.

If you do not agree, go to The Heiwa Challenge thread and demonstrate your belief with a suitable structure.


Stop this idiocy! Thirteen floors fall onto one floor and crush it. Now fourteen floors fall on one floor and crush it. And so on.

[Bluesky]

Nice try, but there are a few serious problems with your model..

Not really I just wanted to prove Heiwas theory wrong

It seems the floors in the twin towers were able to statically withstand the weight of 11 additional floors. Don't take my word for it. The NIST says it right in their Dec. 2007 FAQ on the collapses. Read question 1 at the link below.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_12_2007.htm.

Impact forces are higher than static forces. If the angle of impact is not completely flat then the full weight of the upper level will impact the lower level in a single location rather than being spread across the floor. How does that work in your theory?

Taping the columns together vertically probably isn't too realistic either, as it decreases the area of restraint and reduces the moment needed to cause buckling. There should be glue between the bottoms and tops of adjoining box's columns also. The glue here should be sufficient to ensure the original tensile strength and stiffness of the cardboard is maintained.

It doesn't sound like you use anything to provide for the spandrel beams either. They were not insignificant and were about 40% of the height of the columns. If the pizza boxes are 1.75 inches high you should put .75 inch high horizontal bands of thinner cardboard around the perimeter of each pizza box which is glued to each vertical column on that pizza box.

It looks like you are going to have to add a lot more glue and some additional cardboard for the spandrels to make a realistic model. If you do it this way let us know how it works then.

Taping the column worked fine. The glued horizontal provides lateral stabilty to the column. The the structural sytem had no spandrel beams, except for the floor diaphragm, which acted as a spandrel. Since the columns are quite wide then there was no problem with lateral stabilty. And I didn't think the point of Heiwas stupid challenge was to make a scale model of WTC.

But this model satisfied all the conditions of Heiwa's challenge

[Bluesky]

1. The energy applied by C at contact with A evidently produces forces at the contact points in interface C/A. As both C and A are assemblies of material elements/connections all elements in C and A are affected by these forces. Note, e.g. that C is not rigid as assumed by Mackey; part C being one mass M, while part A is a house of cards!

2. Evidently the forces applied on C and A due to impact C on A have different effects on the elements/connections of A and C! One reason is that A is bigger, can absorb more energy and is fixed on ground, while C is smaller and, after impact, is only in contact with A. So the deformations of elements/connections in A and C differ; actually they are a function of time after impact.

Please note that part C is not free after contact with A. C was free (actually free falling) prior contact with A and then, no forces were applied between elements/connections of C. After impact, C is subject to big forces applied by A on C.

In many cases when you drop a C on A, C bounces due to these forces. Reason being that the energy applied was too small, only elastic deformations took place, etc. In all other cases A arrests C due to local failures in and in the vicinity interface C/A and, in certain cases, interface A/ground. In no case C can one-way crush down A as suggested by Bazant, BLGB, Seffen and Mackey.

Perhaps I can explain using Heiwa babble:

1. The energy applied by A at contact with C evidently produces forces at the contact points in interface A/C. As both C and A are assemblies of material elements/connections all elements in A and C are affected by these forces. Note, e.g. that neither A or C is not rigid; part A being one mass M, while part C is another. If the angle of A/C interface is such then the total impact at the C/A interface will be higher than the average impact force distributed along the whole A/C interface

2. Evidently the forces applied on A and C due to impact A on C have different effects on the elements/connections of A and C! If the impact force on A/C interface is dependant on the A/C force being impacted over its average area, then the A/C impact force due to A/C when C impact at an angle will be locally concentrated at the A/C joint interface. The reaction at the interface is equal and opposite, but the concentration of force at any particular location is dependant on the angle of the interface and what exists at the interface. If the force at A/C iinterface is concentrated into a loacl area of weakness at either A or C then the damage will be concentrated according to their strength. .

In many cases when you drop a C on A, C bounces due to these forces, if it a solid mass, and dropped uniformly onto each other, or indeed if it is two balls. However if C is square and not dropped vertically then C is likley to put a dent in A, or A will put a dent in C depending on the angle of incidence. A dent is an inelastic deformation. If A or C has inadequate local ductilty to absorb the energy or create a dent, then the defermation will increase until all the potential energy is absorbed or until the deformation. The glass box scheme would just fail. Reason being that the energy applied would have to be absorbed over an area that is able to resist it.

Similarly if the box above missed the side of the box below by say the width of the wall, then the impact energy would have to be transferred thro the horizontal element until the vertical element could take the load. It would not matter if the eccentricity was on A or C.

Or alternatively if you want to prove it using pizza boxes, then its easy and see my earlier post.!

[Heiwa]

Not really I just wanted to prove Heiwas theory wrong



But this model satisfied all the conditions of Heiwa's challenge

So build one and produce the required test and report result. A video would be helpful.

[funk de fino]

So build one and produce the required test and report result. A video would be helpful.

No, a video would not be useful, you would just lie about what you see in it. Just like the videos of the collapses you lie about.

[Dave Rogers]

As Lord Kelvin said:

“I often say . . . that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science, whatever the matter may be.”

Tony has a valid point here. It's been advanced as intuitively obvious that a tilt will lead to the absence of a jolt, but no calculations have been advanced to show that this is the case. Since it really is just a matter of simple trigonometry and arithmetic, I spent a couple of hours putting the required numbers into a spreadsheet to demonstrate the principle.

I've started by defining a structure, which is similar but not identical to WTC1 (simply because I don't have the exact numbers; if anyone wants to go to the trouble of supplying them, I can substitute them into the model). The structure I've defined has 240 perimeter columns, spaced at 1m along four 59m side walls, each 31m from the centreline, each with an ultimate yield strength of 0.0063Mg, where M is the mass of the structure above; four corner core columns at ±20, ±12.5m, each of ultimate strength 0.09375Mg; and forty-four further core columns at all other points on a grid with X values ±20, 14, 8, 2m and Y values ±12.5, 10, 2.5m of ultimate strength 0.02625Mg. This is similar in dimensions to WTC1, and has the key properties that the overall safety factor is 3, that the core and perimeter bear equal proportions of the weight, and that the four corner core columns carry 25% of the core loads.

Next, I consider the case where an upper block of mass M of this structure falls on a lower block. I'm assuming that the angle of tilt is small enough that each column of the upper block impacts on the corresponding column of the lower block. For the behaviour on impact, I'm taking a greatly simplified model of column failure, in which the resistive force increases linearly up to the ultimate strength at 0.2% compression, then decreases linearly to zero at a further 3% compression. This has the useful property that the energy absorbed by the column is approximately correct, therefore the impulse applied to the upper block is reasonable. I've taken the column length as 4m, representing the height of a single floor. I'm also assuming that the moment of inertia of the upper block is very large, and that its rotational velocity is zero throughout the collision; in other words, the tilt angle is taken to be invariant.

The zero for the Z co-ordinate is defined as the level of the tops of the columns of the lower block, which are assumed to be coplanar. The process of collision is assumed to be as follows: As each column end of the upper block reaches z=0, the column below it is compressed elastically by 0.2%, during which time the force exerted by it increases linearly to its ultimate strength. It is then compressed inelastically by 3%, during which the force decreases linearly to zero. Outside this range the column exerts no force on the upper block. The forces are summed for all columns as a function of the height of the upper block, and this sum is subtracted from the force due to gravity to give a resultant force on the entire structure. This is then divided by the mass of the upper block. The result is a graph of acceleration of the upper block against height fallen. It is simple enough, given an initial velocity, to integrate this to give acceleration against time; however, for the purposes of this study, where peak acceleration is the main quantity of interest, acceleration as a function of distance will suffice.

The upper block is assumed to be rotated an angle B about an axis in the plane of the lower ends of its columns, oriented at an angle A to the long axis of the core. Any angular orientation may be represented in this form. By simple trigonometry, the height difference between any column end at co-ordinates (x, y) and the centre of the lower plane of the block is found to be:

Delta z = x cos A sin B - y sin A sin B

The upper columns strike the lower in the order of decreasing delta z. There is some disagreement about the angle at which the upper block fell; we have the following statements from Tony Szamboti, which are not internally consistent.


The upper block was not at an angle for the entire 114 feet we measured it's fall.

I already stated here that I withdrew that as an argument.

Of course, there was a tilt at the beginning of the collapse. I never said there was not.

Therefore, let us look at the behaviour of the block as a function of angle over a reasonable range.

Figure 5-8, NCSTAR1-6D, clearly shows a tilt in WTC 1 before the collapse even began.

NIST estimates this tilt at 8o as the southern wall buckled and initiated the collapse (NCSTAR1-6D, pg. 312 and elsewhere).

From this, 0-8o has been chosen as a reasonable range. I have therefore calculated acceleration as a function of distance for tilts of 0, 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 5 and 8o about axes at 0, 5, 10 and 30o to the long axis of the core, as a general indication of how the level of jolt would be expected to vary with both angles.

Fig. 1 shows a group of results for smaller angles. The result for zero tilt, as expected, shows a very strong jolt; a zero tilt fall results in all the columns making contact simultaneously, allowing the lower structure to resist collapse with its entire strength. Since, in this case, the ultimate strength of the lower structure has been set at three times the weight of the upper block, we see a resultant peak acceleration of -2G (where positive acceleration is defined as downwards). However, this peak falls off rapidly with tilt angle; at a tilt of only 0.25o, the acceleration does not decrease below zero, and for greater tilt angles the structure continues to accelerate downwards at all times.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/147644a49fdaf11701.bmp

Fig. 2 shows a range of curves for tilt angles of 8o about different axes. It can be seen that at no angle does the acceleration fall below 0.66G; as the angle of the tilt axis increases, the variation in acceleration becomes less, and varies very little above 5o off the long axis of the block.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/147644a49fd8f34d1e.bmp

Finally, fig. 3 shows the value of the highest negative peak in acceleration as a function of tilt angle and axis orientation. Again, we see that the maximum jolt falls off rapidly with tilt angle, and at no angle above 0.25o is any deceleration seen.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/147644a49fd7007345.bmp

This analysis considers only a single floor of supports. It should be noted that, for angles of 3.7o or greater, the difference in relative z values between the highest and lowest columns is greater than the floor spacing of 4m used in this model, so at this point the curve of the next floor would overlap that of the floor under consideration. This will cause additional averaging of the acceleration curves, and will not in general lead to a more intense jolt, as this would require simultaneous impacts between column groups on different floors, a highly unlikely event.

Three main conclusions may be drawn from these results. Firstly, if the drop of the upper block is carefully controlled so as to avoid any tilt, then a discernible jolt would be expected on impact with the lower floor. This is consistent with the observation that:
...measurements of the roof in the falling upper block in the Balzac-Vitry demolition showed a severe deceleration when it impacted the lower block after two stories were intentionally removed.
Since this requires precise timing of the removal of the supports - any difference in timing resulting in a turning moment, and hence rotation of the upper block and a tilted impact - it might be reasonable to suggest that the presence of such a jolt is a signature of controlled, and its absence of uncontrolled, collapses. Therefore, the absence of a jolt in the collapse of WTC1 is itself evidence that the collapse initiation was not a well-controlled process; this argues against, rather than in favour of, controlled demolition.

Secondly, it can be seen that the statement:
...the tilt would not allow for a natural collapse without a jolt.
is comprehensively refuted; the tilt alone is found to be responsible for the absence of the jolt.

Finally, it is noted that, for tilts of 0.25o and above, at no point does the upper block experience an overall deceleration; its acceleration is always downwards. In fact, for a tilt angle of 8o, it is necessary to increase the safety factor threefold before even a very brief period of negative acceleration is seen. From this it can therefore be seen that the tilt alone must result in collapse progression, without the need for dynamic loading of the lower block. This is because the tilt causes the weight of the upper block to fracture the lower supports separately rather than simultaneously, and no smaller group of these supports is able to resist the weight of the upper block; by the time another group makes contact, the previous group has already failed. Therefore, the tilt alone not only allows for a natural collapse with no significant jolt, it makes such a collapse inevitable.

Dave

[sylvan8798]

Very nice, Dave.

[grmcdorman]

Very nice, Mr. Rogers.

Edit: Darn you, sylvan8798!

[newton3376]

1. The energy applied by C at contact with A evidently produces forces at the contact points in interface C/A. As both C and A are assemblies of material elements/connections all elements in C and A are affected by these forces. Note, e.g. that C is not rigid as assumed by Mackey; part C being one mass M, while part A is a house of cards!

I find some of your wording a bit strange (energy "produces" forces) but that is another matter....

We have to be careful when saying things like "all elements in C and A are affected by these forces"...the way you worded that could lead to incorrect conclusions...

Are we to assume that every time part of C impacts part of A that the force is transmitted through the entire structure? What if a particular impact occurs at a connection point and the connection breaks?

We have no guarantee that the various individual pieces of A will be able to absorb every impact with some section of C without breaking.

As far as your comment regarding Mackey....I have tried to find errors in what I have read from him and so far I have found none. Part C and part A are both complicated structures with various pieces....from my perspective it is you that is oversimplifying the situation....

2. Evidently the forces applied on C and A due to impact C on A have different effects on the elements/connections of A and C! One reason is that A is bigger, can absorb more energy and is fixed on ground, while C is smaller and, after impact, is only in contact with A. So the deformations of elements/connections in A and C differ; actually they are a function of time after impact.

Again....you keep thinking of A as if it is some kind of soild block or something...

A has many many interconnected pieces so what makes you think these various pieces can survive an impact from C without breaking apart?

C doesnt impact ALL OF A at once....it causes structural failure at various points as it impacts that particular floor, which then also begins to fall due to gravity and adds to the falling debris that then hits the next floor...etc

Please note that part C is not free after contact with A. C was free (actually free falling) prior contact with A and then, no forces were applied between elements/connections of C. After impact, C is subject to big forces applied by A on C.

C is free in the sense that it is not structurally connected to A and is in free fall due to gravity....

Just because A exerts some force on C as C destroys parts of A doesnt mean that we can say that C is now structurally connected to A.

And please keep in mind that gravity itself is a force*....

In many cases when you drop a C on A, C bounces due to these forces. Reason being that the energy applied was too small, only elastic deformations took place, etc. In all other cases A arrests C due to local failures in and in the vicinity interface C/A and, in certain cases, interface A/ground. In no case C can one-way crush down A as suggested by Bazant, BLGB, Seffen and Mackey.

Please give me examples of these "cases" you keep referring to....

How many "cases" analogous to the WTC collapse are you referencing?

Did you read the Bazant papers? Ive looked at them....they seem to be quite thorough....

Maybe you should try to publish something to refute them and see how widely accepted and well received your paper is by the engineering community?



* I am not referring to the gravitational constant G but to what we call the "gravitional force" in classical Newtonian mechanics. I know that technically the idea of gravity being a "force" is disputed from a general relativity point of view.

[Heiwa]

A. I find some of your wording a bit strange (energy "produces" forces) but that is another matter....

B. We have to be careful when saying things like "all elements in C and A are affected by these forces"...the way you worded that could lead to incorrect conclusions...

C. Are we to assume that every time part of C impacts part of A that the force is transmitted through the entire structure? What if a particular impact occurs at a connection point and the connection breaks?

D. We have no guarantee that the various individual pieces of A will be able to absorb every impact with some section of C without breaking.

E. As far as your comment regarding Mackey....I have tried to find errors in what I have read from him and so far I have found none. Part C and part A are both complicated structures with various pieces....from my perspective it is you that is oversimplifying the situation....



F. Again....you keep thinking of A as if it is some kind of soild block or something...

G. A has many many interconnected pieces so what makes you think these various pieces can survive an impact from C without breaking apart?

H. C doesnt impact ALL OF A at once....it causes structural failure at various points as it impacts that particular floor, which then also begins to fall due to gravity and adds to the falling debris that then hits the next floor...etc



I. C is free in the sense that it is not structurally connected to A and is in free fall due to gravity....

J. Just because A exerts some force on C as C destroys parts of A doesnt mean that we can say that C is now structurally connected to A.

K. And please keep in mind that gravity itself is a force*....



L. Please give me examples of these "cases" you keep referring to....

M. How many "cases" analogous to the WTC collapse are you referencing?

N. Did you read the Bazant papers? Ive looked at them....they seem to be quite thorough....

O. Maybe you should try to publish something to refute them and see how widely accepted and well received your paper is by the engineering community?



* I am not referring to the gravitational constant G but to what we call the "gravitional force" in classical Newtonian mechanics. I know that technically the idea of gravity being a "force" is disputed from a general relativity point of view.

A. Layman's terms. Energy (Nm) is just Force (N) displacing a Distance (m).

B. Agree.

C. Yes, the forces (!) are transmitted through both structures C and A. If anything breaks you have to consider it; the force will be transmitted somewhere else.

D. Correct. Same applies to C and the forces A applies on C.

E. Hm! Mackey assumes part C is only one material point M and forgets that C is an assembly of material points/elements/connections.

F. No! How can you suggest that? A is similar to C - just bigger and stronger! Remember A carried C before impact. C could never carry A..

G. A will suffer local failures like C. Plenty of energy applied is absorbed that way.

H. ??? Unclear. Very unclear. Do you suggest that C knocks off a piece of A and that this piece of A starts to destroy the remainder of A. Please clarify.

I. Free? C is in contact with A and A is in contact with C. It is similar to intercourse ... or wrestling.

J. Whatever. A and C apply forces on one another.

K. Of course. C could not drop on A or ground without gravity. Ground!! What would happen if C missed A and dropped on ground? Wouldn't C get damaged? Or would C one-way crush down ground? Actually, when C impacts A, C impacts ground as A is connected to ground.

L. Just check JREF! I have demonstrated many cases/structures; pizza boxes, lemons, rubber balls, ships, sponges, &c.

M. None! WTC 1, 2 and 7 were all destroyed by controlled demolitions.

N. Of course. My paper debunking Bazant is, I am told (by ASCE + editor Ross Corotis), getting published in ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics soon.

O. See N.

Thanks for your post. It seems you have missed a lot, e.g. that a part C of a structure A cannot one-way crush down A (C = 1/10 A) under any circumstances. So the 911 WTC destructions could not have been produced by an upper part (C) dropping on a lower part (A) connected to ground.

[sylvan8798]

I find some of your wording a bit strange (energy "produces" forces) but that is another matter....

<snip>

Maybe you should try to publish something to refute them and see how widely accepted and well received your paper is by the engineering community?
.

If Heiwa's rants don't seem to make sense, it's because they're not even in the ballpark of sense. I'm sure we are all looking forward to his "paper" appearing in ASCE JEM. The crux of his premise seems to be that falling debris can't break intact structures, an idea which I'm sure would come as a surprise to most engineers/physicists.

[Heiwa]

The crux of his premise seems to be that falling debris can't break intact structures, an idea which I'm sure would come as a surprise to most engineers/physicists.

The only thing that is falling prior impact is part C. When part C impacts part A and applies its energy, forces develop, etc, etc. It seems we all agree to that.
What happens then? Does C break away parts from A that become debris? Or does A break away parts from C that become debris.

Yes, it may happen, even if most damaged elements will not break away but hang on to parts C and A.

So, do you suggest that the few elements that become free - free debris - start to drop and destroy A??

Can you give any example of that?

What elements of C and A will be detached and then drop and contact some other elements of A?

Suggest you make a model and demonstrate your suggestion that debris from a structure will destroy the same structure. Or you have some real examples?

Looking at videos of WTC 1 it seems big sections of upper part C perimeter wall columns - 30 m wide, 8 floors high = big debris - are ejected outside the structure below and drop to ground.

[bill smith]

If Heiwa's rants don't seem to make sense, it's because they're not even in the ballpark of sense. I'm sure we are all looking forward to his "paper" appearing in ASCE JEM. The crux of his premise seems to be that falling debris can't break intact structures, an idea which I'm sure would come as a surprise to most engineers/physicists.
I'm looking forward to Heiwa's paper too but not as much as 'm looking forward to Bazant's reply. I haven't seen magic explained in engineering terms since 9/11. This time thousands will be trying to spot the trick. Bet it won't take long. lol

[bill smith]

The only thing that is falling prior impact is part C. When part C impacts part A and applies its energy, forces develop, etc, etc. It seems we all agree to that.
What happens then? Does C break away parts from A that become debris? Or does A break away parts from C that become debris.

Yes, it may happen, even if most damaged elements will not break away but hang on to parts C and A.

So, do you suggest that the few elements that become free - free debris - start to drop and destroy A??

Can you give any example of that?

What elements of C and A will be detached and then drop and contact some other elements of A?

Suggest you make a model and demonstrate your suggestion that debris from a structure will destroy the same structure. Or you have some real examples?

Looking at videos of WTC 1 it seems big sections of upper part C perimeter wall columns - 30 m wide, 8 floors high = big debris - are ejected outside the structure below and drop to ground.

Heiwa if all or most of the core columns had failed in part A would the collapse have proceeded just as we saw on television ?

[beachnut]

I'm looking forward to Heiwa's paper too but not as much as 'm looking forward to Bazant's reply. I haven't seen magic explained in engineering terms since 9/11. This time thousands will be trying to spot the trick. Bet it won't take long. lol

If you take Heiwa's work to an engineer you will understand why his work will not earn a Pulitzer Prize for exposing 911 delusional bad guys deep in your fantasy world of 911. Plus there is no moronic delusion class for the Pulitzer Prize.

I love it when you don't have to be an engineer to understand Heiwa was proved wrong on 911, but it does not hurt. If you start school now, in six years you could earn a masters in engineering and have the same schooling as many here at JREF in engineering. But you will support Heiwa with your failed opinions based on your delusional notions of what happen on 911. I am keeping track of what you and Heiwa got right about 911. The math needed to comprehend this list is at the truther simple level.

1. 9 September 2001.

[FineWine]

I'm looking forward to Heiwa's paper too but not as much as 'm looking forward to Bazant's reply. I haven't seen magic explained in engineering terms since 9/11. This time thousands will be trying to spot the trick. Bet it won't take long. lol


You keep neglecting to tell us why thousands of engineers all over the world have failed to spot the errors a lone agenda-driven incompetent professes to see. Bazant's reply and the replies of the other real engineers at the ASCE journal are absolutely predictable. They will emphatically reject the idiocy spouted by Heiwa. The comic part comes in when your dimwitted guru starts braying about the NWO and religious fundamentalists and you, of course, parrot him.

[FineWine]

The only thing that is falling prior impact is part C. When part C impacts part A and applies its energy, forces develop, etc, etc. It seems we all agree to that.
What happens then? Does C break away parts from A that become debris? Or does A break away parts from C that become debris.

Yes, it may happen, even if most damaged elements will not break away but hang on to parts C and A.

So, do you suggest that the few elements that become free - free debris - start to drop and destroy A??

Can you give any example of that?

What elements of C and A will be detached and then drop and contact some other elements of A?

Suggest you make a model and demonstrate your suggestion that debris from a structure will destroy the same structure. Or you have some real examples?

Looking at videos of WTC 1 it seems big sections of upper part C perimeter wall columns - 30 m wide, 8 floors high = big debris - are ejected outside the structure below and drop to ground.



The thirteen falling floors crush the floor below. Then fourteen falling floors crush the floor below. Then fifteen falling floors crush the floor below. And so on until there is no building. It all happens very quickly, as millions of us saw on 9/11/01.

Nobody with a degree in engineering can be as obtuse as you seem to be.

[Heiwa]

Heiwa if all or most of the core columns had failed in part A would the collapse have proceeded just as we saw on television ?

Core columns! Both upper structural assembly part C and lower structural assembly part A have core columns as vertical support elements. They are the strongest elements of the structure. The floors hangs on the core columns. Without core columns the core ... or the Towers ... would not exist.

Now, let's assume that the core columns between parts C and A fail. Result? The part C core structure drops down and impacts part A. What elements of A do the C core column elements contact then?

I would assume it is the top A floor or they drop into elevator shafts and contact nothing. If they contact the top A floor, I assume they punch holes in it.

Another question to be asked is; what C elements do the A core columns contact?

Probably the C bottom floor unless they end up in an elevator shaft and contacts nothing.

So, when C drops on A, strong elements (core columns) contact weak elements (floors) or nothing (elevator shafts).

Why anything would collapse from top down - C one-way crushing down A - is beyond my understanding. It cannot happen!

I only see on videos (of WTC 1) what happens to the outside walls - the perimeter columns! Big sections - 30 m wide, 8 floors high of the upper part C (above floor 96) - are ejected outside part A at the beginning ... and drops to ground. Thus, big parts of C - the outside walls, very strong - do not contact part A at all during the alleged collapse.

According Bazant & Co the upper part C remains intact all the time during 'collapse'. Part C is crushed-up 10-15 seconds later when it contacts a heap of rubble - part B. This and many other strange things associated with the BLGB model are described in my paper to ASCE/JEM that, I assume, will soon be published.

[newton3376]

A. Layman's terms. Energy (Nm) is just Force (N) displacing a Distance (m).

I probably would have defined it in more mathematical terms to be precise (like talking about work and force and potential/kinetic energy and their respective definitions) but I'll let it stand as is cause I'm really not trying to nitpick here....

C. Yes, the forces (!) are transmitted through both structures C and A. If anything breaks you have to consider it; the force will be transmitted somewhere else.

I think this is where you go wrong...I don't think you are correctly considering "if anything breaks".....

If something "breaks" I would assume the force would not only break it but also "push" (i.e. accelerate) the piece it "broke". We can get nitpicky here about how much of the force goes into "breaking" the piece, accelerating it, heating it up, producing sound waves, etc...

But I think (hope) you see my point....you don't seem to be taking the "breaking" aspect into account here...

D. Correct. Same applies to C and the forces A applies on C.

Sure...but keep in mind that one section (C) is falling due to gravity while the other section (A) is not. This is very significant.

E. Hm! Mackey assumes part C is only one material point M and forgets that C is an assembly of material points/elements/connections.

Could you show me where Mackey assumes this? So far I haven't noticed any conceptual or mathematical errors in anything I have seen from Mackey...

F. No! How can you suggest that? A is similar to C - just bigger and stronger! Remember A carried C before impact. C could never carry A..

I am hesitant to use the word "stronger" since it seems too "loose" of a term...by "loose" I mean inexact.

I agree that the structure "C" could not "carry" the structure "A", but I fail to see how that implies that C could not destroy A while it is falling and impacting A.....

G. A will suffer local failures like C. Plenty of energy applied is absorbed that way.

I agree that C will suffer some local failures as well.....but C is no longer connected to the ground and is falling through the air...

I would think some of the energy would also be absorbed by breaking parts of A and pushing them down....

H. ??? Unclear. Very unclear. Do you suggest that C knocks off a piece of A and that this piece of A starts to destroy the remainder of A. Please clarify.

I'm suggesting that the pieces that get knocked off start accelerating due to gravity (and possibly due to the 'push' from C when they were broken off) and add to the destructive force of C....

So it's a progressive collapse....progressive destruction....

I. Free? C is in contact with A and A is in contact with C. It is similar to intercourse ... or wrestling.

I believe I clarified what I meant when I wrote "free"...

1. Not structurally connected
2. In free fall due to gravity

J. Whatever. A and C apply forces on one another.

Sure they do.....but to repeat what I said (and this is relevant to my previous comment)....
"Just because A exerts some force on C as C destroys parts of A doesn't mean that we can say that C is now structurally connected to A."


K. Of course. C could not drop on A or ground without gravity. Ground!! What would happen if C missed A and dropped on ground? Wouldn't C get damaged? Or would C one-way crush down ground? Actually, when C impacts A, C impacts ground as A is connected to ground.

I never implied that C doesn't get damaged during the collapse....

L. Just check JREF! I have demonstrated many cases/structures; pizza boxes, lemons, rubber balls, ships, sponges, &c.

WHAT THE HELL?

WHAT THE F*&^ DID YOU JUST SAY?

PIZZA BOXES? LEMONS? RUBBER BALLS? SHIPS? SPONGES?

You "demonstrated" that pizza boxes, lemons, rubber balls, or sponges can't fall due to a progressive collapse after being hit with an airliner and catching on fire?

Really? Cmon man......the structures you use for an engineering anaylsis and comparison are cardboard and fruit? Are you freaking serious?

It's good to know that if I'm ever in a building made out of lemons or pizza boxes that I am safe from a progressive collapse...

M. None! WTC 1, 2 and 7 were all destroyed by controlled demolitions.

None is right...

You used fruit and cardboard.....

N. Of course. My paper debunking Bazant is, I am told (by ASCE + editor Ross Corotis), getting published in ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics soon.

O. See N.

I will be interested to see what responses it receives....

Thanks for your post. It seems you have missed a lot, e.g. that a part C of a structure A cannot one-way crush down A (C = 1/10 A) under any circumstances. So the 911 WTC destructions could not have been produced by an upper part (C) dropping on a lower part (A) connected to ground.

Well I have to admit...I was unconvinced of your conclusions until you mentioned the lemons....

One can't refute a structural analysis using fruit....

[aggle-rithm]

Heiwa if all or most of the core columns had failed in part A would the collapse have proceeded just as we saw on television ?

Short answer? He doesn't know.

Long answer? See his reply.

[aggle-rithm]

Why anything would collapse from top down - C one-way crushing down A - is beyond my understanding. It cannot happen!


Let's say you build an intricate sandcastle about six feet tall. You get the sand just wet enough that you are able to build it up, in columns, layer by layer. The result is sturdy enough that it can withstand a pretty stiff wind, but of course would collapse if someone pushed it over.

This is a fair scaled-down analogue to a skyscraper. Of course, you can't push a skyscraper over, but that's just because a person isn't comparable in size to a skyscraper as he is to our hypothetical sandcastle.

Now say you take the top foot and a half of this structure and lift it a few inches. You drop it.

According to your beliefs, it is IMPOSSIBLE for this upper section to cause the lower section to collapse by gravity alone.

Remember, it's a structure. You have said that your theory applies to any structure and the building materials are irrelevant. So, do you still say it could not collapse? Or are you going to invoke special pleading?

[Bluesky]

Core columns! Both upper structural assembly part C and lower structural assembly part A have core columns as vertical support elements. They are the strongest elements of the structure. The floors hangs on the core columns. Without core columns the core ... or the Towers ... would not exist.

Agreed that the core columns are the strongest elements in the tower when subject to a unform vertical load. The splice consists of a simple stack joint: so the columns have nominal lateral capacity and nominal buckling capacity if the buckling length contains the splice.


Now, let's assume that the core columns between parts C and A fail. Result? The part C core structure drops down and impacts part A. What elements of A do the C core column elements contact then?

I would assume it is the top A floor or they drop into elevator shafts and contact nothing. If they contact the top A floor, I assume they punch holes in it.

I agree, indeed you would expect that they would remove all the floor steel that connects to the column, from the column.

Another question to be asked is; what C elements do the A core columns contact?

Probably the C bottom floor unless they end up in an elevator shaft and contacts nothing.

I agree, indeed you would expect that they would remove all the floor steel that connects to the column, from the column.


So, when C drops on A, strong elements (core columns) contact weak elements (floors) or nothing (elevator shafts).

Ok so we have agreed that the columns are likely to have the floors stripped away from them by the falling mass. Now the lower column is unrestrained and when the floor mass from the level above eventually causes a small lateral thrust at the column splice, then that joint fails.
if you look at the debris pile you see lots of straight elements, no blast debris, little bending, just lots of straight elements.
We have previously explained to you why the perimeter did not contribute. So do you start to get it?


Why anything would collapse from top down - C one-way crushing down A - is beyond my understanding. It cannot happen!

I am not sure how to explain it in ship terms, but I liked the bullet analagoy. So take a small mass, a shell (without explosives) and shoot it at a building or a ship; then the relative masses are not really important. What is important is if the small mass destroys anything that the bigg mass needs to survive...such as columns splices or in the case of a ship, it's water-tightness.

I only see on videos (of WTC 1) what happens to the outside walls - the perimeter columns! Big sections - 30 m wide, 8 floors high of the upper part C (above floor 96) - are ejected outside part A at the beginning ... and drops to ground. Thus, big parts of C - the outside walls, very strong - do not contact part A at all during the alleged collapse.

Correct thats what happens when C hits A, if it doesnt quite hit straight on. The collapse blows out the perimeter, so it doesnt contribute to the resistance. If you look at the collapse mechanism you will see lots of indicaation of internal air pressure blowing out the perimeter walls, so that they do not contribute to resisting the vertical impact energy. Its the unzipping, banana skin effect.

According Bazant & Co the upper part C remains intact all the time during 'collapse'. Part C is crushed-up 10-15 seconds later when it contacts a heap of rubble - part B. This and many other strange things associated with the BLGB model are described in my paper to ASCE/JEM that, I assume, will soon be published.
You keep forgetting its not a solid body and that lots of energy was absorbed by the collapse. The time of collapse for WTC2 is measured at about 14.5 seconds, which means that it collapsed at 40%g, which in turn means that 60% of the potential energy was absorbed in the impact.

And Bazant got one thing right, that the rest of the world agrees with... (apart from a few ship scientists, road designers, fresh graduates and 2 story building experts); there is no indication of CD.

Come on Heiwa, be brave and admit that perhaps you are wrong. I would guess that your paper assumes that all the columns buckled and contributed to resistance and we know that they didn't. If all the columns had no splices and had contributed to resisting the collapse then I would agree that the collapse would be impossible. But then that would be a similar argument to "if I had a brother then I am sure he would play the piano."
t.

[Heiwa]

According to your beliefs, it is IMPOSSIBLE for this upper section to cause the lower section to collapse by gravity alone.

Remember, it's a structure. You have said that your theory applies to any structure and the building materials are irrelevant. So, do you still say it could not collapse? Or are you going to invoke special pleading?

Yes, it is impossible for an upper part C of any structure to one-way crush down the lower part A. See post #1. And by the way; as soon as part C impacts A after free fall, C cannot free fall any longer. A arrests C one way or another, e.g. by bouncing it off or damaging it. Happens everytime ... except 911.

[Heiwa]

Come on Heiwa, be brave and admit that perhaps you are wrong. I would guess that your paper assumes that all the columns buckled and contributed to resistance and we know that they didn't. If all the columns had no splices and had contributed to resisting the collapse then I would agree that the collapse would be impossible. But then that would be a similar argument to "if I had a brother then I am sure he would play the piano."
t.

Prove me wrong for any structure, e.g. with splices. See The Heiwa Challenge thread for details.

[FineWine]

Yes, it is impossible for an upper part C of any structure to one-way crush down the lower part A. See post #1. And by the way; as soon as part C impacts A after free fall, C cannot free fall any longer. A arrests C one way or another, e.g. by bouncing it off or damaging it. Happens everytime ... except 911.



When the real engineers at the ASCE journal expose your idiocy as the real engineers on this forum have done so often, do you intend to scream that they're all shills and religious fundamentalists? It is important that you go on record. I have asked you to make a wager with me on the reception your nonsensical paper gets. Typically, you ran away. Let's establish that nothing anybody says can pentrate your colossal ignorance and incompetence.

[FineWine]

Yes, it is impossible for an upper part C of any structure to one-way crush down the lower part A. See post #1. And by the way; as soon as part C impacts A after free fall, C cannot free fall any longer. A arrests C one way or another, e.g. by bouncing it off or damaging it. Happens everytime ... except 911.



You always lose because you're incompetent and too mulishly arrogant to admit your blunders.

Thirteen floors crush ONE floor. Then fourteen floors crush ONE floor. Then fifteen floors crush ONE floor...

Only you and your mindless parrot fail to grasp this FACT.

[Heiwa]

Ok so we have agreed that the columns are likely to have the floors stripped away from them by the falling mass.

Have we? What falling mass are you talking about? Upper part C? It consists of many small masses, most of which are remote from interface C/A. And all these C masses are connected to one another. You have to specify what mass you are talking about.

No, it seems we agreed that the A columns would destroy the C bottom floor (it has a mass) and maybe some C floors above (more masses) at impact.
Note that the A columns are not moving, while the C floors are. So if the C floors cannot destroy the A columns, what would damage, buckle?, the A columns?

You know, the A columns are like swords fixed on ground and then some stupid fool, you ?, throw himself on the sword and get slashed. Not recommended though.

[triforcharity]

Heiwa,

Wouldn't the columns be expected to fail at their weakest point?? Please tell me, wouldn't that point be the splice plate where the two pieces are joined together??

Correct me....if I am wrong......

[Gamolon]

Have we? What falling mass are you talking about? Upper part C? It consists of many small masses, most of which are remote from interface C/A. And all these C masses are connected to one another. You have to specify what mass you are talking about.

No, it seems we agreed that the A columns would destroy the C bottom floor (it has a mass) and maybe some C floors above (more masses) at impact.
Note that the A columns are not moving, while the C floors are. So if the C floors cannot destroy the A columns, what would damage, buckle?, the A columns?

You know, the A columns are like swords fixed on ground and then some stupid fool, you ?, throw himself on the sword and get slashed. Not recommended though.

Hey Heiwa, haveyou presented your claims to Leslie Robertson and maybe get his opinion on what you are saying?

I have written him in the past and have gotten responses from him. He seems to be a good guy.

Why don't you send his firm an email? The conatct information is on the LERA website. There is a specific address to Sawteen See who is handling all questions about the towers and 9/11.

I recently wrote him and had a couple of email exchanges concerning the tower.

[Gamolon]

Someone please explain something to me.

Here is a photo of the some of connections to the perimeter columns for the floor trusses.
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/1-4_perimeter-column-1.jpg

If the mass of the upper floors collapsed, wouldn't it be these truss connections that would get the brunt of the weight? Menaing that yes the columns would hold straight up, but the individual connections would fail?

If I drove a perimeter column into the ground and welded an "L" shaped connection to it and then hit the top face of the "L" with a sledgehammer, where would the highest stress point be? Wouldn't the top of the "L" shaped connection either bend downward or shear off?

[aggle-rithm]

And by the way; as soon as part C impacts A after free fall, C cannot free fall any longer. A arrests C one way or another, e.g. by bouncing it off or damaging it.

It seems like you're using a false dichotomy here. Either it falls at free-fall or it's arrested completely. This isn't your position, is it?

If I were solving this as a calculus problem, I would not be able to treat the mass of the two parts of the building as constants. To do so would be to turn it into a simple algebra problem, and this doesn't help solve such real-world conumdrums.

Instead, I would have to take into account the fact that the mass of the stationary part of the building as well as the mass of the mobile, fragmenting part, is constantly fluctuating. As the mobile "part" (actually a collection of mobile parts) gets bigger, the stationary part gets smaller, until the system reaches equilibrium and the collapse stops.

Is this the way you approached the problem? Because it doesn't sound like it is.

Happens everytime ... except 911.

Can you give us some examples?

[Gamolon]

The building graphic conatined here is completely bogus.

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/mac5.htm

The columns were not BELOW the floors supporting them. There were connections ATTACHED to the inside face of the perimeter columns and core columns.

Heiwa, wouldn't this make your point that columns should have arrested the collapse moot becasue the forces would have acted upon the connections on the columns either bending them downward or shearing them off?

[triforcharity]

Aggle,

Yes, you are absolutely correct, that piece of steel would have done a few things.

1-The bolts that went through it to attach the truss to it would have snapped
2-the welds that (I am guessing there were welds) were holding the truss on would have failed
3-The L bracket that is most likely welded, would have completely sheared off, or at the very least, bent enough to provide no support whatsoever to the truss.

[Gamolon]

Heiwa,

This paragraph from your site here, http://heiwaco.tripod.com/mac5.htm, is garbage.

Section C consists of 14 horizontal elements/floors, each with mass m as section A, stacked on top of each other with vertical support elements in between of height h. Total mass of C is 14 m. It is 52 meters tall.

The support elements were not "in between" the floors. The perimter columns were around the outside of the floors while the core columns were on the inside edge of the floors.

That's like me taking two slices of bread on top of one another, laying a slice of ham right up against the two slices, then claiming that the ham is in between the two slices of bread.

[Gamolon]

Aggle,

Yes, you are absolutely correct, that piece of steel would have done a few things.

1-The bolts that went through it to attach the truss to it would have snapped
2-the welds that (I am guessing there were welds) were holding the truss on would have failed
3-The L bracket that is most likely welded, would have completely sheared off, or at the very least, bent enough to provide no support whatsoever to the truss.

Which is why, I'm assuming, we see perimeter columns fall away from the collapse as the mass continued downward. The mass sheared the floors from their connections to the perimeter columns on it's way down and pushed the columns outward.

Is this a correct assessment?

[Heiwa]

A. It seems like you're using a false dichotomy here. Either it falls at free-fall or it's arrested completely. This isn't your position, is it?

B. If I were solving this as a calculus problem, I would not be able to treat the mass of the two parts of the building as constants. To do so would be to turn it into a simple algebra problem, and this doesn't help solve such real-world conumdrums.

C. Instead, I would have to take into account the fact that the mass of the stationary part of the building as well as the mass of the mobile, fragmenting part, is constantly fluctuating. As the mobile "part" (actually a collection of mobile parts) gets bigger, the stationary part gets smaller, until the system reaches equilibrium and the collapse stops.

D. Is this the way you approached the problem? Because it doesn't sound like it is.



E. Can you give us some examples?

A. No! Part C is assumed to drop/free fall only prior impact with part A. Evidently C cannot continue to free fall afterwards. What happens afterwards - local deformations, local failures is what we discuss here.

B. What happens after impact is a dynamic problem! The number of elements with masses and connections are always constant but you have to keep track where they are. Software exists to study this.

C. The only things that fluctuate are the internal, dynamic forces in parts C and A after impact. Mass cannot fluctuate! So just study these forces and how they displace the elements or break elements/connections locally. After a while the forces become static! Arrest has occurred.

D. See C.

E. There are many examples of similar structures in collision one being dropped on another, e.g. my famous Pizza box experiment. No one-way crush down there. Top box C just bounces on boxes A. You see, part C cannot one-way crush down A for any structure. See The Heiwa Challenge thread where every JREF participant has failed completely to prove me wrong.

[aggle-rithm]

C. The only things that fluctuate are the internal, dynamic forces in parts C and A after impact. Mass cannot fluctuate! So just study these forces and how they displace the elements or break elements/connections locally.


These absolutist statements such as "Mass cannot fluctuate" will be the death of you some day.

I'll try to make it simple for you: You have two buckets half-filled with sand. Bucket A and Bucket B.

You pour twenty grams of sand from A to B. The mass within A and the mass within B have now FLUCTUATED. Like it or not. One has been reduced by twenty grams, the other has increased by twenty grams.

You may reply, "But the original mass didn't fluctuate! It just moved from one place to another!"

I never claimed that it did otherwise. When I talk about the moving portion of the building, I am not talking about a portion that has always and will always be moving. I am talking about the parts of the building that are in motion at a particular moment in time.

Follow me so far?

When I talk about the stationary portion of the building, I am talking about that portion of the building that is still intact and is not moving. I am not talking about the section that was intact at the moment the upper section became mobile.

Get it? It's a process.

When I say that the mass of each fluctuates, I am saying that as time progresses, some of the mass that was formerly in the stationary category moves into the mobile category, and vice versa. Clearly, in the case of the WTC towers, most of this switching of categories occured in one direction: the mobile mass tended to grow larger with time, while the stationary mass grew smaller, until equilibrium was reached.

There! Was that so hard? Now you can't pretend that you don't understand what I'm talking about.


After a while the forces become static! Arrest has occurred.


I agree. At some point the moving mass encounters debris that is so compacted that it cannot continue to fall. By the time the WTC towers reached that point, they had completely collapsed.

[triforcharity]

I would say yes, based on my admitted limited engineering understanding. But, my dad is a SE, and he has agreed.

[aggle-rithm]

Everyone,

Sorry about my troll-feeding. I'm sure this has all been explained to Heiwa many times, ad nauseum.

I have no illusions that Heiwa will somehow "get it". It's just that I find this discussion interesting.

[newton3376]

Can you give us some examples?

What about fruit and cardboard?

How better to model a structure like the WTC than with a bunch of lemons or some pizza boxes?

Fruit and cardboard....engineering analysis at its finest......

[bill smith]

These absolutist statements such as "Mass cannot fluctuate" will be the death of you some day.

I'll try to make it simple for you: You have two buckets half-filled with sand. Bucket A and Bucket B.

You pour twenty grams of sand from A to B. The mass within A and the mass within B have now FLUCTUATED. Like it or not. One has been reduced by twenty grams, the other has increased by twenty grams.

You may reply, "But the original mass didn't fluctuate! It just moved from one place to another!"

I never claimed that it did otherwise. When I talk about the moving portion of the building, I am not talking about a portion that has always and will always be moving. I am talking about the parts of the building that are in motion at a particular moment in time.

Follow me so far?

When I talk about the stationary portion of the building, I am talking about that portion of the building that is still intact and is not moving. I am not talking about the section that was intact at the moment the upper section became mobile.

Get it? It's a process.

When I say that the mass of each fluctuates, I am saying that as time progresses, some of the mass that was formerly in the stationary category moves into the mobile category, and vice versa. Clearly, in the case of the WTC towers, most of this switching of categories occured in one direction: the mobile mass tended to grow larger with time, while the stationary mass grew smaller, until equilibrium was reached.

There! Was that so hard? Now you can't pretend that you don't understand what I'm talking about.




I agree. At some point the moving mass encounters debris that is so compacted that it cannot continue to fall. By the time the WTC towers reached that point, they had completely collapsed.

What if part A had been 200 floors ? Where would collapse arrest have taken place then ?

[phunk]

What if part A had been 200 floors ? Where would collapse arrest have taken plaace then ?

In a design like the WTC, probably at the ground no matter how tall you made it.

[bill smith]

In a design like the WTC, probably at the ground no matter how tall you made it.

That means that 5 % of a building would crush te other 95% down level with the ground
. See it as a stack of 20 identical items with the top one crushing the other 19. It has never happened and it never will.

[triforcharity]

Phunk,

I was thinking the same thing. Somewhere near the earth would be my guess. But, it could have been at the first floor, im not certain.

[Heiwa]

Follow me so far?




Not really! It seems paranormal and is thus welcome at JREF.

Suggest you design a structure with fluctuating mass and enter it in The Heiwa Challenge thread.

[bill smith]

It feels so stupid to have to argue the reason why the top item in a stack of 20 identical items will never crush the other 19 down flat with the ground using gravity alone. Just the fact that nobody can design any structure to demonstrate that it can happen or the fact that it has never happened in the entire history of worldwide construction either before or after 9/11 should be enough to end any debate.

So when somebody (or apparently almost everybody on the jref ) says it can happen without providing example or precedent you can guess what that tells me. That fact is just as self-evident as the fact that the top item in a stack of 20 identical items will never crush the other 19 down to the ground by gravity alone..

[Heiwa]

Googling on fluctuating mass I found following.

http://ias-spes.org/SPESIF2009/Presentations/Woodward_1.pdf

Maybe someone should build in this contraption in a structure so that the top part C one-way crushes the bottom part A. You never know!

I will have a try with my pizza boxes.

[Gamolon]

That means that 5 % of a building would crush te other 95% down level with the ground
. See it as a stack of 20 identical items with the top one crushing the other 19. It has never happened and it never will.

Bill, it's not like standing on top of a pop can, bending over, tapping the sides of the can, then your weight crushes the can to a small package.

I think crush is the wrong term.

As I and others have said before, the truss connections on the inside of the perimeter columns and core columns are what get the brunt of the weight of the top section collapsing.

The "L" shaped truss connection cannot handle the sudden impact of the load from above so they either bend downward or shear off.

Heiwa's description of the columns being "between the floors" is wrong on his site. The perimeter columns were around the outside of the floor and the core columns were on the inside of it, not underneath each floor.

[Dave Rogers]

It feels so stupid to have to argue the reason why the top item in a stack of 20 identical items will never crush the other 19 down flat with the ground using gravity alone.

To the informed observer, it also looks stupid.

Dave

[Heiwa]

Heiwa's description of the columns being "between the floors" is wrong on his site. The perimeter columns were around the outside of the floor and the core columns were on the inside of it, not underneath each floor.

Is it? I clearly say that the intact floors are just hanging on the columns; like pictures on a wall. Or a pin for a bird to sit on in a cage.

And if a picture drops from the wall it doesn't one-way crush down the wall. Same for the pin! The bird has no pin to sit on. And the cage does not collapse.

[newton3376]

Googling on fluctuating mass I found following.

http://ias-spes.org/SPESIF2009/Presentations/Woodward_1.pdf

Maybe someone should build in this contraption in a structure so that the top part C one-way crushes the bottom part A. You never know!

I will have a try with my pizza boxes.

Don't forget the lemon test!!!

Maybe you could also try other types of fruit.....

Fruit tests seem to be quite popular when trying to analyze and model the performance of complex structures....

[aggle-rithm]

Not really! It seems paranormal and is thus welcome at JREF.

Suggest you design a structure with fluctuating mass and enter it in The Heiwa Challenge thread.

Well, I guess I have underestimated your ability to pretend not to understand.

[aggle-rithm]

That means that 5 % of a building would crush te other 95% down level with the ground
. See it as a stack of 20 identical items with the top one crushing the other 19. It has never happened and it never will.

Nope. I'm sure this has been explained to you, but I will try again.

The top item crushes the item below it.

There are now two items in motion.

Then the top two items crush the item below them.

There are now three items in motion.

Then the top three items crush the item below them.

There are now four items in motion.

Then the top four items crush the item below them.

...should I go on? Or can you figure it out from here?

[Gamolon]

Is it? I clearly say that the intact floors are just hanging on the columns; like pictures on a wall. Or a pin for a bird to sit on in a cage.

And if a picture drops from the wall it doesn't one-way crush down the wall. Same for the pin! The bird has no pin to sit on. And the cage does not collapse.

Please answer the question I asked before. If I were to pound a perimeter column into the ground and then welded an "L" shaped connection to said column and then hit it with a sledgehammer, where is the most stress going to occur?

[aggle-rithm]

What if part A had been 200 floors ? Where would collapse arrest have taken place then ?

Do you know why there are no 200 story buildings?

It's because the taller a building is, the greater the tendency to fall down.

Engineering a tall building is all about overcoming this tendency. They haven't yet figured out how to do this for a 200-story building.

With this in mind, it's easy to see that the taller a building is, the MORE likely it will collapse completely if the top part of it starts to move downwards.

[aggle-rithm]

Please answer the question I asked before. If I were to pound a perimeter column into the ground and then welded an "L" shaped connection to said column and then hit it with a sledgehammer, where is the most stress going to occur?

Heiwa's babbling again. It goes in cycles.

Soon he will disappear for a few days, then return and make the same unsupported arguments all over again.

[Gamolon]

Is it? I clearly say that the intact floors are just hanging on the columns; like pictures on a wall.

Then you are contradicting yourself on the same page as you say this also:
Section C consists of 14 horizontal elements/floors, each with mass m as section A, stacked on top of each other with vertical support elements in between of height h. Total mass of C is 14 m. It is 52 meters tall.

So what "vertical support elements in between the floors" are you speaking of? The perimeter columns are AROUND the outside perimeter of the floor and the core columns are AROUND the inside perimeter.

[triforcharity]

Heiwa, that makes no sense. At all. Relating the L brackets to nails in a wall. Kinda like relating the WTC to boxes, fruit, eggs, or anything else unless you are comparing WTC to another building with the same design as WTC.

Dont bring up- Meridian Tower, ESB, or any of the other towers that you "truthers" want to bring up.

[Gamolon]

Heiwa's babbling again. It goes in cycles.

Soon he will disappear for a few days, then return and make the same unsupported arguments all over again.

I know.

It's just maddening. I am not an engineer, but I sure as hell can understand what the heck happened.

The term "crush" is not what happened to the columns. The mass that collapsed, the upper 1/10th, hit the truss connections, not the columns. The truss connections are what took the brunt of the downward force and either bent downward and sheared off. If the columns were constructed to uphold the massive weight of the floors and elements above then wouldn't the failure occur at the connections, those being the weakest part of the structure?

[bill smith]

Nope. I'm sure this has been explained to you, but I will try again.

The top item crushes the item below it.

There are now two items in motion.

Then the top two items crush the item below them.

There are now three items in motion.

Then the top three items crush the item below them.

There are now four items in motion.

Then the top four items crush the item below them.

...should I go on? Or can you figure it out from here?

Is that not the famous 'pancake collapse' that NIST dismissed ? Are you saying that NIST made an error ? If not we are back to my original statement of 'the top 5% of a building can never crush the other identically constructed 95% of the building down to the ground by gravity alone'.

[Gamolon]

Is that not the famous 'pancake collapse' that NIST dismissed ? Are you saying that NIST made an error ? If not we are back to my original statement of 'the top 5% of a building can never crush the other idebtically constructed 95% of the building down to the ground by gravity alone'.

Are you claiming that NIST says the core columns and perimeter columns were "crushed" like pop cans by the upper collapsing mass? Meaning that the were originally 30 foot lengths and ended up being "accordianed" 10 foot lengths?

[aggle-rithm]

Is that not the famous 'pancake collapse' that NIST dismissed ? Are you saying that NIST made an error ? If not we are back to my original statement of 'the top 5% of a building can never crush the other identically constructed 95% of the building down to the ground by gravity alone'.

I'm sure you've been told this as well, but I will try again.

NIST was talking about the collapse initiation. The collapse itself was clearly a pancake collapse, but it was not the mechanism by which the top part of the building started to move, which is what triggered the chain of events.

[bill smith]

Are you claiming that NIST says the core columns and perimeter columns were "crushed" like pop cans by the upper collapsing mass? Meaning that the were originally 30 foot lengths and ended up being "accordianed" 10 foot lengths?

No...NIST dismissed the notion I suspect because of the core columns whose existence they had not been stressing to say the least. they had been fairly well ignoring them up till then. It was as if they suddenly realised the significance of the 47 mighty upstanding columns.

[aggle-rithm]

No...NIST dismissed the notion I suspect because of the core columns whose existence they had not been stressing to say the least. they had been fairly well ignoring them up till then. It was as if they suddenly realised the significance of the 47 mighty upstanding columns.

You "suspect"?

Why not read the report and find out?

[bill smith]

I know.

It's just maddening. I am not an engineer, but I sure as hell can understand what the heck happened.

The term "crush" is not what happened to the columns. The mass that collapsed, the upper 1/10th, hit the truss connections, not the columns. The truss connections are what took the brunt of the downward force and either bent downward and sheared off. If the columns were constructed to uphold the massive weight of the floors and elements above then wouldn't the failure occur at the connections, those being the weakest part of the structure?

Be honest now Gamelon and tell me if you think the same would hapen in this simple model as hapened in WTC1. If not can you tell me why the principles are not very similar ?

Take 240 long spaghetti sticks to act as as the perimeter columns with an aditional 47 x 4 sticks to represent the stronger core spaced in a rectangle to cover about 60% of the centre of the structure. Then you have 110 x compressed glue and superfine sugar floors made to scale with holes drilled to correspond to the column locations. Then each floor is carefully slid down over he spaghetti columns and glued into position corresponding to the 110 floors of the WTC Towers. Allow to dry. Then anchor the column bases in a solid surface. Allow to dry.

Finally, lift up the top (and lightest) 10% (C) of the model and drop it say 6'' onto the lower 90% (A).

[Gamolon]

No...NIST dismissed the notion I suspect because of the core columns whose existence they had not been stressing to say the least. they had been fairly well ignoring them up till then. It was as if they suddenly realised the significance of the 47 mighty upstanding columns.
Well then please explain the following quote from you that you made previously:
Is that not the famous 'pancake collapse' that NIST dismissed ? Are you saying that NIST made an error ? If not we are back to my original statement of 'the top 5% of a building can never crush the other identically constructed 95% of the building down to the ground by gravity alone'.
If you are not claiming that the perimeter columns and core columns were NOT crushed, then what elements were crushed in the collapse.

What possible resistance to the downward collapse would the core colums and perimeter columns provide against the falling upper mass when both sets of columns were on connected to the OUTSIDE perimeter of the floors and the INSIDE perimeter of the floors. The collapsing mass would have hit the "L" shaped connections used for the floor trusses and either bend them downward or sheared them off.

I will again use my analogy that I used before.

If I pound a perimeter column in the ground, weld an "L" shaped connection to it, and then hit the upper part of the "L" shape with a sledgehammer, where is the most stress going to be? Does my swing "crush" the perimeter column?

[Gamolon]

Be honest now Gamelon and tell me if you think the same would hapen in this simple model as hapened in WTC1. If not can you tell me why the principles are not very similar ?

Take 240 long spaghetti sticks to act as as the perimeter columns with an aditional 47 x 4 sticks to represent the stronger core spaced in a rectangle to cover about 60% of the centre of the structure. Then you have 110 x compressed glue and superfine sugar floors made to scale with holes drilled to correspond to the column locations. Then each floor is carefully slid down over he spaghetti columns and glued into position corresponding to the 110 floors of the WTC Towers. Allow to dry. Then anchor the column bases in a solid surface. Allow to dry.

Finally, lift up the top (and lightest) 10% (C) of the model and drop it say 6'' onto the lower 90% (A).

How about this model.

Let's take a 25lb weight used for weight lifting. The round weights with a hole in the middle that can be slipped onto a weight lifting bar. Lets get 6, 1" diameter wooden dowels and pound them into the ground around the perimeter of the weight mentioned above. Let's take a single 1" diameter wooden dowel and pound it into the ground in the center of the ring we just created.

Now let's slip one of the 25lb weights mentioned onto the center wooden dowel down to about an inch from the ground. We'll put one thumbtack (the kind with the plastic head on them, not the flat heads) in each of the perimeter wooden dowels right below the weight and put two thumbtacks, opposite one another on the center wooden dowel.

We'll build our tower up 40 feet high with a "floor" weight every foot.

We'll then created a seperate section the same way, but only 1/10th the size, which would be 4 weights (or 100lbs). We will then position the 1/10th section above the 40 foot tower we created using a dowel to center it above.

We then drop the 1/10th section down the centering dowel from a height of 10 feet above.

What do you think would happen? Are the "thumbtack" connections going to arrest the upper part and stop it from bringing everything down the the ground?

[Grizzly Bear]

Is that not the famous 'pancake collapse' that NIST dismissed? Are you saying that NIST made an error?
FEMA originally hypothesized that the collapse initiation was dependent upon floor failures within the impact region resulting in a significant loss of lateral support for the columns on the impact floors. NIST discarded it as an initiation mechanism, this in no way relates to the collapse progression which very clearly involved the floors pancaking all the way to ground level. I honestly don't know how Bill, how can you expect to have any discussion when you have not read a single piece of the report you're criticizing? If you weren't basing your claim on ignorance then you would more than qualify as a liar.


If not we are back to my original statement of 'the top 5% of a building can never crush the other identically constructed 95% of the building down to the ground by gravity alone'.

Parroting Bjorkman without the slightest idea of what you're discussing. Typical... Not a single engineering publication I've read from the ASCE to the steel designer's manual places any significance in this idiocy. Nobody cares what yours or Heiwa's uninformed opinions are because collapse studies aren't based on how big a section has to be in order to result in the collapse of another section. They are based entirely on load paths, load capacity, and other matters relating directly to how the building is realistically able to perform.

The steel designer's manual refers to the circumstances observed in the WTC as accidental loading. Conditions in which the loads exerted on a structure are not expected the be a concern during the building's expected life time. Most designs try to take some incidents into account to ensure that the minimum damage is done, but the towers were never -- EVER designed for the prospect that an entire floor would lose it's integrity leaving all of the structure above that point subject to falling.

[bill smith]

How about this model.

Let's take a 25lb weight used for weight lifting. The round weights with a hole in the middle that can be slipped onto a weight lifting bar. Lets get 6, 1" diameter wooden dowels and pound them into the ground around the perimeter of the weight mentioned above. Let's take a single 1" diameter wooden dowel and pound it into the ground in the center of the ring we just created.

Now let's slip one of the 25lb weights mentioned onto the center wooden dowel down to about an inch from the ground. We'll put one thumbtack (the kind with the plastic head on them, not the flat heads) in each of the perimeter wooden dowels right below the weight and put two thumbtacks, opposite one another on the center wooden dowel.

We'll build our tower up 40 feet high with a "floor" weight every foot.

We'll then created a seperate section the same way, but only 1/10th the size, which would be 4 weights (or 100lbs). We will then position the 1/10th section above the 40 foot tower we created using a dowel to center it above.

We then drop the 1/10th section down the centering dowel from a height of 10 feet above.

What do you think would happen? Are the "thumbtack" connections going to arrest the upper part and stop it from bringing everything down the the ground?

Well it strikes me that the centre dowel would remain standing. The same would apply for other upstanding elements.

[triforcharity]

So now we are using spagetti and sugar!! Holy....I cant say, it filters it, but, imagin the word truck, it rhymes with that.

Do not try to use anything from your kitchen to compare to WTC, it doesn't work. Even 1000 spagetti sticks.

Idiotic at best. I think he got his "degree" from CJBU, Or Cracker Jack Box University.

[bill smith]

FEMA originally hypothesized that the collapse initiation was dependent upon floor failures within the impact region resulting in a significant loss of lateral support for the columns on the impact floors. NIST discarded it as an initiation mechanism, this in no way relates to the collapse progression which very clearly involved the floors pancaking all the way to ground level. I honestly don't know how Bill, how can you expect to have any discussion when you have not read a single piece of the report you're criticizing? If you weren't basing your claim on ignorance then you would more than qualify as a liar.




Parroting Bjorkman without the slightest idea of what you're discussing. Typical... Not a single engineering publication I've read from the ASCE to the steel designer's manual places any significance in this idiocy. Nobody cares what yours or Heiwa's uninformed opinions are because collapse studies aren't based on how big a section has to be in order to result in the collapse of another section. They are based entirely on load paths, load capacity, and other matters relating directly to how the building is realistically able to perform.

The steel designer's manual refers to the circumstances observed in the WTC as accidental loading. Conditions in which the loads exerted on a structure are not expected the be a concern during the building's expected life time. Most designs try to take some incidents into account to ensure that the minimum damage is done, but the towers were never -- EVER designed for the prospect that an entire floor would lose it's integrity leaving all of the structure above that point subject to falling.

Yes,,,very iteresting. Would you care to answer the same question I asked Gamelon regarding the spaghetti model ? I won't be upset or surprised if you don't. lol

[beachnut]

It feels so stupid to have to argue the reason why the top item in a stack of 20 identical items will never crush the other 19 down flat with the ground using gravity alone. Just the fact that nobody can design any structure to demonstrate that it can happen or the fact that it has never happened in the entire history of worldwide construction either before or after 9/11 should be enough to end any debate.

So when somebody (or apparently almost everybody on the jref ) says it can happen without providing example or precedent you can guess what that tells me. That fact is just as self-evident as the fact that the top item in a stack of 20 identical items will never crush the other 19 down to the ground by gravity alone..

What school of engineering taught you to be totally ignorant on physics, math, and all science concepts?

[Newtons Bit]

Be honest now Gamelon and tell me if you think the same would hapen in this simple model as hapened in WTC1. If not can you tell me why the principles are not very similar ?

Take 240 long spaghetti sticks to act as as the perimeter columns with an aditional 47 x 4 sticks to represent the stronger core spaced in a rectangle to cover about 60% of the centre of the structure. Then you have 110 x compressed glue and superfine sugar floors made to scale with holes drilled to correspond to the column locations. Then each floor is carefully slid down over he spaghetti columns and glued into position corresponding to the 110 floors of the WTC Towers. Allow to dry. Then anchor the column bases in a solid surface. Allow to dry.

Finally, lift up the top (and lightest) 10% (C) of the model and drop it say 6'' onto the lower 90% (A).

This fails the scale test. The columns can survive without the floors in place. This is not true in reality. The floors were required to brace the floor trusses which braced the columns.

[twinstead]

What school of engineering taught you to be totally ignorant on physics, math, and all science concepts?


Well, from the parrots of Heiwa, I would guess the School of Fine Sycophantism

[bill smith]

This fails the scale test. The columns can survive without the floors in place. This is not true in reality. The floors were required to brace the floor trusses which braced the columns.

Scale everything up to full size . what happens then ?

[Gamolon]

Well it strikes me that the centre dowel would remain standing. The same would apply for other upstanding elements.

So let me get this straight.

You are agreeing that the "thumbtack connections" would fail in my model above and that the "floor" would all come to the ground.

So you expect 1300' or so of vertical perimeter columns to stay erect even though the horizontal floor trusses have been stripped from them?

Really?

Even with the chaotic collapse happening inside? I suppose none of the falling mass would have pushed the perimeter columns outward eh?

[Newtons Bit]

Scale everything up to full size . what happens then ?

Spaghetti can't scale up like that.

[Grizzly Bear]

Yes,,,very iteresting. Would you care to answer the same question I asked Gamelon regarding the spaghetti model ?
.....
This fails the scale test. The columns can survive without the floors in place. This is not true in reality. The floors were required to brace the floor trusses which braced the columns.



I won't be upset or surprised if you don't. lol

Don't need to... because A) your rationale behind the model is flatly irrelevant and B) it fails... well you get the idea.

[bill smith]

Spaghetti can't scale up like that.

Ah well.I can't argue about that not knowing enough about the difference the scale might make, I am happy enogh to stick with he full size WTC1 anyway. The spaghetti model is useful for making a point nevertheless.

[bill smith]

.....






Don't need to... because A) your rationale behind the model is flatly irrelevant and B) it fails... well you get the idea.

You should say 'thank you kindly' to Newton's Bit.

[Newtons Bit]

Ah well.I can't argue about that not knowing enough about the difference the scale might make, I am happy enogh to stick with he full size WTC1 anyway. The spaghetti model is useful for making a point nevertheless.

It's not that you don't know enough about scale, it's that you don't know enough about mechanics of materials.

[Newtons Bit]

You should say 'thank you kindly' to Newton's Bit.

You should kindly STFU.

[bill smith]

It's not that you don't know enough about scale, it's that you don't know enough about mechanics of materials.

It's not necessary to be degreed engineer to have a fair idea how materials will respond under different stresses. Given that, and the gross anomalies of 9/11 I am as able as any other to isolate faults in the official story. If you don't think so you ae free to educate me as we go along. Or ignore me at your discretion.

[newton3376]

Take 240 long spaghetti sticks to act as as the perimeter columns with an aditional 47 x 4 sticks to represent the stronger core spaced in a rectangle to cover about 60% of the centre of the structure.

Spaghetti?

Then you have 110 x compressed glue and superfine sugar floors made to scale with holes drilled to correspond to the column locations.

Compressed glue?
Superfine sugar?

Then each floor is carefully slid down over he spaghetti columns and glued into position corresponding to the 110 floors of the WTC Towers. Allow to dry. Then anchor the column bases in a solid surface. Allow to dry.

Allow to dry?

This sounds more like a recipe than an engineering model that is supposed to represent a scaled version of a BUILDING made out of steel, concrete, etc.

Finally, lift up the top (and lightest) 10% (C) of the model and drop it say 6'' onto the lower 90% (A).

What about spaghetti sauce? No noodle-based model is complete without some sauce and some mushrooms and Italian sausage...

YOU ARE A MORON

[bill smith]

You should kindly STFU.

You sound like George Bush now. lol

[bill smith]

Spaghetti?



Compressed glue?
Superfine sugar?



Allow to dry?

This sounds more like a recipe than an engineering model that is supposed to represent a scaled version of a BUILDING made out of steel, concrete, etc.



What about spaghetti sauce? No noodle-based model is complete without some sauce and some mushrooms and Italian sausage...

YOU ARE A MORON

Well you could only eat if the model collapsed and freed up the spaghetti. I sincerely think in this case you should consider a takeaway Chinese or something other than spaghetti. Because the model will not collapse.

[Grizzly Bear]

Because the model will not collapse.
And the moral of this story: Bill thinks this models a building and despite repeated corrections of his factual errors he chugs forward blissfully careless of his own cataclysmic ignorance. I think there's a term that is well suited to describing individuals who do this knowingly.

[triforcharity]

Bill,

You also thought that miles upon miles of core columns just vanished, but I pointed them out to you with many detailed photos and explanations. Turns out, you were proven wrong. Aren't you an engineer Bill?? I think you claim to be. Am I wrong?? If in fact you do claim to be, than you got owned by a small town fireman.

Pretty sad eh??

[bill smith]

Bill,

You also thought that miles upon miles of core columns just vanished, but I pointed them out to you with many detailed photos and explanations. Turns out, you were proven wrong. Aren't you an engineer Bill?? I think you claim to be. Am I wrong?? If in fact you do claim to be, than you got owned by a small town fireman.

Pretty sad eh??

I still say that I think MILES of core columns are missing. I will get to that when I am in the mood again. I saw no explanation or photo from you or anyone else that has changed my position yet.

[triforcharity]

Please go ASAP to that thread, and look at my posts. They are there, you just have to understand what they are.

[Gamolon]

Well it strikes me that the centre dowel would remain standing. The same would apply for other upstanding elements.

What if I used some thread to tie the weights to the outside dowels by cutting a tiny notch in the outside of the perimeter dowels and looping the
thread into that notch. Then drill a hole through the edge of the weight and looped the thread through there and tied it.

Do you think the collapsing weights could pull some of the dowels down with themsleves if the thread somehow held in a couple of spots?

[Newtons Bit]

Ah well.I can't argue about that not knowing enough about the difference the scale might make, I am happy enogh to stick with he full size WTC1 anyway. The spaghetti model is useful for making a point nevertheless.

Well, the full sized WTC collapsed, and there's no evidence of any sort of explosive. Which should lead us to believe... what, exactly?

[triforcharity]

One day, when I am REALLY bored, I might just do what Bill has asked me to do. If I do, I will post it here announcing Breaking news.

[bill smith]

Well, the full sized WTC collapsed, and there's no evidence of any sort of explosive. Which should lead us to believe... what, exactly?
Well I would say that we have empirical proof of nanothermite in the form of an 8-man 2-year peer eviewed scientific study . Of course nanothermite being so versatile it can be used as an incendiary compound OR as an explosive accordng to need. Then we have hundreds of reports of explosions- with over a hundred coming from firefighters alone. I could go on and on and on.....

[bill smith]

What if I used some thread to tie the weights to the outside dowels by cutting a tiny notch in the outside of the perimeter dowels and looping the
thread into that notch. Then drill a hole through the edge of the weight and looped the thread through there and tied it.

Do you think the collapsing weights could pull some of the dowels down with themsleves if the thread somehow held in a couple of spots?

You should look for posts by 'Psikeyhackr'. He made a few videos using dowels and so on. you might get some ideas.

[Gamolon]

I still say that I think MILES of core columns are missing. I will get to that when I am in the mood again. I saw no explanation or photo from you or anyone else that has changed my position yet.

Here's another real world example that proves your above nonsense wrong.

Let's get 320 playing cards and build a cardhouse. We'll use 1/2" diameter x 6" long wooden dowels (I like dowels :D) as the vertical supports. We'll use 16 cards next to each other in a 4x4 row for each floor and layed across the dowels. We'll use one dowel at each card corner and one dowel where the corners touch the other cards for a total of 25 dowels per floor. We'll keep building this tower for 20 floors (10 feet total, 9 feet above ground when the structure is built in the hole discussed in the next paragraph).

We'll dig a hole 1 foot deep and the same width/length as the outside perimeter of the playing card tower above.

We'll build the above tower in the hole we dug.

When finished, we start pulling the first level of vertical dowels one by one until the tower collapses.

Then we take a photo from above of the pile.

Per your claim, we should SEE and be able to count ALL 500 dowels used to build our tower in the "aerial photo we just took.

Is this correct Bill?

;)

[Gamolon]

You should look for posts by 'Psikeyhackr'. He made a few videos using dowels and so on. you might get some ideas.

I have ideas. I'm asking you what you think would happen.

[Newtons Bit]

Well I would say that we have empirical proof of nanothermite in the form of an 8-man 2-year peer eviewed scientific study . Of course nanothermite being so versatile it can be used as an incendiary compound OR as an explosive accordng to need. Then we have hundreds of reports of explosions- with over a hundred coming from firefighters alone. I could go on and on and on.....

Oi. How dense do you have to be...

[aggle-rithm]

I could go on and on and on.....

So we see.

[tsig]

Scale everything up to full size . what happens then ?

Don't play with your food.

[Bluesky]

Prove me wrong for any structure, e.g. with splices. See The Heiwa Challenge thread for details.

But I dont get it.....you have seen my pizza box solution that won the Stupid Heiwa Challenge... Its easy... And I have seen a bunch of other solutions.

Now you want me to build the WTC with splices... but Pizza boxes are much chaeper.

What was wrong with the pizza box ... it complied with every line of your first posting... its easy

[FineWine]

These absolutist statements such as "Mass cannot fluctuate" will be the death of you some day.

I'll try to make it simple for you: You have two buckets half-filled with sand. Bucket A and Bucket B.

You pour twenty grams of sand from A to B. The mass within A and the mass within B have now FLUCTUATED. Like it or not. One has been reduced by twenty grams, the other has increased by twenty grams.

You may reply, "But the original mass didn't fluctuate! It just moved from one place to another!"

I never claimed that it did otherwise. When I talk about the moving portion of the building, I am not talking about a portion that has always and will always be moving. I am talking about the parts of the building that are in motion at a particular moment in time.

Follow me so far?


NO, HE DOES NOT FOLLOW YOU. You will save time and spare yourself much frustration if you accept the immutable FACT that he does not, can not, WILL NOT follow you.



When I talk about the stationary portion of the building, I am talking about that portion of the building that is still intact and is not moving. I am not talking about the section that was intact at the moment the upper section became mobile.

Get it? It's a process.


HE DOES NOT GET IT. HE WILL NEVER GET IT. AFTER IT IS EXPLAINED TO HIM BY THE ENGINEERS AT THE ASCE JOURNAL, HE WILL DENOUNCE THEM AS RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISTS, BUT HE WILL NOT GET IT!



When I say that the mass of each fluctuates, I am saying that as time progresses, some of the mass that was formerly in the stationary category moves into the mobile category, and vice versa. Clearly, in the case of the WTC towers, most of this switching of categories occured in one direction: the mobile mass tended to grow larger with time, while the stationary mass grew smaller, until equilibrium was reached.

There! Was that so hard? Now you can't pretend that you don't understand what I'm talking about.


He will CERTAINLY act as though he doesn't understand what you're talking about. How much of it is genuine stupidity and how much is stupidity's first-cousin, agenda-driven blindness, remains unclear.

I have stated, oh, maybe a thousand times that the thirteen falling floors crush the floor below. Then the fourteen falling floors do the same. And then the fifteen falling floors... It is a process, as you point out, but Heiwa doesn't relate well to processes.

Thanks for your lucid effort. I enjoyed it, but Heiwa learned nothing.






I agree. At some point the moving mass encounters debris that is so compacted that it cannot continue to fall. By the time the WTC towers reached that point, they had completely collapsed.


Yes, the towers did indeed collapse totally.

[triforcharity]

Sir, I believe you should use saltine crackers, or maybe wheat thins instead of playing cards. Playing cards ajust don't resemble the WTC construction like saltines and wheat thins do.

[FineWine]

What if part A had been 200 floors ? Where would collapse arrest have taken place then ?


When every floor was crushed and lying on the ground in a big pile of rubble, you hopeless so-and-so.

[FineWine]

It feels so stupid to have to argue the reason why the top item in a stack of 20 identical items will never crush the other 19 down flat with the ground using gravity alone. Just the fact that nobody can design any structure to demonstrate that it can happen or the fact that it has never happened in the entire history of worldwide construction either before or after 9/11 should be enough to end any debate.

So when somebody (or apparently almost everybody on the jref ) says it can happen without providing example or precedent you can guess what that tells me. That fact is just as self-evident as the fact that the top item in a stack of 20 identical items will never crush the other 19 down to the ground by gravity alone..


Seriously, what prevents you, apart from agenda-driven obtuseness, from grasping the point that everyone is making? The falling floors GAIN mass and acceleration, while the portion of the building remaining to be crushed LOSES mass, i.e., IT GETS SMALLER.

Have you no self-respect at all?

[FineWine]

Nope. I'm sure this has been explained to you, but I will try again.

The top item crushes the item below it.

There are now two items in motion.

Then the top two items crush the item below them.

There are now three items in motion.

Then the top three items crush the item below them.

There are now four items in motion.

Then the top four items crush the item below them.

...should I go on? Or can you figure it out from here?


At the risk of being as boring as a "truther," NO, HE CANNOT FIGURE IT OUT!

[FineWine]

Googling on fluctuating mass I found following.

http://ias-spes.org/SPESIF2009/Presentations/Woodward_1.pdf

Maybe someone should build in this contraption in a structure so that the top part C one-way crushes the bottom part A. You never know!

I will have a try with my pizza boxes.


An excellent idea, worthy of your unique comprehension of engineering. Just don't try it with steel and concrete.

[FineWine]

Is that not the famous 'pancake collapse' that NIST dismissed ? Are you saying that NIST made an error ? If not we are back to my original statement of 'the top 5% of a building can never crush the other identically constructed 95% of the building down to the ground by gravity alone'.


No, it is not the "famous pancake collapse that NIST dismissed." You were unable to read any of the NIST Report, so I'll make it brief. NIST determined that pancaking did not EXPLAIN the collapse mechanism, although pancaking obviously occurred when the global collapse was initiated.

Your fictitious top 5% quickly--very quickly--becomes 10%, 15%, 25%, 40%, 60%, 80%--until 100% of the building has collapsed.

[FineWine]

Yes,,,very iteresting. Would you care to answer the same question I asked Gamelon regarding the spaghetti model ? I won't be upset or surprised if you don't. lol


And nothing Mackey, Newton's Bit, tfk, or any real engineer tries to explain about the problems associated with scaling will ever make the slightest impression on you? When thousands of tons of falling debris hit the floor immediately below, it ain't soft cardboard pizza boxes or spaghetti falling on spaghetti.

You have to make an effort to appear this dense.

[FineWine]

It's not necessary to be degreed engineer to have a fair idea how materials will respond under different stresses. Given that, and the gross anomalies of 9/11 I am as able as any other to isolate faults in the official story. If you don't think so you ae free to educate me as we go along. Or ignore me at your discretion.


You have NEVER pointed out a single "anomaly."

[FineWine]

I still say that I think MILES of core columns are missing. I will get to that when I am in the mood again. I saw no explanation or photo from you or anyone else that has changed my position yet.


You say all sorts of utter nonsense. It has been proved, however, that no steel was missing. All of it was recovered.

[FineWine]

Well I would say that we have empirical proof of nanothermite in the form of an 8-man 2-year peer eviewed scientific study . Of course nanothermite being so versatile it can be used as an incendiary compound OR as an explosive accordng to need. Then we have hundreds of reports of explosions- with over a hundred coming from firefighters alone. I could go on and on and on.....


Yes, quasi-imaginary substances are extremely versatile. They can do, quite literally, anything. Unfortunately for your insane movement, Jones and his accomplices discovered red paint. That's why it's now July and stupid rubes are still parroting the debunked party line, while the frauds continue to refuse to cooperate with independent labs.

[Furcifer]

In the last 50 posts: Cracker Jacks, saltines, pizza, take out Chinese, spahgetti, powdered sugar, mushrooms and of course pancakes.

I suggest this thread be moved to the FoodTV network.

[sylvan8798]

Phunk,

I was thinking the same thing. Somewhere near the earth would be my guess. But, it could have been at the first floor, im not certain.

There were survivors in one of the North Tower stairways, so the collapse didn't proceed clear to ground (plaza level) over the entire footprint, and in general it didn't proceed to the basement. Without knowing what, exactly, brought it to a halt, however, it's hard to say where a 200-story building would stop.

[sylvan8798]

How about this model.

Let's take a 25lb weight used for weight lifting. The round weights with a hole in the middle that can be slipped onto a weight lifting bar. Lets get 6, 1" diameter wooden dowels and pound them into the ground around the perimeter of the weight mentioned above. Let's take a single 1" diameter wooden dowel and pound it into the ground in the center of the ring we just created.

Now let's slip one of the 25lb weights mentioned onto the center wooden dowel down to about an inch from the ground. We'll put one thumbtack (the kind with the plastic head on them, not the flat heads) in each of the perimeter wooden dowels right below the weight and put two thumbtacks, opposite one another on the center wooden dowel.

We'll build our tower up 40 feet high with a "floor" weight every foot.

We'll then created a seperate section the same way, but only 1/10th the size, which would be 4 weights (or 100lbs). We will then position the 1/10th section above the 40 foot tower we created using a dowel to center it above.

We then drop the 1/10th section down the centering dowel from a height of 10 feet above.

What do you think would happen? Are the "thumbtack" connections going to arrest the upper part and stop it from bringing everything down the the ground?

This has to be the best example of a model for comparison that I've seen. Can we raise a few bucks for Gamolon to construct this thing and video the test results?

[R.Mackey]

The building graphic conatined here is completely bogus.

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/mac5.htm

The columns were not BELOW the floors supporting them. There were connections ATTACHED to the inside face of the perimeter columns and core columns.


For the record, the graphics he uses are a bastardization of visual aids that I created for my discussion on Hardfire. The original is here (http://911myths.com/index.php/Ryanmackey) and the associated discussion (Part III) can be viewed here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsDn6es7mtk).

As I clearly described, the model was one-dimensional, and not intended to be particularly accurate. Indeed, it was the absolute simplest model I could come up with that remained relevant (if you include the equations, that is; by itself, the diagram is not of much use). The intent of that model was to motivate scaling, not accurately predict behavior of the World Trade Center. I think the scaling laws in that model would be similar, at least with respect to the collapse.

Heiwa, and apparently the others participating in this Romper Room version of uneducated speculation, simply do not understand scaling. That's all there is to it.

[Heiwa]

Please answer the question I asked before. If I were to pound a perimeter column into the ground and then welded an "L" shaped connection to said column and then hit it with a sledgehammer, where is the most stress going to occur?

Pls provide a sketch of your design + sledge hammer and location of impact/energy applied.

[sylvan8798]

What if I used some thread to tie the weights to the outside dowels by cutting a tiny notch in the outside of the perimeter dowels and looping the
thread into that notch. Then drill a hole through the edge of the weight and looped the thread through there and tied it.

Do you think the collapsing weights could pull some of the dowels down with themsleves if the thread somehow held in a couple of spots?

Maybe the trick here would be more but smaller diameter dowels. Dowels braced at every floor, but which would snap if several floors became unbraced. The WTC columns could not have stood for their full height without the floors, even with NO loading on them. They would have snapped under their own weight as soon as there was any perturbation to their vertical position.

[Heiwa]

Heiwa, and apparently the others participating in this Romper Room version of uneducated speculation, simply do not understand scaling. That's all there is to it.

??? A one-way Crush down of a structure A by a piece C of it being dropped on A is not possible in any scale. Anyway - all my educated descriptions are full scale. Scale has nothing to do with the matter. It is simply an excuse by uneducated people that nobody can produce a structure that you can one-way crush down.

[sylvan8798]

Pls provide a sketch of your design + sledge hammer and location of impact/energy applied.

You need a sketch? You're really unable to conceive such a simple contraption from his description alone?

[Heiwa]

You need a sketch? You're really unable to conceive such a simple contraption from his description alone?

OK - the highest stress will occur at contact point sledge hammer/L shaped connection assuming it is a small area. But as the contact point is pretty strong it will just be deformed. Other highly stressed area is the sledge hammer handle! Maybe it will break?
Deformation of the L shaped connection, or breaking it, may also produce the funny effect that the sledge hammer slips off and continues displacing somewhere else? Hitting the person holding the handle?

You know, releasing and applying energy on a structure to produce a force that should, e.g. damage the structure, is not so easy. If something breaks or deforms, the force may slip off and the energy is applied somewhere else. Happens in every scale.

[Justin39640]

Please answer the question I asked before. If I were to pound a perimeter column into the ground and then welded an "L" shaped connection to said column and then hit it with a sledgehammer, where is the most stress going to occur?

"it will bounce but both sections will survive [part a divided by part b squared minus part c = turtles]"
lol

[bill smith]

??? A one-way Crush down of a structure A by a piece C of it being dropped on A is not possible in any scale. Anyway - all my educated descriptions are full scale. Scale has nothing to do with the matter. It is simply an excuse by uneducated people that nobody can produce a structure that you can one-way crush down.

Seen his yet Heiwa ?
http://www.911blogger.com/node/20533

[Dave Rogers]

It's not that you don't know enough about scale, it's that you don't know enough about mechanics of materials.

Don't underestimate the scope of bill smith's ignorance. He doesn't know enough about scale either.

Dave

[funk de fino]

Seen his yet Heiwa ?
http://www.911blogger.com/node/20533

This says it all.

How is a non-specialist like me to evaluate the reasonableness of Bazant's upper bound? One obvious way is to compare it with the estimates of other experts. I am aware of two of these, one due to Gregory Szuladzinski in Journal of Engineering Mechanics and the other from Tony Szamboti in "The Missing Jolt", Journal of 9/11 Studies.

The guy is an idiot.

[Bluesky]

How about this model.

Let's take a 25lb weight used for weight lifting. The round weights with a hole in the middle that can be slipped onto a weight lifting bar. Lets get 6, 1" diameter wooden dowels and pound them into the ground around the perimeter of the weight mentioned above. Let's take a single 1" diameter wooden dowel and pound it into the ground in the center of the ring we just created.

Now let's slip one of the 25lb weights mentioned onto the center wooden dowel down to about an inch from the ground. We'll put one thumbtack (the kind with the plastic head on them, not the flat heads) in each of the perimeter wooden dowels right below the weight and put two thumbtacks, opposite one another on the center wooden dowel.

We'll build our tower up 40 feet high with a "floor" weight every foot.

We'll then created a seperate section the same way, but only 1/10th the size, which would be 4 weights (or 100lbs). We will then position the 1/10th section above the 40 foot tower we created using a dowel to center it above.

We then drop the 1/10th section down the centering dowel from a height of 10 feet above.

What do you think would happen? Are the "thumbtack" connections going to arrest the upper part and stop it from bringing everything down the the ground?

Nice one Gamalon....

I solved the stupid Heiwa Challenge too, with Pizza boxes.! Mine fell down too

I thought I was first but found that every 100 posts or so there is a solution posted. I have seen 6 schemes so far.

[FineWine]

??? A one-way Crush down of a structure A by a piece C of it being dropped on A is not possible in any scale. Anyway - all my educated descriptions are full scale. Scale has nothing to do with the matter. It is simply an excuse by uneducated people that nobody can produce a structure that you can one-way crush down.


Thirteen collapsing floors crush the floor below. Then fourteen collapsing floors crush the floor below. Then fifteen, then sixteen...

You can run, but you can't hide.

[aggle-rithm]

And nothing Mackey, Newton's Bit, tfk, or any real engineer tries to explain about the problems associated with scaling will ever make the slightest impression on you? When thousands of tons of falling debris hit the floor immediately below, it ain't soft cardboard pizza boxes or spaghetti falling on spaghetti.



I was thinking about this this morning. In order to properly scale a skyscraper analogue with spagetti, you would have to make each floor weigh fairly close to the limit of what the spaghetti can bear without breaking.

Why? Because that is how skyscrapers are built. It would be wasteful to put in enough steel to make it many times stronger than it needs to be in order to withstand normal loads.

When part of the building starts moving independent of the rest of it, that is not a normal load. Engineers make a cost-benefit analysis and bank on the prediction that this won't happen.

(Again, I'm sure most of you know this...including our resident truthers...but writing it all down helps me understand it better myself.)

[aggle-rithm]

OK - the highest stress will occur at contact point sledge hammer/L shaped connection assuming it is a small area. But as the contact point is pretty strong it will just be deformed. Other highly stressed area is the sledge hammer handle! Maybe it will break?


You don't know?

Where did you study engineering, again?

I'm not an engineer either, but I do know that in order to determine what will give way in this scenario you must know the relative strengths and flexibility of the sledge hammer handle, the L-shaped connector, it's connection to the spandrel, and of course the spandrel itself.

The weakest point will tend to break, unless it is flexible/plastic enough to absorb the energy by bending. (I'm sure there are other things to take into consideration as well, such as the angle of the blow, but that would needlessly complicate the model, I think.)


Deformation of the L shaped connection, or breaking it, may also produce the funny effect that the sledge hammer slips off and continues displacing somewhere else? Hitting the person holding the handle?


What are you asking, and who are you asking it to?

Add another potential failure point: The connection of the sledge hammer head to the handle. If this is the weakest point, then it will probably fail here. Why is this a "funny effect"?


You know, releasing and applying energy on a structure to produce a force that should, e.g. damage the structure, is not so easy.

Um...English?

If something breaks or deforms, the force may slip off and the energy is applied somewhere else. Happens in every scale.

I'm betting you're an accountant rather than an engineer, because you have supplied us here with information that is completely accurate and yet totally useless.

[FineWine]

Seen his yet Heiwa ?
http://www.911blogger.com/node/20533


Hey, Bill, here's a real challenging problem, geared to your, ah, special abilities:

A 6 ft. tall gorilla weighs 500 lbs. King Kong is 24 ft. tall. How much does he weigh?

No fair asking a bright twelve-year-old for help. It's okay to ask Heiwa for help.

[aggle-rithm]

Here's another one, to test Bill's (or Heiwa's) knowledge of gravity and resistance:

A 200-lb man and a 50-ton King Kong make a suicide pact and jump off the Empire State Building.

Which of the following will happen?

A. They hit the ground at the same time
B. King Kong hits first
C. The man hits first

[FineWine]

Here's another one, to test Bill's (or Heiwa's) knowledge of gravity and resistance:

A 200-lb man and a 50-ton King Kong make a suicide pact and jump off the Empire State Building.

Which of the following will happen?

A. They hit the ground at the same time
B. King Kong hits first
C. The man hits first


Kong might eat the man on the way down. Does that fall under A?

[aggle-rithm]

Kong might eat the man on the way down. Does that fall under A?

Hmmm...

If he then gets motion sickness and barfs, then it would depend on which direction he is facing when the vomitus emerges.

[FineWine]

Hmmm...

If he then gets motion sickness and barfs, then it would depend on which direction he is facing when the vomitus emerges.


So, if the big ape is facing down when he tosses his cookies, the man will be moving at greater than free fall velocity, which PROVES inside jobby-job.

Physics is fun when you're nuts.

[Gamolon]

Heiwa, can you please address the contradiction you have made with your following quotes:

Is it? I clearly say that the intact floors are just hanging on the columns; like pictures on a wall.

Section C consists of 14 horizontal elements/floors, each with mass m as section A, stacked on top of each other with vertical support elements in between of height h. Total mass of C is 14 m. It is 52 meters tall.

Which is correct?

[FineWine]

Hmmm...

If he then gets motion sickness and barfs, then it would depend on which direction he is facing when the vomitus emerges.


Seriously, do you think Bill can figure out the weight of King Kong?

[Gamolon]

Well it strikes me that the centre dowel would remain standing. The same would apply for other upstanding elements.

What about the "weight" floors? Do you think they would collapse all the way to the ground or would the "thumbtack" supports arrest the collapse at some point?

[Gamolon]

Heiwa, does this model qualify for your challenge?

How about this model.

Let's take a 25lb weight used for weight lifting. The round weights with a hole in the middle that can be slipped onto a weight lifting bar. Lets get 6, 1" diameter wooden dowels and pound them into the ground around the perimeter of the weight mentioned above. Let's take a single 1" diameter wooden dowel and pound it into the ground in the center of the ring we just created.

Now let's slip one of the 25lb weights mentioned onto the center wooden dowel down to about an inch from the ground. We'll put one thumbtack (the kind with the plastic head on them, not the flat heads) in each of the perimeter wooden dowels right below the weight and put two thumbtacks, opposite one another on the center wooden dowel.

We'll build our tower up 40 feet high with a "floor" weight every foot.

We'll then created a seperate section the same way, but only 1/10th the size, which would be 4 weights (or 100lbs). We will then position the 1/10th section above the 40 foot tower we created using a dowel to center it above.

We then drop the 1/10th section down the centering dowel from a height of 10 feet above.

What do you think would happen? Are the "thumbtack" connections going to arrest the upper part and stop it from bringing everything down the the ground?

[bill smith]

What about the "weight" floors? Do you think they would collapse all the way to the ground or would the "thumbtack" supports arrest the collapse at some point?

Check this out from Psikeyhackr.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXAerZUw4Wc&feature=related

[FineWine]

Check this out from Psikeyhackr.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXAerZUw4Wc&feature=related


Got anything else from ignorant agenda-driven zealots we should check out?

So, how much does the 24 ft. tall gorilla weigh, Bill?

[Gamolon]

OK - the highest stress will occur at contact point sledge hammer/L shaped connection assuming it is a small area. But as the contact point is pretty strong it will just be deformed. Other highly stressed area is the sledge hammer handle! Maybe it will break?
Deformation of the L shaped connection, or breaking it, may also produce the funny effect that the sledge hammer slips off and continues displacing somewhere else? Hitting the person holding the handle?

You know, releasing and applying energy on a structure to produce a force that should, e.g. damage the structure, is not so easy. If something breaks or deforms, the force may slip off and the energy is applied somewhere else. Happens in every scale.

Ok. What if I replaced the sledghammer with a wrecking ball and dropped the wrecking ball down from 50' along the side of the perimeter column onto the "L" shaped truss connection? What would happen then? Would the bracket bend downward at all or shear off? Or would the bracket resist and the wrecking ball would just bounce off?

[Dave Rogers]

So, how much does the 24 ft. tall gorilla weigh, Bill?

Nothing. Peter Jackson used CGI.

Dave

[FineWine]

Nothing. Peter Jackson used CGI.

Dave


Nobody likes a smarty-pants.

[Gamolon]

Check this out from Psikeyhackr.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXAerZUw4Wc&feature=related

Your point?

I asked you a question concerning MY "weight" model. Would the "thumbtack" supports arrest the weights coming down on them as described in my model?

Yes or no?

[FineWine]

Nothing. Peter Jackson used CGI.

Dave


Seriously, do you think Bill can figure out how much King Kong would weigh? Could Heiwa?

[Newtons Bit]

Heiwa, can you please address the contradiction you have made with your following quotes:


Which is correct?

"Is it? I clearly say that the intact floors are just hanging on the columns; like pictures on a wall." This is the crux of Heiwa's lunacy. He thinks that the floors can hinge, and still support the entire weight of the floor (and maybe even their contents due to friction) and the columns, now unbraced and subject to extreme lateral forces, will not collapse.

[bill smith]

Got anything else from ignorant agenda-driven zealots we should check out?

So, how much does the 24 ft. tall gorilla weigh, Bill?

No idea, though I know where he sits- any damn place he likes. lol

[aggle-rithm]

Seriously, do you think Bill can figure out the weight of King Kong?

He can in the second problem, where it's given to him.

Maybe.

[FineWine]

No idea, though I know where he sits- any damn place he likes. lol


The point, Bill, is that the question tests your ability to think in terms of scale. It's not a question that requires any knowledge of physics. A bright child could solve it very quickly while daydreaming in class. You are stumped by it, yet you want to debate engineering with engineers.

[GlennB]

Of dowels :

Of course a dowel is a small unit structure, whereas the WTC cores were massive, composite and dependent on lateral support for their ultimate stability. However, they did their best to act dowel-like and in both cases were the last part to fall:

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/wtc2corestanding.jpg

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/wtc1peelingcore.jpg

[FineWine]

No idea, though I know where he sits- any damn place he likes. lol


Here's a hint, Bill. If Kong is 4x as tall as a normal gorilla, how many times should you multiply by 4?

[bill smith]

Seriously, do you think Bill can figure out how much King Kong would weigh? Could Heiwa?
You stick with your gorillas and let Heiwa take care of the engineering.

[Justin39640]

how about 5 5 foot dowels and 25 lb weights

4 of which are set up in a square pattern (looking top down) spaced so the weight is very close to the dowels
then have a 5th dowel in the center
use the thumb tacks to support the weight (one on each dowel) every 6 inches so that you get 9 high (maybe use 2 tacks on the center dowel)

then drop a 10th weight from 10 feet

(NOT TO SCALE LOL)
http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/6132/weights1.jpg

EDIT: better render

[Gamolon]

"Is it? I clearly say that the intact floors are just hanging on the columns; like pictures on a wall." This is the crux of Heiwa's lunacy. He thinks that the floors can hinge, and still support the entire weight of the floor (and maybe even their contents due to friction) and the columns, now unbraced and subject to extreme lateral forces, will not collapse.

:D

But will Hewia admit his mistake?

I think not.

;)

[Justin39640]

You stick with your gorillas and let Heiwa take care of the engineering.

id never go into a tall building again if that was the case lol

[FineWine]

You stick with your gorillas and let Heiwa take care of the engineering.



What's truly sad is that you have no idea how ridiculous you are. You are helpless to deal with a reasoning problem that wouldn't tax a bright child. You slavishly parrot your incompetent guru, although his idiocy has been torn to shreds by real engineers. He ran away from my question about how he will react to his inevitable dressing-down by the engineers at the ASCE journal. How about you? Is EVERY real engineer a shill?

You see, Bill, the concept of scale is incomprehensible to you. Yet, you want to discuss engineering.

Pssst. As the giant gorilla has height, depth, and width, try multiplying by 4x4x4.

[FineWine]

id never go into a tall building again if that was the case lol


If Heiwa was "taking care" of the engineering, no giant ape would dare to climb a tall building.

[Gamolon]

how about 5 5 foot dowels and 25 lb weights

4 of which are set up in a square pattern (looking top down) spaced so the weight is very close to the dowels
then have a 5th dowel in the center
use the thumb tacks to support the weight (one on each dowel) every 6 inches so that you get 9 high (maybe use 2 tacks on the center dowel)

then drop a 10th weight from 10 feet

(NOT TO SCALE LOL)
http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/6132/weights1.jpg

EDIT: better render

Nice!

:D

[Justin39640]

Nice!

:D

thanks :)

[Gamolon]

You stick with your gorillas and let Heiwa take care of the engineering.

I would rather have the gorillas do the engineering than Heiwa.

But that's just my opinion.

;)

[tsig]

In the last 50 posts: Cracker Jacks, saltines, pizza, take out Chinese, spahgetti, powdered sugar, mushrooms and of course pancakes.

I suggest this thread be moved to the FoodTV network.

Instead of Strength of Materiels I should have taken Home Ec.

[aggle-rithm]

If Heiwa was "taking care" of the engineering, no giant ape would dare to climb a tall building.

This reminds me once again of a quote from an engineer when the new King Kong movie from 1976 came out, the one where the WTC was substituted for the Empire State Building.

He said that while the Empire State Building could realistically support a giant gorilla, the WTC could not and would likely collapse.

25 years before 9/11. Was he a govt shill?

[bill smith]

What's truly sad is that you have no idea how ridiculous you are. You are helpless to deal with a reasoning problem that wouldn't tax a bright child. You slavishly parrot your incompetent guru, although his idiocy has been torn to shreds by real engineers. He ran away from my question about how he will react to his inevitable dressing-down by the engineers at the ASCE journal. How about you? Is EVERY real engineer a shill?

You see, Bill, the concept of scale is incomprehensible to you. Yet, you want to discuss engineering.

Pssst. As the giant gorilla has height, depth, and width, try multiplying by 4x4x4.
If I am satisfied with what Bazant and the ASCE have to say of course Iwill change my mind. But if whatI have seen here is a representton of what I wil see there then I don't hold out too much hope.

Scale is irelevent when discussing the top 10% of a building crushing the other identically constructed 90% of a buildng down to the ground by gravity alone. Or the top 10% of any identical structure crushing the lower 90%

Scale is only problematic in making a smaller model. In this case from Bazant's point of view the model is the full scale WTC1 and that is what he must explain.

As far as I can see a lot of interest in this is being generated in this . I expect Bazant is welcoming the attention.

[tsig]

For the record, the graphics he uses are a bastardization of visual aids that I created for my discussion on Hardfire. The original is here (http://911myths.com/index.php/Ryanmackey) and the associated discussion (Part III) can be viewed here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsDn6es7mtk).

As I clearly described, the model was one-dimensional, and not intended to be particularly accurate. Indeed, it was the absolute simplest model I could come up with that remained relevant (if you include the equations, that is; by itself, the diagram is not of much use). The intent of that model was to motivate scaling, not accurately predict behavior of the World Trade Center. I think the scaling laws in that model would be similar, at least with respect to the collapse.

Heiwa, and apparently the others participating in this Romper Room version of uneducated speculation, simply do not understand scaling. That's all there is to it.

Of course he understands scaling. It's what you do to boilers every year on a ship.

[Gamolon]

Scale is irelevent when discussing the top 10% of a building crushing the other identically constructed 90% of a buildng down to the ground by gravity alone. Or the top 10% of any identical structure crushing the lower 90%

Wow.

You keep getting yourself confused Bill. Are you back to saying that the perimeter columns and core columns were crushed in the collapse? You are back to thinking that the 30' lengths of core columns and perimeter columns were "accordianed" down to 10' lengths again?

I mean 90% + 10% = 100% of the building you know. So you ARE including the columns being crushed?

What gives?

[FineWine]

If I am satisfied with what Bazant and the ASCE have to say of course Iwill change my mind. But if whatI have seen here is a representton of what I wil see there then I don't hold out too much hope.

Scale is irelevent when discussing the top 10% of a building crushing the other identically constructed 90% of a buildng down to the ground by gravity alone. Or the top 10% of any identical structure crushing the lower 90%

Scale is only problematic in making a smaller model. In this case from Bazant's point of view the model is the full scale WTC1 and that is what he must explain.

As far as I can see a lot of interest in this is being generated in this . I expect Bazant is welcoming the attention.


The point is that you will certainly fail to understand what Bazant and the other engineers say. You have never understood a word written by the real engineers here. You can't begin to grasp what is obvious to everyone outside your insane and incredibly stupid movement. The top 10% becomes 100% rather quickly. Has a glimmer of light penetrated your brain regarding the staggering idiocy of Heiwa's pizza-box analogy? Do you begin to sense why real engineers have such contempt for an incompetent who ignores scale totally and attempts to draw conclusions from the behavior of soft cardboard boxes?

[FineWine]

This reminds me once again of a quote from an engineer when the new King Kong movie from 1976 came out, the one where the WTC was substituted for the Empire State Building.

He said that while the Empire State Building could realistically support a giant gorilla, the WTC could not and would likely collapse.

25 years before 9/11. Was he a govt shill?


No kidding? I never heard that quote, but I find it very interesting.

[bill smith]

The point is that you will certainly fail to understand what Bazant and the other engineers say. You have never understood a word written by the real engineers here. You can't begin to grasp what is obvious to everyone outside your insane and incredibly stupid movement. The top 10% becomes 100% rather quickly. Has a glimmer of light penetrated your brain regarding the staggering idiocy of Heiwa's pizza-box analogy? Do you begin to sense why real engineers have such contempt for an incompetent who ignores scale totally and attempts to draw conclusions from the behavior of soft cardboard boxes?

Just think what a mess bazant is in. Even if he could come up with a reasonable explanation to counter Heiwa some bright spark is sure to ask 'how did the top block become seperated from the lower block ' '' The plane is only estimated to have cut about 40 perimeter columns on the impact side and maybe two or three of the 47 massive core columns'. The union between the two blocks was still more than 85% intact ''

Maybe Bazant thinks he will be able to walk away from that question ?


And it's worth remembering that if there IS no upper block then there was no dynamic force to start the crush down. Therefore the inside job is proven before Bazant ever begins his explanation.

[Gamolon]

Or the top 10% of any identical structure crushing the lower 90%

Crushed huh? 100% of the lower part of the tower was "crushed"?

Bill can you explain this photo using the word "crushed". Those still standing perimeter columns don't look "crushed to me.:
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/core-911.jpg

What about the falling section of perimeter columns shown in this photo. "Crushed"?http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/Image335.jpg

What about this photo of what's left of the core? "Crushed"?:
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/southcorestands-2.gif

These core columns. "Crushed"?:
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/wtc37spire.jpg

Care to explain?

[FineWine]

Just think what a mess bazant is in. Even if he could come up with a reasonable explanation to counter Heiwa some bright spark is sure to ask 'how did the top block become seperated from the lower block ' '' The plane is only estimated to have cut about 40 perimeter columns on the impact side and maybe two or three of the 47 massive core columns'. The union between the two blocks was still more thn 85% intact ''


Maybe Bazant thinks jhe will be able to walk away from that question ?


Bazant is in no mess at all. This is what you just can't grasp. Heiwa is regarded by real engineers as a total fool, a laughingstock.

You are incapable of reading the NIST Report, but your obtuseness is not the concern of professional engineers. Our knowledge of the specific damage caused by the planes comes from the NIST Report. Bazant has read those reports and understands them. Your insane movement has produced nothing to challenge the real science. Lies and stupidity do not fare well when pitted against facts and reason.

[bill smith]

Bazant is in no mess at all. This is what you just can't grasp. Heiwa is regarded by real engineers as a total fool, a laughingstock.

You are incapable of reading the NIST Report, but your obtuseness is not the concern of professional engineers. Our knowledge of the specific damage caused by the planes comes from the NIST Report. Bazant has read those reports and understands them. Your insane movement has produced nothing to challenge the real science. Lies and stupidity do not fare well when pitted gainst facts and reason.

' Our knowledge ' ?

[bill smith]

Crushed huh? 100% of the lower part of the tower was "crushed"?

Bill can you explain this photo using the word "crushed". Those still standing perimeter columns don't look "crushed to me.:
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/core-911.jpg

What about the falling section of perimeter columns shown in this photo. "Crushed"?http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/Image335.jpg

What about this photo of what's left of the core? "Crushed"?:
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/southcorestands-2.gif

These core columns. "Crushed"?:
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/wtc37spire.jpg

Care to explain?

Sure....the perimeter column section appears to have been blown away from the building. The core was a mere remnant that lasted only seconds. So a crush down is an absolutely appropriate description..

[FineWine]

' Our knowledge ' ?


You got me there. It sure as blazes ain't your knowledge.

[Gamolon]

Sure....the perimeter column section appears to have been blown away from the building. The core was a mere remnant that lasted only seconds. So a crush down is an absolutely appropriate description..

Ok. So where are the "crushed", "accordianed" core columns and perimeter columns?

How were they "crushed" when the core columns were set along the INSIDE of the concrete floors and the perimeter columns were aligned along the OUTSIDE edge of the floors?

I see Heiwa hasn't addressed his major contradiction about the "support elements" being between the floors and then being outside the floors.

[FineWine]

Crushed huh? 100% of the lower part of the tower was "crushed"?

Bill can you explain this photo using the word "crushed". Those still standing perimeter columns don't look "crushed to me.:
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/core-911.jpg

What about the falling section of perimeter columns shown in this photo. "Crushed"?http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/Image335.jpg

What about this photo of what's left of the core? "Crushed"?:
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/southcorestands-2.gif

These core columns. "Crushed"?:
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/wtc37spire.jpg

Care to explain?


Gamolon, these photos depicting with great clarity what actually happened on 9/11 are extremely inconvenient to the lies of Heiwa and his mindless parrot. You are being unfair.

[Heiwa]

Seen his yet Heiwa ?
http://www.911blogger.com/node/20533

I have 911blogger.com as start page for some reason. Quite interesting stuff!

[Gamolon]

The core was a mere remnant that lasted only seconds. So a crush down is an absolutely appropriate description..

How stupid. Crushed means crushed.

The core remaining in that photo wasn't wasn't crushed by the collapse as it is still standing in that photo.

:boggled:

[Gamolon]

So a crush down is an absolutely appropriate description..

Maybe for describing what happened to the floors, but what about what happened to the perimeter and core columns? They were outside the floors not underneath. How were they "crushed"?

[Heiwa]

"Is it? I clearly say that the intact floors are just hanging on the columns; like pictures on a wall." This is the crux of Heiwa's lunacy. He thinks that the floors can hinge, and still support the entire weight of the floor (and maybe even their contents due to friction) and the columns, now unbraced and subject to extreme lateral forces, will not collapse.

Reason why a floor can hinge around a column is that there is a third element between floor/column, i.e. a connection, in this case some bolts and an L-angle.

So if the floor fails due to overload, the load drops away, and the broken pieces of the floor with no load on hit hinge around the connection. Any bracing remains in place.

If connections on one side are broken due to overload, the load drops away and the floor hinges around undamaged connections, where bracing again remains.

In all cases you must analyze where the lose end(s) of the floor end(s) up. Probably on a floor below. The broken floor hinges down around the column connection and the free end contacts a floor below.

Evidently all connections of a floor cannot fail simultaneously due to overload. The floor is connected to four outer walls and to four sides of an inner core structure and there are plenty, say 700, bolted connections. I know NIST suggests that 6 floors suddenly come lose - 4200 bolted connections failed - but that is the usual NIST nonsense.

I have described it all in my famous paper at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm . More to come in the ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics soon.

[bill smith]

Ok. So where are the "crushed", "accordianed" core columns and perimeter columns?

How were they "crushed" when the core columns were set along the INSIDE of the concrete floors and the perimeter columns were aligned along the OUTSIDE edge of the floors?

I see Heiwa hasn't addressed his major contradiction about the "support elements" being between the floors and then being outside the floors.

I don't think I said that the core or perimeter columns were 'accordeoned' ? Self-evidently the Core columns were removed by a means other than gravity. The perimeter column sections may have been sheared off or blown off or some of both.

[Heiwa]

Maybe for describing what happened to the floors, but what about what happened to the perimeter and core columns? They were outside the floors not underneath. How were they "crushed"?

Damaged by Controlled Demolition, CD!

[Gamolon]

Damaged by Controlled Demolition, CD!

Hey Heiwa!

Nice to see you.

Are you going to address your contradiction I pointed out to you or are you going to continue to ignore it?

What about my model I presented? Does it meet your requirements?

[Heiwa]

Heiwa, does this model qualify for your challenge?

No! Read the conditions in The Heiwa Challenge thread post #1.

[Gamolon]

I don't think I said that the core or perimeter columns were 'accoreoned' ? Self-evidently the Core columns were removed by a means other than gravity. The perimeter column sections may have been sheared off or blown off.

No, I beg to differ. You said 100% of the building below the failure zone was "crushed". I want you to explain how the columns were "crushed".

Easy huh? Or maybe not...

[Gamolon]

No! Read the conditions in The Heiwa Challenge thread post #1.

I have. What condition does my model not meet? Please point out.

Thanks!

[bill smith]

No, I beg to differ. You said 100% of the building below the failure zone was "crushed". I want you to explain how the columns were "crushed".

Easy huh? Or maybe not...
They were being removed somehow ahead of the collapse wave.

[Gamolon]

Damaged by Controlled Demolition, CD!

Sorry Heiwa!

Bill clearly states he/she does not understand how 100% of the building below the failure zone could have been crushed. So he/she is assuming that the mass above is supposedly being explained as crushing the entire lower part of the building including the columns?

How is that possible to think that?

Can You explain maybe?

Thanks.

[Gamolon]

They were removed somehow ahead of the collapse wave.

Removed meaning that the disappeared completely in an instant or removed meaning that they were not supporting the structure anymore?

[Heiwa]

I have. What condition does my model not meet? Please point out.

Thanks!

Most of them! See you at The Heiwa Challenge thread! All your mistakes are already clarified there.

[Heiwa]

Sorry Heiwa!

Bill clearly states he/she does not understand how 100% of the building below the failure zone could have been crushed. So he/she is assuming that the mass above is supposedly being explained as crushing the entire lower part of the building including the columns?

How is that possible to think that?

Can You explain maybe?

Thanks.

The upper part cannot one-way crush down the lower part! See post #1.

[Gamolon]

Most of them! See you at The Heiwa Challenge thread! All your mistakes are already clarified there.

Can't you just give me one? I mean you must know which ones I don't meet already.

Just point out one?

[Heiwa]

Can't you just give me one? I mean you must know which ones I don't meet already.

Just point out one?

Meet you at The Heiwa Challenge thread!

[bill smith]

Removed meaning that the disappeared completely in an instant or removed meaning that they were not supporting the structure anymore?

Yes...meaning that they were sequentially not supposrting the building any more.

[Gamolon]

The upper part cannot one-way crush down the lower part! See post #1.

Yes it can!

I proved it.

The truss connections are what took the brunt of the load and either sheared off or bent downward, not the columns silly! The perimeter columns were along the outside of the floor edge of the floors and the core columns were along the inside edge of the floor.

So your explanation is wrong.

See how easy that was?

:D

[Gamolon]

Meet you at The Heiwa Challenge thread!

Sweet! Thanks. I look forward to reading what requirements you think I don't meet.

[Gamolon]

Yes...meaning that they were sequentially not supposrting the building any more.

Wow. So we agree then!

The upper mass came down upon the truss supports (not the columns since they were outside of the floors and not underneath as Heiwa wants us to beleieve) and since the columns were vertically much more robust and better able to hold a vertical load, the much weaker truss supports failed or sheared off under the huge load. Then it just continued on down breaking the subsequent floors and their truss supports.

Thanks Bill. I knew you'd come around.

[Grizzly Bear]

I don't know why I'm wasting my time with you... nevertheless...


Self-evidently the Core columns were removed by a means other than gravity.
I'll point out the pictures used in another post:


http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/southcorestands-2.gif

http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/wtc37spire.jpg


I highlight these because this is a problem for you and Heiwa. It's a problem because structural failure of the core lower down the height of the buildings were not responsible for the collapse of the towers. The initiation within the impact regions poses another problem, since the remnant core structures extended more than half way to 2/3 of the way to the impact levels of either tower suggesting the collapse mechanism was entirely a function of the uppers floors failing and progressing the collapse downward. The two completely rules out any assisted measures. The columns having lost their lateral support from the floors could not sustain their own weight and buckled, and not a single explosive was necessary to assist it.

Your contention reveals to me (this is ignoring you other obvious idiocy) that you don't understand the principals behind engineering. You I might could give an excuse, which is probably why I'm giving you any attention at all. Heiwa claiming to be an engineer has none.

[FineWine]

Reason why a floor can hinge around a column is that there is a third element between floor/column, i.e. a connection, in this case some bolts and an L-angle.

So if the floor fails due to overload, the load drops away, and the broken pieces of the floor with no load on hit hinge around the connection. Any bracing remains in place.

If connections on one side are broken due to overload, the load drops away and the floor hinges around undamaged connections, where bracing again remains.

In all cases you must analyze where the lose end(s) of the floor end(s) up. Probably on a floor below. The broken floor hinges down around the column connection and the free end contacts a floor below.

Evidently all connections of a floor cannot fail simultaneously due to overload. The floor is connected to four outer walls and to four sides of an inner core structure and there are plenty, say 700, bolted connections. I know NIST suggests that 6 floors suddenly come lose - 4200 bolted connections failed - but that is the usual NIST nonsense.

I have described it all in my famous paper at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm . More to come in the ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics soon.


Yes, there is indeed "more to come." Tell us why all the real engineers at the ASCE journal are shills and religious fundamentalists.

[FineWine]

Damaged by Controlled Demolition, CD!


No explosives were used anywhere in the WTC complex. Your lies have been exposed.

[FineWine]

The upper part cannot one-way crush down the lower part! See post #1.



The upper part BECOMES the lower part very quickly.

[beachnut]

They were being removed somehow ahead of the collapse wave. Somehow, is your that explained in your delusion? What is making the steel disappear in your one way crush down can't happen no engineering needed I just noes its true delusional world where moronic delusions rule your day to day 911 failed idea club. You have not put any rational thinking into your massive failed delusional steel is gone theory to support Heiwa's pizza box kids on bed 2 mile drop failed engineering.

How much energy it released when the WTC tower collapses? You can't tell me! Your lack of physics, math and engineering skills allow you to accept idiotic ideas on 911 from Heiwa.

[Gamolon]

Yes...meaning that they were sequentially not supposrting the building any more.

So you think controlled demolition is a better explanation than the upper mass coming down floor right below and shearing or bending the truss supports downward and then taking that floor with it to the next floor, shearing or bending those truss supports, etc.?

What do the columns have to do with that type of collapse at that point if it's the floor trusses that are failing when the upper mass came down on them.

Is this thinking correct or no? Anyone?

[alienentity]

Wow guys. Why are you still engaging this liar and charlatan? You continue to give him the attention he craves, piling onto this endless thread....

Last year he was quoted as claiming that Dr. Shyam Sunder of NIST was 'one of my peer reviewers' for his 'famous' paper. In fact, what had really happened was that he'd received an automated reply to an email he'd sent to Sunder and his boss, Richard Kayser, saying that it had been read.

Then he claimed it had been peer reviewed. I suppose he'll pretend he never made that claim. At the time he also wrote 'We will probably get a NIST/Sunder up-date sooner or later.' He was also wrong about this.

That was July 2008. Fast forward to July 2009. This year Heiwa created a phony challenge in which he fraudulently claimed to have 1 million dollars available to pay to whomever could meet the challenge.

Instead of putting him on ignore, and not feeding his enormous and twisted ego, you guys are keeping his lies, his con game and his ego alive.

Stop the madness and let these Heiwa threads wither and die, please. There are no new ideas presented here, just the same idiotic misrepresentations of engineering and the same rebuttals.

[tfk]

Everyone,

Sorry about my troll-feeding. I'm sure this has all been explained to Heiwa many times, ad nauseum.

I have no illusions that Heiwa will somehow "get it". It's just that I find this discussion interesting.

Aggie,

Ditto. What part catches your attention?

Tom

[Heiwa]

Sweet! Thanks. I look forward to reading what requirements you think I don't meet.

They are in post #1 of The Heiwa Challenge thread. Please note that no columns (primary load carrying elements) are below any floors. All the floors (secondary load carrying elements) are just hanging on the columns. It is like a bird cage!

[alexi_drago]

So the floors were much like the crossmembers/decking on ships, does nothing structurally and just hangs on the inside of the hull?

[Zorglub]

Wow guys. Why are you still engaging this liar and charlatan? You continue to give him the attention he craves, piling onto this endless thread....

I believe we´re waiting for the moment when we can count how many parts of facts & logic it takes before stupidity & ignorance is crushed and collapse in a pyroclastic flow into its own footprints .
Sadly I think the amount of reason needed is incalculable.
Stupidity is apparently indestructable.

[aggle-rithm]

The upper part cannot one-way crush down the lower part! See post #1.

You are always very careful to use the verb "one-way crush down" when making your pronouncements.

Just to be clear: "One-way crush down" simply describes a top-down collapse; one that is initiated at or near the top of a structure? Correct?

[alexi_drago]

I believe we´re waiting for the moment when we can count how many parts of facts & logic it takes before stupidity & ignorance is crushed and collapse in a pyroclastic flow into its own footprints .
Sadly I think the amount of reason needed is incalculable.
Stupidity is apparently indestructable.

No matter how high facts and logic are dropped from they will just bounce off.

[aggle-rithm]

Aggie,

Ditto. What part catches your attention?

Tom

Just the whole application of physics to a real-world situation that isn't seen very often.

Plus the psychology of the truthers, as usual.

[sylvan8798]

Reason why a floor can hinge around a column is that there is a third element between floor/column, i.e. a connection, in this case some bolts and an L-angle.

So if the floor fails due to overload, the load drops away, and the broken pieces of the floor with no load on hit hinge around the connection. Any bracing remains in place.

If connections on one side are broken due to overload, the load drops away and the floor hinges around undamaged connections, where bracing again remains.

In all cases you must analyze where the lose end(s) of the floor end(s) up. Probably on a floor below. The broken floor hinges down around the column connection and the free end contacts a floor below.



And what about the large horizontal load that now develops at the hinge? If the column is now *free* in space above the hinge, will it not be shoved outwards? (or inwards, if we're talking about the core?)

And what about the column where the floor used to be connected? Potentially now unbraced for several stories in this direction?

[bill smith]

I don't know why I'm wasting my time with you... nevertheless...



I'll point out the pictures used in another post:



I highlight these because this is a problem for you and Heiwa. It's a problem because structural failure of the core lower down the height of the buildings were not responsible for the collapse of the towers. The initiation within the impact regions poses another problem, since the remnant core structures extended more than half way to 2/3 of the way to the impact levels of either tower suggesting the collapse mechanism was entirely a function of the uppers floors failing and progressing the collapse downward. The two completely rules out any assisted measures. The columns having lost their lateral support from the floors could not sustain their own weight and buckled, and not a single explosive was necessary to assist it.

Your contention reveals to me (this is ignoring you other obvious idiocy) that you don't understand the principals behind engineering. You I might could give an excuse, which is probably why I'm giving you any attention at all. Heiwa claiming to be an engineer has none.

Nah...perhaps the explosives did not detonate at their appointed time.
In any case the section still standing would have completely gutted Bazant's 'upper block'. The fact that this had happened appeared to make no difference at all to collapse progression. It was almost as if they were not there at all.

[Gamolon]

They are in post #1 of The Heiwa Challenge thread. Please note that no columns (primary load carrying elements) are below any floors. All the floors (secondary load carrying elements) are just hanging on the columns. It is like a bird cage!

Funny, but isn't that what my model is? My "dowel" columns are NOT below and floors and the floor "weights" are hanging on the "thumbtack" supports.

Not sure I see you're point. Can you elaborate please?

[Gamolon]

Nah...perhaps the explosives did not detonate at their appointed time.
In any case the section still standing would have completely gutted Bazant's 'upper block'. The fact that this had happened appeared to make no difference at all to collpse progression. It was almost as if they were not there at all.

But you keep saying that the ENTIRE building below the failure zone was crushed. How were the columns "crushed"?

[aggle-rithm]

Nah...perhaps the explosives did not detonate at their appointed time.


Or at any time.

[bill smith]

But you keep saying that the ENTIRE building below the failure zone was crushed. How were the columns "crushed"?

I on't believe that they were crushed o course. I believe they were removed from their normal support function in a sequential fashion by devious means.

[Gamolon]

I on't believe that they were crushed o course. I believe they were removed from their normal support function in a sequential fashion by devious means.

So why are you saying that 100% of the structure below was crushed when you meant just the floors?

So again. You would rather believe that there was controlled demolition over believing that the upper section of the tower collapsed and bent or sheared the floor truss supports on it's way down?

[bill smith]

So why are you saying that 100% of the structure below was crushed when you meant just the floors?

So again. You would rather believe that there was controlled demolition over believing that the upper section of the tower collapsed and bent or sheared the floor truss supports on it's way down?

To be clear I believe that controlled demolitions and gravity brought the buildings down. I think most of the floors were pulverised into dust using nanothermite which explains the lack of wire mesh reinforcing and floorpans in the rubble. They were evaporated. The core columns were selectively and sequentially removed. The perimeter columns probably peeled off and required only a little explosive here and there.

[Newtons Bit]

To be clear I believe that controlled demolitions and gravity brought the buildings down. I think most of the floors were pulverised into dust using nanothermite which explains the lack of wire mesh reinforcing and floorpans in the rubble. They were evaporated. The core columns were selectively and sequentially removed. The perimeter columns probably peeled off and required only a little explosive here and there.

You do realize that to pulverize that concrete you need a force in excess of 3000psi applied to the entire floor plate? If an explosive created this much pressure, the people in NYC would have lost their hearing.

[HyJinX]

Hush-a-nanothermite™

[bill smith]

You do realize that to pulverize that concrete you need a force in excess of 3000psi applied to the entire floor plate? If an explosive created this much pressure, the people in NYC would have lost their hearing.

I can explain that but not on this thread.

[alienentity]

Funny, but isn't that what my model is? My "dowel" columns are NOT below and floors and the floor "weights" are hanging on the "thumbtack" supports.

Not sure I see you're point. Can you elaborate please?

The point should be obvious: he is fundamentally dishonest, and will move the goalposts as he chooses, or evade your proposal by deflection and deception.

Ad nauseum.

[DavidJames]

The point should be obvious: he is fundamentally dishonest, and will move the goalposts as he chooses, or evade your proposal by deflection and deception.

Ad nauseum.I say this about once a week.

BillSmith is trolling. BillSmith is here to feed his ego. Why people respond to him, satisfy his urges and feed his ego is beyond me. Part of me wonders if those responding don't have the same urges.

There isn't a lurker alive, who has a working brain, that would be persuaded by BillSmith.

[Heiwa]

You are always very careful to use the verb "one-way crush down" when making your pronouncements.



Yes, it is the Topic of this popular thread that I started

[ElMondoHummus]

You do realize that to pulverize that concrete you need a force in excess of 3000psi applied to the entire floor plate? If an explosive created this much pressure, the people in NYC would have lost their hearing.

Not only that, but a good part of the tower would be nowhere near its "footprint". They would've had to have divers recover parts of the building from the Hudson.

[Heiwa]

And what about the large horizontal load that now develops at the hinge? If the column is now *free* in space above the hinge, will it not be shoved outwards? (or inwards, if we're talking about the core?)



The load on the hinge by the intact/damaged floor is always vertical. This vertical load is transmitted to the vertical column as compression force. This force may also displace the column sideways! Yes - the structure is 3D. All described in my paper.

[Heiwa]

Funny, but isn't that what my model is? My "dowel" columns are NOT below and floors and the floor "weights" are hanging on the "thumbtack" supports.

Not sure I see you're point. Can you elaborate please?

The "thumbtack" or dowel column doesn't get one-way crushed down. Your design only suffers local failures of some elements. You really have to try to understand what a One-way Crush down is; the columns must also fail.

[alexi_drago]

The load on the hinge by the intact/damaged floor is always vertical. This vertical load is transmitted to the vertical column as compression force. This force may also displace the column sideways! Yes - the structure is 3D. All described in my paper.

Where is the pivot of this hinge?

[phunk]

The "thumbtack" or dowel column doesn't get one-way crushed down. Your design only suffers local failures of some elements. You really have to try to understand what a One-way Crush down is; the columns must also fail.

But the columns didn't all fail in the WTC. Mostly, it was the connections between the columns, and between the columns and floors.

[Newtons Bit]

I can explain that but not on this thread.

Why don't you PM me the explanation then. Just for my erudification.

[Heiwa]

Where is the pivot of this hinge?

Between the floor and column sides. Where else can it be?

[alexi_drago]

Between the floor and column sides. Where else can it be?

The load on the hinge by the intact/damaged floor is always vertical. This vertical load is transmitted to the vertical column as compression force.

If it's on the side of the column then it's not only going to be a vertical load.

[Newtons Bit]

Where is the pivot of this hinge?

Didn't you know? Structural Steel shapes can rotate 90 degrees at a hinge without any damage! </sarcasm>

In reality, it depends on the depth of the member. For the angle webs of the joists it's probably about 20 degrees before the steel fractures and pulls apart.

And once it does that, it's a completely tension on element, which means it's pulling the column inwards instead of bracing that column. In a real world case, not a heiwa world case, these columns would collapse under their own self-weight.

[alexi_drago]

Didn't you know? Structural Steel shapes can rotate 90 degrees at a hinge without any damage! </sarcasm>

In reality, it depends on the depth of the member. For the angle webs of the joists it's probably about 20 degrees before the steel fractures and pulls apart.

And once it does that, it's a completely tension on element, which means it's pulling the column inwards instead of bracing that column. In a real world case, not a heiwa world case, these columns would collapse under their own self-weight.

This I know but even assuming such a hinge existed then for the floor section to exert only a vertical load on the column the floor section would have to occupy the same space as the columns which must even be impossible in whatever universe Heiwa is curently residing.

[bill smith]

Why don't you PM me the explanation then. Just for my erudification.

I'm saving it as part of a larger picture. Iwouldn't want to spoil it

[aggle-rithm]

Yes, it is the Topic of this popular thread that I started

Why even respond if you're going to clip my question from my original post and not answer it? I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but if you're going to be THAT evasive...

I believe that when you say "one-way crush down" you have a very specific meaning in mind that makes it technically true whenever you say "it can never happen". However, you're not sharing that meaning with us.

It's as if I kept repeating, "Heiwa can't perform simple arithmetic" over and over, each time witholding the fact that my special definition for "simple arithmetic" is "to divide by zero". That would be a childish game, wouldn't it? Sort of like the one you're playing with this "one-way crush down" business.

I've got to hand it to you; you've got intellectual cowardice down to a fine art.

[aggle-rithm]

I can explain that but not on this thread.

Sure you can.

[FineWine]

I can explain that but not on this thread.

No, you cannot hope to explain such nonsense. No explosives were used anywhere in the WTC complex.

[FineWine]

The load on the hinge by the intact/damaged floor is always vertical. This vertical load is transmitted to the vertical column as compression force. This force may also displace the column sideways! Yes - the structure is 3D. All described in my paper.


Your paper is incompetent rubbish. Real engineers have exposed you as a fraud.

[HyJinX]

http://www.neowin.net/forum/fun/die_thread_die.jpg

[tfk]

Aggie,


Just the whole application of physics to a real-world situation that isn't seen very often.

Plus the psychology of the truthers, as usual.


I agree on both counts.

With regard to the engineering questions, here's my take on the issue...
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4743226

With regard to the truther nuttiness,

With regard to dealing with Heiwa, nothing could better exhibit his ploy than the following exchange:


Hey Heiwa!
Nice to see you.
Are you going to address your contradiction I pointed out to you or are you going to continue to ignore it?
What about my model I presented? Does it meet your requirements?



No! Read the conditions in The Heiwa Challenge thread post #1.


Heiwa's repartee is a Farce in Three Parts:

1. An incessant repetition of vapid techno-babble.
2. A cowardly evasion of "inconvenient" questions.
3. An unseemly addiction to self-promotion (Motto: "No opportunity too trivial".)

Don't expect him to debate honestly.

Tom

[bill smith]

I have 911blogger.com as start page for some reason. Quite interesting stuff!

I'm just the suspicious type. Especially around now just before your paper is published..

[Heiwa]

If it's on the side of the column then it's not only going to be a vertical load. Yes, difficult to fit it inside the column.

[Heiwa]

Aggie,



I agree on both counts.

With regard to the engineering questions, here's my take on the issue...
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4743226

With regard to the truther nuttiness,

With regard to dealing with Heiwa, nothing could better exhibit his ploy than the following exchange:





Heiwa's repartee is a Farce in Three Parts:

1. An incessant repetition of vapid techno-babble.
2. A cowardly evasion of "inconvenient" questions.
3. An unseemly addiction to self-promotion (Motto: "No opportunity too trivial".)

Don't expect him to debate honestly.

Tom

You are just bitter you failed The Heiwa Challenge.

[tsig]

To be clear I believe that controlled demolitions and gravity brought the buildings down. I think most of the floors were pulverised into dust using nanothermite which explains the lack of wire mesh reinforcing and floorpans in the rubble. They were evaporated. The core columns were selectively and sequentially removed. The perimeter columns probably peeled off and required only a little explosive here and there.

If they decided to pulverize the concrete to bring down the building then they were the dumbest CDer's ever.

Everybody else cuts the steel supports.

[tsig]

I can explain that but not on this thread.

Or anywhere else in the known Universe.