Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

[Heiwa]

Many persons take for granted that steel structures of certain types, e.g. WTC Twin Towers, collapse from top down - one-way crush down - if you start a fire up top. The fire is supposed to weaken support steel structure up top and then the structure above displaces down and one-way crushes the complete steel structure below.
Bazant and Zhou explained this already 2 days after 911.
However, the one-way crush down process is not possible under any circumstances. I explain why at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/mac5.htm .

[dtugg]

I take it that you tested this with lemons, pizza boxes, and sponges. I mean, without that, how can one be sure?

PS: How is it going with that article that you claimed has a 100% chance of getting published?

[Heiwa]

I take it that you tested this with lemons, pizza boxes, and sponges. I mean, without that, how can one be sure?

PS: How is it going with that article that you claimed has a 100% chance of getting published?

This time test is with 410 m high model with structural elements m as explained. You can replace m with lemons, pizza boxes, sponges or any structural elements! Don't worry! One-way crush down is not possible.

The article was sent to ASCE Journal of Mechanical Engineering on 3 February 2009 and is still under peer review, I am told. Editor Ross Corotis has informed he will publish it. :)

[UNLoVedRebel]

Editor Ross Corotis has informed he will publish it.
In the Journal of Psychiatric Research?

[Lennart Hyland]

I'm curious, you mentioned FoS 3 in this article and if I remember correct there was a thread questioning this claim? So I wonder is it a correct number for the factory of safety or is it really smaller?

[MIKILLINI]

Many persons take for granted that steel structures of certain types, e.g. WTC Twin Towers, collapse from top down - one-way crush down - if you start a fire up top. The fire is supposed to weaken support steel structure up top and then the structure above displaces down and one-way crushes the complete steel structure below.
Bazant and Zhou explained this already 2 days after 911.
However, the one-way crush down process is not possible under any circumstances. I explain why at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/mac5.htm .

Well, you're consistently not right, so at least you don't take being wrong for granted.:rolleyes:

[Heiwa]

I'm curious, you mentioned FoS 3 in this article and if I remember correct there was a thread questioning this claim? So I wonder is it a correct number for the factory of safety or is it really smaller?

FoS 3 is just an indicative figure. Pls note that the columns gets much (8 times) heavier and stronger down below than up top in this full scale model so column failure modes differ (buckling up top, pure compression below).

Pls, note also that in this model only virtual columns (their mass is included in the horizontal element) fail (for any reason) so any debris is also virtual and collects on the undamaged horizontal element below, so to say.

Failures are thus only produced by energy of displacing elements with mass and the big question is, WHERE, do they take place? I suggest in the weakest support elements adjacent to impact, i.e. the supports above impact in this model.

Think about latest car structural designs where the structure is arranged with crush zones with weak elements, &c, protecting the driver in collisions.

[leftysergeant]

I think you have beaten a dead horse into sausage with this same unsupportable rubbish.

You fail to show an arresting mechanism, other than to state that the suppoprts get stronger (thus more resistant to collapse) as you move down the structure.

Get it straight. The brackets holding the floors to the perimeter columns were pretty much the same a the fifth floor as at the 90th. All they had to support was the floors. They did not suppoprt the upper weight of the building. The cores and the perimeter columns did. THOSE got stronger toward the bottom.

The floors were all that kept the perimeter columns upright without the hat trusses in place. There was debris falling faster than the floors could get out of the way. Some of it had to go sideways, pushing against the perimeter columns. Without the floors to hold them in place, the periemter columns fell off. The cores took a while to fall, being stronger, but there is a limit to how long such structures could stand without side bracing.

You have failed again, mostly because you are posting the same old same old with slightly different wording.

You are, in effect, repeating the same action and expecting a different outcome, and we all have heard what Einstein had to say about people who do that.

[ozeco41]

I think you have beaten a dead horse into sausage with this same unsupportable rubbish.

You fail to show an arresting mechanism, other than to state that the suppoprts get stronger (thus more resistant to collapse) as you move down the structure.

Get it straight. The brackets holding the floors to the perimeter columns were pretty much the same a the fifth floor as at the 90th. All they had to support was the floors. They did not suppoprt the upper weight of the building. The cores and the perimeter columns did. THOSE got stronger toward the bottom.

The floors were all that kept the perimeter columns upright without the hat trusses in place. There was debris falling faster than the floors could get out of the way. Some of it had to go sideways, pushing against the perimeter columns. Without the floors to hold them in place, the periemter columns fell off. The cores took a while to fall, being stronger, but there is a limit to how long such structures could stand without side bracing.

You have failed again, mostly because you are posting the same old same old with slightly different wording.

You are, in effect, repeating the same action and expecting a different outcome, and we all have heard what Einstein had to say about people who do that.

Pretty close to my analysis leftysergeant - Heiwa set up this thread after I challenged him with a version of his model adjusted to show what actually happened at WTC on 9/11

My most recent post is at: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4610257&postcount=743 and it is last in a series where I showed some of the reasons why Hiewa's model is faulty and started to explain how WTC 1 & 2 actually fell in the "global collapse" stage.

Interestingly he has been making the same initial error as many from both sides of the "great divide" - even Greening and Bazant IIRC as well as most truthers.

[Heiwa]

I think you have beaten a dead horse into sausage with this same unsupportable rubbish.

You fail to show an arresting mechanism, other than to state that the suppoprts get stronger (thus more resistant to collapse) as you move down the structure.

Get it straight. The brackets holding the floors to the perimeter columns were pretty much the same a the fifth floor as at the 90th. All they had to support was the floors. They did not suppoprt the upper weight of the building. The cores and the perimeter columns did. THOSE got stronger toward the bottom.

The floors were all that kept the perimeter columns upright without the hat trusses in place. There was debris falling faster than the floors could get out of the way. Some of it had to go sideways, pushing against the perimeter columns. Without the floors to hold them in place, the periemter columns fell off. The cores took a while to fall, being stronger, but there is a limit to how long such structures could stand without side bracing.

You have failed again, mostly because you are posting the same old same old with slightly different wording.

You are, in effect, repeating the same action and expecting a different outcome, and we all have heard what Einstein had to say about people who do that.

OK - the columns get stronger lower down but the horizontal elements (floors) connections to the columns are the same everywhere and they break first.

So at first impact floor 98 (moving) against floor 97 (static) floor/column connections fail (and not the columns). Which one - floor 97's or 98's or both?

Anyway - let's assume the outer wall support pillars (4 walls of 60 pillars each) just deflect outwards in the process, so that the floors can continue dropping down, i.e. part C squeezes itself inside part A and always destroys the floor/column connections below and the floors 97-1 are stacking up on top of each other ... around the core ... like doughnuts with holes with floor 98 on top?

So the result would be four walls below floor 97 - like banana skins - dropping sideways (or in pieces) and a stack of floors on the foot print ... and core somewhere. No columns buckling! No one-way crush down of supports. Just failures of horizontal elements' connections to columns and floors stacking up!

Good! Try to model that! It is a new variation of the pancake theory.

NIST will assist you with strength calculations of the floor/column connections. It seems they could carry 10 floors (10 m) static (FoS 10) or could resist 6 moving floors (6 m) impacting (plenty of strain energy there) and that it was the columns that were the weakest elements in the structure (FoS 3) (as assumed in my model).

Another question - is it just floor 98 (one m) crushing floors 97-1 (each one m)? Where do floors 99-111 (13 m) and the hat truss come into the picture?

So you suggest that one-way crush down of a structure is possible because all the floor/columns connections/joints were too weak throughout! All the joints break in the structure and the intact elements/floors just drop!

Fascinating. Imagine one single element held by two support connections and you drop another single element on it ... and both connections fail. Normally it is only one! And now a floor element with 600 connections. You drop another floor on it ... and all 600 connections fail. 97 times!

Imagine any composite structure and you drop a piece of it on it. And all the joints between elements fail. Never heard of! But now it is NWO physics time and then strange things happens. :) Show me a model, and you'll win a prize!

[ozeco41]

Many persons take for granted that steel structures of certain types, e.g. WTC Twin Towers, collapse from top down - one-way crush down - if you start a fire up top....I don't accept that position so I am not one of those "Many persons". The fire is supposed to weaken support steel structure up top and then the structure above displaces down and one-way crushes the complete steel structure below. ... and I disagree with 4 out of 5 of the premises includes in this bit of your statement when applied to the WTC Twin Towers: I DO NOT AGREE with the implication that fire alone caused... I DO NOT AGREE that the top structure was weakened; I AGREE that the structure above displaced down; I DO NOT AGREE with one way crushes; AND I DO NOT AGREE with crushes the complete steel structure below.
....Bazant and Zhou explained this already 2 days after 911.
However, the one-way crush down process is not possible under any circumstances. I explain why at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/mac5.htm .
I also disagree with your conclusions: Bazant and Zhou got the key element wrong even if their conclusions were correct; I disagree with the definition of "one-way crush down" therefore the conclusion you draw; AND your " I explain why" directs to an explanation which is not analogous or relevant to WTC 9/11 collapses and where I have already shown you a more appropriate explanation which is analogous to 9/11 events.

EDIT - Typos

[leftysergeant]

OK - the columns get stronger lower down but the horizontal elements (floors) connections to the columns are the same everywhere and they break first.

So at first impact floor 98 (moving) against floor 97 (static) floor/column connections fail (and not the columns). Which one - floor 97's or 98's or both?

Both. You can see, in the collapse of the south tower, that the upper structure is already becoming massively deformed as it shifts slightly toward the camera. This would almost as a natural law deform the floor slabs above the breaking point, so that we have a great deal more rubble than just the floor slab from the 98th floor hitting the 97th.you also have the upper perimeter columns exerting an outward force on the tops of the lower columns.

The safety factor even for the static weight is out the window. There are TWO processes, not just one, occuring at each floor-to-perimeter connection.

Anyway - let's assume the outer wall support pillars (4 walls of 60 pillars each) just deflect outwards in the process, so that the floors can continue dropping down, i.e. part C squeezes itself inside part A and always destroys the floor/column connections below and the floors 97-1 are stacking up on top of each other ... around the core ... like doughnuts with holes with floor 98 on top?

No. They are banging each other into rubble.

Another question - is it just floor 98 (one m) crushing floors 97-1 (each one m)? Where do floors 99-111 (13 m) and the hat truss come into the picture?

They helped wedge open the perimeter walls.

[ozeco41]

(Excuse me leftysergeant - but I see you beat me to it so here is some more details for Heiwa)

Some good understanding coming out in your post Heiwa. Lets look at it step by step.
OK - the columns get stronger lower down but the horizontal elements (floors) connections to the columns are the same everywhere and they break first....CORRECTSo at first impact floor 98 (moving) against floor 97 (static) floor/column connections fail (and not the columns). Which one - floor 97's or 98's or both? We cannot guess - probably both if we stay with your model. If we take the WTC 9/11 model it was not 98 falls on 97. It was "(whatever floor at bottom of top block) PLUS three or so floors of damaged material FALLS on one floor say 97 in your numbers. That MAY still be 50/50 but more likely 70:30 So, reverting to your modeling numbers 98 MAY fail on that first impact against 97 even, in real life WTC 9/11 with up to three floors debris falling in the sandwich. BUT go to the next one - it is two floors plus the impact zone debris falling on one then three floors falling on one; then four floors falling on one. However far that process goes it does not continue as a one for one sacrifce of floors with the "bottom section" winning because it had more floors in its piggy bank....Anyway - let's assume the outer wall support pillars (4 walls of 60 pillars each) just deflect outwards in the process, so that the floors can continue dropping down, i.e. part C squeezes itself inside part A and always destroys the floor/column connections below and the floors 97-1 are stacking up on top of each other ... around the core ... like doughnuts with holes with floor 98 on top? .....yes - that is what happened for the floors of the outer tube of the office space...So the result would be four walls below floor 97 - like banana skins - dropping sideways (or in pieces) and a stack of floors on the foot print ... and core somewhere. ...I think you are saying what happened correctly. The outer walls simply fell over after the floors separated and at various times after (Actually at various fall distances after the floors fell)No columns buckling! No one-way crush down of supports. Just failures of horizontal elements' connections to columns and floors stacking up!..... Not quite. You need to separate "outer tube columns" from "core columns and beams" The "outer tube columns" simply peeled off in sheets of various sizes just as you say. The core is more complicated for two fundamental reasons. And there is an "x" factor of misclose.
The core could not fall free being surrounded by the doughnut of the falling Top Block or debris. The part falling on the core of the lower section was (mostly) the core of the upper section. The two would variously miss or cone into contact in several ways including: Columns collide but end to but end - highly unlikely - if it happened the two would go into overload in axial compression and one or both would buckle; Columns strike columns and glance off thus bending somewhat and starting to expose a greater horizontal area; Beams (horizontal) land crosswise on other beams - both bend - and both pull inwards the columns they are connected to; Columns land on beams; beams land on columns; bits bent by earlier collisions hit something else and bend more; AND Some columns of the bottom bit totally miss any falling parts and protrude out of the roof...and the whole mess gets more complicated and continues falling accumulating more debris at each stage....Good! Try to model that! It is a new variation of the pancake theory. ..not new - I first published on another forum about 16 months back and others have said similar. ...NIST will assist you with strength calculations of the floor/column connections. It seems they could carry 10 floors (10 m) static (FoS 10) or could resist 6 moving floors (6 m) impacting (plenty of strain energy there)...the "6 moving floors" seems wrong - far too high by my estimation BUT, like all these factors it is self balancing - more later if needed. and that it was the columns that were the weakest elements in the structure (FoS 3) (as assumed in my model). FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG we are modelling the strength of one floor connection with a factor of safety (accepting your figures) of 10 for static or 6 floors for dynamic (whatever that means) - The FOS for columns means 3 times tghe COLUMNBS designed losd which is ~10 or ~20 storeys of total structure - far stringer than one floors FLOOR LOAD ONLY, So you have an order of magnitude error of logic there.
....Another question - is it just floor 98 (one m) crushing floors 97-1 (each one m)? Where do floors 99-111 (13 m) and the hat truss come into the picture? ...they fall apart somewhere in the overall scheme but exactly wher doesnt matter nor does it matter if they remain mostly intedgral till the Top Block lands at the botton. The falling mass is the same whete vstill integral as a top block or separated into components.
....So you suggest that one-way crush down of a structure is possible because all the floor/columns connections/joints were too weak throughout! All the joints break in the structure and the intact elements/floors just drop!

If I may quote an expert:
By George, [he's] got it! By George, [he's] got it! Now, once again where does it rain?.......... (Lerner, A J 1956)

... Fascinating. Imagine one single element held by two support connections and you drop another single element on it ... and both connections fail. Normally it is only one! And now a floor element with 600 connections. You drop another floor on it ... and all 600 connections fail. 97 times!

Imagine any composite structure and you drop a piece of it on it. And all the joints between elements fail. Never heard of! But now it is NWO physics time and then strange things happens. :) Show me a model, and you'll win a prize!... well back into cloud cuckoo land and models not analogous to WTC 9/!! - I will leave that sidetrack alone.

[bill smith]

(Excuse me leftysergeant - but I see you beat me to it so here is some more details for Heiwa)

Some good understanding coming out in your post Heiwa. Lets look at it step by step.
CORRECT We cannot guess - probably both if we stay with your model. If we take the WTC 9/11 model it was not 98 falls on 97. It was "(whatever floor at bottom of top block) PLUS three or so floors of damaged material FALLS on one floor say 97 in your numbers. That MAY still be 50/50 but more likely 70:30 So, reverting to your modeling numbers 98 MAY fail on that first impact against 97 even, in real life WTC 9/11 with up to three floors debris falling in the sandwich. BUT go to the next one - it is two floors plus the impact zone debris falling on one then three floors falling on one; then four floors falling on one. However far that process goes it does not continue as a one for one sacrifce of floors with the "bottom section" winning because it had more floors in its piggy bank...yes - that is what happened for the floors of the outer tube of the office space...I think you are saying what happened correctly. The outer walls simply fell over after the floors separated and at various times after (Actually at various fall distances after the floors fell) Not quite. You need to separate "outer tube columns" from "core columns and beams" The "outer tube columns" simply peeled off in sheets of various sizes just as you say. The core is more complicated for two fundamental reasons. And there is an "x" factor of misclose.
The core could not fall free being surrounded by the doughnut of the falling Top Block or debris. The part falling on the core of the lower section was (mostly) the core of the upper section. The two would variously miss or cone into contact in several ways including: Columns collide but end to but end - highly unlikely - if it happened the two would go into overload in axial compression and one or both would buckle; Columns strike columns and glance off thus bending somewhat and starting to expose a greater horizontal area; Beams (horizontal) land crosswise on other beams - both bend - and both pull inwards the columns they are connected to; Columns land on beams; beams land on columns; bits bent by earlier collisions hit something else and bend more; AND Some columns of the bottom bit totally miss any falling parts and protrude out of the roof...and the whole mess gets more complicated and continues falling accumulating more debris at each stage...not new - I first published on another forum about 16 months back and others have said similar. ...the "6 moving floors" seems wrong - far too high by my estimation BUT, like all these factors it is self balancing - more later if needed.FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG we are modelling the strength of one floor connection with a factor of safety (accepting your figures) of 10 for static or 6 floors for dynamic (whatever that means) - The FOS for columns means 3 times tghe COLUMNBS designed losd which is ~10 or ~20 storeys of total structure - far stringer than one floors FLOOR LOAD ONLY, So you have an order of magnitude error of logic there.
...they fall apart somewhere in the overall scheme but exactly wher doesnt matter nor does it matter if they remain mostly intedgral till the Top Block lands at the botton. The falling mass is the same whete vstill integral as a top block or separated into components.


If I may quote an expert:


... well back into cloud cuckoo land and models not analogous to WTC 9/!! - I will leave that sidetrack alone.

Here is the dreaded spaghetti model gain. Assume it is six feet tall. Can you describe in clear terms what we would see in slow motion after you drop C on A ? .Say a six-inch drop.

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).

[GlennB]

Here is the dreaded spaghetti model gain. Assume it is six feet tall. Can you describe in clear terms what we would see in slow motion after you drop C on A ? .Say a six-inch drop.

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. ....

You run into terminal problems with such a model from the outset. The WTC core and outer columns were not single lengths running the height of the building, they were sections welded and bolted in various ways. So your spaghetti sticks would need to be composite. Maybe glued together such that the glued connection was somewhat weaker than the stick itself.

Then it gets really complicated ....

[ozeco41]

Here is the dreaded spaghetti model gain. Assume it is six feet tall. Can you describe in clear terms what we would see in slow motion after you drop C on A ? .Say a six-inch drop.

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).
Its your model bill - what are you trying to achieve by it? I am only interested in explaining what happened to WTC on 9/11.

Also I declined to head off into cloud cuckoo land with Heiwa's model so it would be unfair to speculate on yours.

now if you modeled WTC9/11 behaviour that could be interesting. did I tell you about my "doughnut model" - actually it was someone else's model but I turned it into a useful 9/11 demo for Twin Towers collapse.

[NutCracker]

Heiwa : 9/11 = Archimedes Plutonium : Theoretical Physics

[bill smith]

Its your model bill - what are you trying to achieve by it? I am only interested in explaining what happened to WTC on 9/11.

Also I declined to head off into cloud cuckoo land with Heiwa's model so it would be unfair to speculate on yours.

now if you modeled WTC9/11 behaviour that could be interesting. did I tell you about my "doughnut model" - actually it was someone else's model but I turned it into a useful 9/11 demo for Twin Towers collapse.

Go on....don't be a spoilsport. It seems a simple enough matter to desecribe in slow motion the sequence of collapse as outlined above.
I'll start you off....the top 10%(C) falls in slow mation and strikes the top of the lower 90% of the building (A). Then C's downward pointing core column butts punch through the lower floor and the upstanding core column butt ends of A punch through the floor of C. Other elements damage each other equally.....take it away maestro...

[Heiwa]

(Excuse me leftysergeant - but I see you beat me to it so here is some more details for Heiwa)

Some good understanding coming out in your post Heiwa. Lets look at it step by step.
CORRECT We cannot guess - probably both if we stay with your model. If we take the WTC 9/11 model it was not 98 falls on 97. It was "(whatever floor at bottom of top block) PLUS three or so floors of damaged material FALLS on one floor say 97 in your numbers. That MAY still be 50/50 but more likely 70:30 So, reverting to your modeling numbers 98 MAY fail on that first impact against 97 even, in real life WTC 9/11 with up to three floors debris falling in the sandwich. BUT go to the next one - it is two floors plus the impact zone debris falling on one then three floors falling on one; then four floors falling on one. However far that process goes it does not continue as a one for one sacrifce of floors with the "bottom section" winning because it had more floors in its piggy bank...yes - that is what happened for the floors of the outer tube of the office space...I think you are saying what happened correctly. The outer walls simply fell over after the floors separated and at various times after (Actually at various fall distances after the floors fell) Not quite. You need to separate "outer tube columns" from "core columns and beams" The "outer tube columns" simply peeled off in sheets of various sizes just as you say. The core is more complicated for two fundamental reasons. And there is an "x" factor of misclose.
The core could not fall free being surrounded by the doughnut of the falling Top Block or debris. The part falling on the core of the lower section was (mostly) the core of the upper section. The two would variously miss or cone into contact in several ways including: Columns collide but end to but end - highly unlikely - if it happened the two would go into overload in axial compression and one or both would buckle; Columns strike columns and glance off thus bending somewhat and starting to expose a greater horizontal area; Beams (horizontal) land crosswise on other beams - both bend - and both pull inwards the columns they are connected to; Columns land on beams; beams land on columns; bits bent by earlier collisions hit something else and bend more; AND Some columns of the bottom bit totally miss any falling parts and protrude out of the roof...and the whole mess gets more complicated and continues falling accumulating more debris at each stage...not new - I first published on another forum about 16 months back and others have said similar. ...the "6 moving floors" seems wrong - far too high by my estimation BUT, like all these factors it is self balancing - more later if needed.FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG we are modelling the strength of one floor connection with a factor of safety (accepting your figures) of 10 for static or 6 floors for dynamic (whatever that means) - The FOS for columns means 3 times tghe COLUMNBS designed losd which is ~10 or ~20 storeys of total structure - far stringer than one floors FLOOR LOAD ONLY, So you have an order of magnitude error of logic there.
...they fall apart somewhere in the overall scheme but exactly wher doesnt matter nor does it matter if they remain mostly intedgral till the Top Block lands at the botton. The falling mass is the same whete vstill integral as a top block or separated into components.


If I may quote an expert:


... well back into cloud cuckoo land and models not analogous to WTC 9/!! - I will leave that sidetrack alone.

You are off topic (my model) a little but allow me some comments.

So you suggest that "it was "(whatever floor at bottom of top block) PLUS three or so floors of damaged material" that impacted (???) the top floor of part A?

What produced three or so floors of damaged material in the first place and how could it + floor at bottom of part C impact top floor of part A?

Anyway - there is an impact between part C and part A! What happens then?

A floor is disconnected? OK, it must be floor # 97 of part A.

It seems floors 98 + three or so floors of part C are already damaged? Correct? Part C is damaged before impact?

What happens to the columns? The supports?

You suggest: "The outer walls simply fell over". It must be the part A walls! Why would they do that? Because floor #97 is disconnected?

There is no load on the part A walls up top, my friend. So they cannot fall over!

What's next?

More floors falling on one! This is pancake theory.

OK - some floors of part C were disconnected (how?) and they crushed down all 97 floors of part A one after one! How? Plenty of connections/joints to break.

&c, &c.

No, sorry! You are a clown that does not know anything about structural damage analysis. Words without meaning you produce.

I'll give you a second chance = topic! What fail's first, when part C collides with part A in my model?

[3bodyproblem]

I'll start you off....the top 10%(C) falls in slow motion and strikes the top (STATIC part) of the lower 90% (IRRELEVANT,MISLEADING)of the building (A). Then C's downward pointing (DYNAMIC) core column butts punch through the lower floor and the upstanding (STATIC) core column butt ends of A punch ("A" IS STATIC "C" IS DYNAMIC, you can't "punch" someone's fist with your face, understand?) through the floor of C. (but more so on A) Other elements damage each other equally (but A was getting rained down on by pieces of C falling onto it, A was more compromised than C).....take it away maestro...

I fixed that for you so you many have a better understanding of what actually happened.

A quick question for you bill. If two identical particles or pieces or things collide, one stationary and the other travelling with a velocity (v), which one is damaged damaged more, the stationary one or the one travelling with velocity (v) and why? Or are they equally damaged?

[Heiwa]

Both. You can see, in the collapse of the south tower, that the upper structure is already becoming massively deformed as it shifts slightly toward the camera. This would almost as a natural law deform the floor slabs above the breaking point, so that we have a great deal more rubble than just the floor slab from the 98th floor hitting the 97th.you also have the upper perimeter columns exerting an outward force on the tops of the lower columns.

The safety factor even for the static weight is out the window. There are TWO processes, not just one, occuring at each floor-to-perimeter connection.



No. They are banging each other into rubble.



They helped wedge open the perimeter walls.

Topic is WTC 1 and you see something in WTC 2! OK, upper part C of WTC 2 is massively deformed! When? Before or after impact? It cannot be before so it is deformed after impact!

But why would a whole top section/part C of WTC 2 become deformed by a small impact with part A?

Maybe your observation confirms controlled demolition of WTC 2 upper part?

Anyway, topic is my model of WTC 1. Part C is assumed to drop on part A. What happens? What failures take place first? Solve that one first!

[911kongen]

Hei! Du kan norsk? Jeg lurer meg på, hvorfor er ikke det mulig med en dominoeffekt rett ned? Vi vet det er mulig rett til siden!

[bill smith]

I fixed that for you so you many have a better understanding of what actually happened.

A quick question for you bill. If two identical particles or pieces or things collide, one stationary and the other travelling with a velocity (v), which one is damaged damaged more, the stationary one or the one travelling with velocity (v) and why? Or are they equally damaged?

In the future I would be obliged if you would restrict yourself to the boldng of my written words and not to go changing them. Some would see that as common forgery. If you hve something to say about what I've said then just post in the expected manner.

[Heiwa]

If two identical ... things collide, one stationary and the other travelling with a velocity (v), which one is damaged damaged more, the stationary one or the one travelling with velocity (v) and why? Or are they equally damaged?

Let's call the things C and A. They are identical = equal mass, equal structure, equal size, &c. I like that. Scale does not matter. Just C and A. Equal! And C has velocity v and A has velocity 0 = no velocity.

Let's assume A is a thing on a kitchen table and that C collides with it horizontally.

Now C contacts A. BANG! What happens? Well, if C is an egg, like A, many things may happen. Egg C sends off egg A at velocity v and egg C's velocity becomes 0. Why is that? The eggs C and A were very hard boiled!

If, on the other hand egg C crushes egg A or vice versa or both eggs C and A are crushed, then your kitchen table is covered in broken eggs' parts. Why is that? Eggs C and A were not boiled at all.

Both results confirm that C cannot crush down A as per the Björkman Axiom.

[Heiwa]

Hei! Du kan norsk? Jeg lurer meg på, hvorfor er ikke det mulig med en dominoeffekt rett ned? Vi vet det er mulig rett til siden!

Me et par drammer i byxen snakker jej alle spràk - helst med pene pier. Nyfinsk, gammeldansk, linjenorsk, friisk och flamsk, platttysk, gotländska, tromsk, you name them.
Answer to your question - a small part C cannot crush a bigger part A of itself in any position. But it is fun to try!

[bill smith]

I fixed that for you so you many have a better understanding of what actually happened.

A quick question for you bill. If two identical particles or pieces or things collide, one stationary and the other travelling with a velocity (v), which one is damaged damaged more, the stationary one or the one travelling with velocity (v) and why? Or are they equally damaged?

Whatever downwards force the moving body exerts on the stationary body fixed in the ground is reciprocated by the stationary body equally and oppositely. After that it depends which is used up first. Think of WTC1 and what should have happened. You can also correct me if I'm wrong.

[phunk]

Let's call the things C and A. They are identical = equal mass, equal structure, equal size, &c.

Actually, they are not identical. In between A and C is the part of the building damaged in the impact, let's call it D. All of the parts of D that have broken loose and fallen prior to the collapse have landed on the top floor of A. So A has been damaged by falling debris and is carrying extra load before C even starts to move.

As C starts to move, it is crushing the already heavily damaged and fire weakened section D. D is being compacted between A and C, and is the first thing to impact A. This 'buffer' of material between A and C never magically disapears. It is damaging A before C gets there, all the way down, and is a major reason the crush up and crush down are NOT symmetrical (besides the obvious bias of gravity pulling in 1 direction).


I like that. Scale does not matter.


I don't believe you are an engineer of any kind if you can make a statement like that.

[tfk]

Heiwa,

And, again, the errors are too numerous to count. The following are just a few of the more glaring ones that stand out on a first scan.

1. Fire & damage on only one floor.
2. Wrong failure mode (columns vs. joints)
3. Wrong failure criteria. (Shear or tensile failure of screws and welds, not "energy of displacing elements".)
4. Wrong stress conditions on beams ("... pure compression..."?? Failure generating loads on beams are bending, not compression.)
5. Improper description of columns. They are not 1 story, but 3 story.
6. No stagger to columns. Errors 5 & 6 play a critical role in Error 7.
7. When examining impact between floors 97 & 98, you fail to account for the fact that virtually ALL of the columns between floors 96 & 97, and between 98 & 99, have been severely compromised.
8. Amateurish assumption of "perfect impact".
9. Hand-waving amateurish "averaging" of stresses. Ignoring stress concentrations due to lost supports, lost alignments, non-axial loads, etc.
10. Ignorance of asymmetric consequences of gravity, leading to ...
11. turning building on its side, and believing that meaningful principles can be learned from this. (It can be accepted as axiomatic that "no steel framed building lying on its side has ever subsequently suffered complete progressive collapse to the ground".)
12. Wrong FoS. The NIST report did an extensive review of the FOS's used in the WTC. Why are you guessing at "3"?
13. Confirmation of conclusions by reference to a Quack axiom.

Given the above, the conclusion is meaningless.


tom

[bill smith]

Heiwa,

And, again, the errors are too numerous to count. The following are just a few of the more glaring ones that stand out on a first scan.

1. Fire & damage on only one floor.
2. Wrong failure mode (columns vs. joints)
3. Wrong failure criteria. (Shear or tensile failure of screws and welds, not "energy of displacing elements".)
4. Wrong stress conditions on beams ("... pure compression..."?? Failure generating loads on beams are bending, not compression.)
5. Improper description of columns. They are not 1 story, but 3 story.
6. No stagger to columns. Errors 5 & 6 play a critical role in Error 7.
7. When examining impact between floors 97 & 98, you fail to account for the fact that virtually ALL of the columns between floors 96 & 97, and between 98 & 99, have been severely compromised.
8. Amateurish assumption of "perfect impact".
9. Hand-waving amateurish "averaging" of stresses. Ignoring stress concentrations due to lost supports, lost alignments, non-axial loads, etc.
10. Ignorance of asymmetric consequences of gravity, leading to ...
11. turning building on its side, and believing that meaningful principles can be learned from this. (It can be accepted as axiomatic that "no steel framed building lying on its side has ever subsequently suffered complete progressive collapse to the ground".)
12. Wrong FoS. The NIST report did an extensive review of the FOS's used in the WTC. Why are you guessing at "3"?
13. Confirmation of conclusions by reference to a Quack axiom.

Given the above, the conclusion is meaningless.


tom
`
Hello there again.

Is the following correct ?

Whatever downwards force the moving body exerts on the stationary body fixed in the ground is reciprocated by the stationary body equally and oppositely. After that it depends which is used up first.

Did WTC1 follow this principle ?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Me et par drammer i byxen snakker jej alle spràk - helst med pene pier. Nyfinsk, gammeldansk, linjenorsk, friisk och flamsk, platttysk, gotländska, tromsk, you name them.


Wi nøt trei a høliday in Sweden this yër ?

See the løveli lakes

The wøndërful telephøne system

And mäni interesting furry animals...

[johnny karate]

The article was sent to ASCE Journal of Mechanical Engineering on 3 February 2009 and is still under peer review, I am told. Editor Ross Corotis has informed he will publish it. :)

I will give Heiwa $1 million dollars if anything he has written about the WTC collapses ends up in a legitimate engineering journal.

[tfk]

Here is the dreaded spaghetti model gain. Assume it is six feet tall.


bill,

In case you hadn't noticed, nobody (that I've seen) has taken your spaghetti model seriously in the slightest. It is not "dreaded" in the slightest, except in your fertile imagination.

It lacks ALL of the pertinent features that need to be modeled.

In other words, the spaghetti is cooked.

[tfk]

Let's call the things C and A. They are identical = equal mass, equal structure, equal size, &c. I like that. Scale does not matter. Just C and A. Equal! And C has velocity v and A has velocity 0 = no velocity.

Let's assume A is a thing on a kitchen table and that C collides with it horizontally.

Now C contacts A. BANG! What happens? Well, if C is an egg, like A, many things may happen. Egg C sends off egg A at velocity v and egg C's velocity becomes 0. Why is that? The eggs C and A were very hard boiled!

If, on the other hand egg C crushes egg A or vice versa or both eggs C and A are crushed, then your kitchen table is covered in broken eggs' parts. Why is that? Eggs C and A were not boiled at all.

Both results confirm that C cannot crush down A as per the Björkman Axiom.
A running back A, weighing 220 lbs, collides with defensive back B, weighing 220 lbs. Running back gets carried off the field, while defensive back goes on to play.

Five minutes later, running back A is back in the game, gets the call and collides again with defensive back B. This time, defensive back B is carried off the field.

Your glossed over averages don't mean squat.

ALL of the significant information is in the DETAILS.

The specific details that you strip out of every so-called "analysis" that you offer.

tom

[Heiwa]

Heiwa,

And, again, the errors are too numerous to count. The following are just a few of the more glaring ones that stand out on a first scan.

1. Fire & damage on only one floor.
2. Wrong failure mode (columns vs. joints)
3. Wrong failure criteria. (Shear or tensile failure of screws and welds, not "energy of displacing elements".)
4. Wrong stress conditions on beams ("... pure compression..."?? Failure generating loads on beams are bending, not compression.)
5. Improper description of columns. They are not 1 story, but 3 story.
6. No stagger to columns. Errors 5 & 6 play a critical role in Error 7.
7. When examining impact between floors 97 & 98, you fail to account for the fact that virtually ALL of the columns between floors 96 & 97, and between 98 & 99, have been severely compromised.
8. Amateurish assumption of "perfect impact".
9. Hand-waving amateurish "averaging" of stresses. Ignoring stress concentrations due to lost supports, lost alignments, non-axial loads, etc.
10. Ignorance of asymmetric consequences of gravity, leading to ...
11. turning building on its side, and believing that meaningful principles can be learned from this. (It can be accepted as axiomatic that "no steel framed building lying on its side has ever subsequently suffered complete progressive collapse to the ground".)
12. Wrong FoS. The NIST report did an extensive review of the FOS's used in the WTC. Why are you guessing at "3"?
13. Confirmation of conclusions by reference to a Quack axiom.

Given the above, the conclusion is meaningless.


tom

My full scale model is very simple - just horizontal elements of mass m with vertical supports below included in m. And part C (14 m) impacts part A (97 m) after a drop. Just answer the question: What elements fail first after impact and compression?
Then we can discuss.

[tfk]

`
Hello there again.

Is the following correct ?

Whatever downwards force the moving body exerts on the stationary body fixed in the ground is reciprocated by the stationary body equally and oppositely. After that it depends which is used up first.

Did WTC1 follow this principle ?

"Force" is irrelevant.

You exert 2 lbs of force on a steak using a steak knife, and the steak cuts.
You exert 2 lbs of force on a steak using a spoon, and the steak does not cut.

STRESS matters, force does not.

And even stress is not the ONLY criteria.
A steak exerts exactly the same stress (& force) on the knife that the knife exerts on the steak. The knife is stronger.

A column stub hitting a concrete floor produces equal & opposite forces in the concrete & in the steel column. That is irrelevant to which part fails.

Don't think that I'm going to get drawn into your word-games, bill. You don't understand. You don't listen. You don't process information. And you aren't honest about it.

[Heiwa]

A running back A, weighing 220 lbs, collides with defensive back B, weighing 220 lbs. Running back gets carried off the field, while defensive back goes on to play.

Five minutes later, running back A is back in the game, gets the call and collides again with defensive back B. This time, defensive back B is carried off the field.

Your glossed over averages don't mean squat.

ALL of the significant information is in the DETAILS.

The specific details that you strip out of every so-called "analysis" that you offer.

tom

A and B? My parts are C and A! Regardless, it seems A and B have only same mass but not same structure so YAOT.

[bill smith]

A running back A, weighing 220 lbs, collides with defensive back B, weighing 220 lbs. Running back gets carried off the field, while defensive back goes on to play.

Five minutes later, running back A is back in the game, gets the call and collides again with defensive back B. This time, defensive back B is carried off the field.

Your glossed over averages don't mean squat.

ALL of the significant information is in the DETAILS.

The specific details that you strip out of every so-called "analysis" that you offer.

tom

How about this then.

Running back C collides with running backs A,B,D,E,F.G and H . As it happens they are stuck together. The day is 9/11 and though each individual running back weighs 220 lbs, A,B,D,E,F.G and H are carried off the field. lol

You chose a poor analogy Teddy.

[Heiwa]

I will give Heiwa $1 million dollars if anything he has written about the WTC collapses ends up in a legitimate engineering journal.

Thanks!

[3bodyproblem]

In the future I would be obliged if you would restrict yourself to the boldng of my written words and not to go changing them. Some would see that as common forgery. If you hve something to say about what I've said then just post in the expected manner.


:cry1

No one changed your words, although I corrected the spelling of "mation" to "motion". I interjected (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/interjected). There's a difference bill, in the future I would be obliged if you refrained from making false accusations of me commiting illegal actions. There's no reason to be petty.

from BS-
"Whatever downwards force the moving body exerts on the stationary body fixed in the ground is reciprocated by the stationary body equally and oppositely. After that it depends which is used up first. Think of WTC1 and what should have happened. You can also correct me if I'm wrong."

You and Heiwa have stated the lower section was more rigid. Do you think the coefficient of restitution (or coefficient of elasticity) was the same for the upper and lower sections? What effect do you think rigidity has on the coeffcient of restitution? Would it be higher or lower? If during the collision, additional mass was added to the collision (by way of additional falling debris), what effect does it have on the duration of deformation? Does this change the impulse momentum equation of these two identical pieces?

I'll give you a hint, the additional falling debris changes the impulse momentum equation. Instead of an exoergic collision you end up with and endoergic collision.

[parky76]

my prediction? this thread will end up like all others. the truthers will get frustrated and resort to calling the debunkers: "government loyalists", "bush lovers", or even "traitors".

any bets?

[bill smith]

"Force" is irrelevant.

You exert 2 lbs of force on a steak using a steak knife, and the steak cuts.
You exert 2 lbs of force on a steak using a spoon, and the steak does not cut.

STRESS matters, force does not.

And even stress is not the ONLY criteria.
A steak exerts exactly the same stress (& force) on the knife that the knife exerts on the steak. The knife is stronger.

A column stub hitting a concrete floor produces equal & opposite forces in the concrete & in the steel column. That is irrelevant to which part fails.

Don't think that I'm going to get drawn into your word-games, bill. You don't understand. You don't listen. You don't process information. And you aren't honest about it.

I guess you are saying that the principle I utlined above does not hold then. Poor ole Isaac N. will be turning over.

If not I guess you are saying that part C (the identical in structure, but relatively the lightest 10% of the building) must have been sharper than part A (the lower , stronger 90% of the building)

Is that about it ? I'm trying to be Honest Injun.lol

[Heiwa]

Actually, they are not identical. In between A and C is the part of the building damaged in the impact, let's call it D. All of the parts of D that have broken loose and fallen prior to the collapse have landed on the top floor of A. So A has been damaged by falling debris and is carrying extra load before C even starts to move.

As C starts to move, it is crushing the already heavily damaged and fire weakened section D. D is being compacted between A and C, and is the first thing to impact A. This 'buffer' of material between A and C never magically disapears. It is damaging A before C gets there, all the way down, and is a major reason the crush up and crush down are NOT symmetrical (besides the obvious bias of gravity pulling in 1 direction).



I don't believe you are an engineer of any kind if you can make a statement like that.

Sorry - in my model there is only parts C and A. Anything between parts C and A disappears to enable a free fall drop C on A. No part D!

Actually there is nothing between C and A except virtual columns that disappear due to FIRE!

But let's assume there is a part D on top of part A.

So you suggest part D is compacted between C and A, and then that this part D impacts part A.

Doesn't part D also impact part C?

And ... part D is damaging part A before part C gets there???!!!??? all the way down!!!!

Please, do you suggest that part A is one-way crushed down by a part D of the building that was between A and C before impact? But it was only air? Nothing!

And please - gravity does not pull in one direction! Gravity is a force of attraction between two masses. Both masses are attracted. It is not like love!

[Heiwa]

my prediction? this thread will end up like all others. the truthers will get frustrated and resort to calling the debunkers: "government loyalists", "bush lovers", or even "traitors".

any bets?

Of course! But you have already lost! I never get frustrated with people. BTW topic is something else.

[Heiwa]

"Force" is irrelevant.

A column stub hitting a concrete floor produces equal & opposite forces in the concrete & in the steel column. That is irrelevant to which part fails.



Thanks for your opinion. Topic is what support elements fail first in my model! The weaker ones (above) or the stronger ones (below). It is very relevant.

[bill smith]

:cry1

No one changed your words, although I corrected the spelling of "mation" to "motion". I interjected (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/interjected). There's a difference bill, in the future I would be obliged if you refrained from making false accusations of me commiting illegal actions. There's no reason to be petty.

from BS-
"Whatever downwards force the moving body exerts on the stationary body fixed in the ground is reciprocated by the stationary body equally and oppositely. After that it depends which is used up first. Think of WTC1 and what should have happened. You can also correct me if I'm wrong."

You and Heiwa have stated the lower section was more rigid. Do you think the coefficient of restitution (or coefficient of elasticity) was the same for the upper and lower sections? What effect do you think rigidity has on the coeffcient of restitution? Would it be higher or lower? If during the collision, additional mass was added to the collision (by way of additional falling debris), what effect does it have on the duration of deformation? Does this change the impulse momentum equation of these two identical pieces?

I'll give you a hint, the additional falling debris changes the impulse momentum equation. Instead of an exoergic collision you end up with and endoergic collision.

Let's not mince words. You know what I mean about not changing my text. Let's say no more about it.

I imagine that the falling 'block' C would be structurally weak, not being attached to anything top or bottom. A prime candidate to shatter and fall to bits on impact with the stronger more rigid 90% of the building. There was no 'additional' rubble. It all came from the impact of C on A. What's more the smaller the pieces the more like a liquid it would behave, running round the core columns and placing little coherent force on them.

[Heiwa]

... Heiwa have stated the lower section was more rigid.

No, Heiwa does not state that anything is more rigid. Pls discuss topic.

[tfk]

Hey Heiwa,

I'm writing an answer to your post.

In the meantime, just out of curiosity, without looking it up, do you know the difference between a screw & a bolt?

Do you know what dimension on a X" pipe thread measures X"? (For X < 12").

Why do "flat washers" exist?

Just curious how familiar you are with some of the arcana of your field.

tom

[bill smith]

My full scale model is very simple - just horizontal elements of mass m with vertical supports below included in m. And part C (14 m) impacts part A (97 m) after a drop. Just answer the question: What elements fail first after impact and compression?
Then we can discuss.

When you think about it C is just a disconnected and heavily damaged part of the entire structure. When it impacts the stronger rigid part A it can only distort and fall to pieces and end up sitting on top of part A or falling off to one side.

[Heiwa]

Do you think the coefficient of restitution (or coefficient of elasticity) was the same for the upper and lower sections? What effect do you think rigidity has on the coeffcient of restitution? Would it be higher or lower? If during the collision, additional mass was added to the collision (by way of additional falling debris), what effect does it have on the duration of deformation? Does this change the impulse momentum equation of these two identical pieces?

I'll give you a hint, the additional falling debris changes the impulse momentum equation. Instead of an exoergic collision you end up with and endoergic collision.

Let's start with some definitions for us less educated:

Exoergic - relating to a process that releases energy
Endoergic - relating to a process that absorbs energy

Topic is part C impacting part A, whereby parts C and A compress, and then elements in part C or part A fail. Question is what elements, e.g. in C or in A or both. Impact + compression + failures = collision.

The C/A impact is supposed to be instantaneous (t=0) and it is exoergic. Compression will take some time and it is endoergic.
Failures of elements are also endoergic.

So a collision is both exoergic and endoergic. Topic is what elements in C or A fail first endoergically.

My suggestion is in C.

After failures and/or displacement of failed elements and part C, further exoergics take place. In my view further local endoergic processes then take place and there is no one-way crush down.

[Heiwa]

Hey Heiwa,

I'm writing an answer to your post.

In the meantime, just out of curiosity, without looking it up, do you know the difference between a screw & a bolt?

Do you know what dimension on a X" pipe thread measures X"? (For X < 12").

Why do "flat washers" exist?

Just curious how familiar you are with some of the arcana of your field.

tom

Yes I know! Don't worry.

[3bodyproblem]

I imagine that the falling 'block' C would be structurally weak, not being attached to anything top or bottom. A prime candidate to shatter and fall to bits on impact with the stronger more rigid 90% of the building. There was no 'additional' rubble. It all came from the impact of C on A. What's more the smaller the pieces the more like a liquid it would behave, running round the core columns and placing little coherent force on them.

You need to start thinking that the bottom of the upper section impacted with the top of the lower section. Not top 10% C and bottom 90% A. It's a fallacy.

Likewise, plate steel if the furthest thing from liquid I can imagine.

[Heiwa]

When you think about it C is just a disconnected and heavily damaged part of the entire structure. When it impacts the stronger rigid part A it can only distort and fall to pieces and end up sitting on top of part A or falling off to one side.

Something like that. But let's be fair! C is not damaged before impact but will be after impact. And get stuck on top of A.

[twinstead]

In my view further local endoergic processes then take place and there is no one-way crush down.

That's your problem right there. This is about what is "in your view". From what I have seen, a lot of pretty qualified people disagree with you. Are you suggesting that people on this forum who have carefully and patiently tried to explain to you where you are wrong don't know what they are talking about?

What exactly is your position on the many professionals who disagree with you? Do they just not "get" it, or is it more sinister than that? :cool:

[3bodyproblem]

Let's start with some definitions for us less educated:

Exoergic - relating to a process that releases energy
Endoergic - relating to a process that absorbs energy

Topic is part C impacting part A, whereby parts C and A compresses, and then elements in part C or part A fail. Question is what elements, e.g. in C or in A or both. Impact + compression + failures = collision.

The C/A impact is supposed to be instantaneous (t=0) and it is exoergic. Compression will take some time and it is endoergic.
Failures of elements are also endoergic.

So a collision is both exoergic and endoergic. Topic is what elements in C or A fail first endoergically.

My suggestion is in C.

After failures and/or displacement of failed elements and part C, further exoergics take place. In my view further local endoergic processes then take place and there is no one-way crush down.


In terms of the open system we are talking about, the addition of mass during the deformation period is exoergic.

Granted this isin't a truly exoergic collision, but gravity will accumulate more mass on the lower section than it will on the upper. The upper section will not be deformed as much as the lower.

Upper or lower, which was more rigid and how does it effect the coefficient of deformation?

[3bodyproblem]

No, Heiwa does not state that anything is more rigid. Pls discuss topic.


Oh, well I'm pretty sure someone was using your account and posting non-sense about the "lower more rigid section".

[bill smith]

You need to start thinking that the bottom of the upper section impacted with the top of the lower section. Not top 10% C and bottom 90% A. It's a fallacy.

Likewise, plate steel if the furthest thing from liquid I can imagine.

Do you mean the steel of the 48 floor pans that the concrete was poured into on each floor ? Each one 1/48th of an acre in size ? I think they must have vanished in that 9/11 way. There should be a total of 5,000 of them in each footprint but I'm darned if I can find a single one. Nah...they must have vanished...

The rest was a few bits of concrete and a fair amount of loose steel. That was about it really.

[tfk]

I guess you are saying that the principle I utlined above does not hold then. Poor ole Isaac N. will be turning over.


Unsurprisingly, you guess "wrong".

There is no "principle" to what you said. It was a meaningless string of words.

Nothing I said would disturb Sir Isaac's slumber in the slightest.

Try reading what I wrote again. (Fruitless, I know.)


If not I guess you are saying that part C (the identical in structure, but relatively the lightest 10% of the building) must have been sharper than part A (the lower , stronger 90% of the building)

Is that about it ? I'm trying to be Honest Injun.lol


You're lack of honesty just becomes more glaring every time you profess it.

I'll give you a big hint here, bill. Stop GUESSING at what I mean. On the rare occasions that you honestly try to understand what I've said, you've proven yourself no good at it. And you are even worse in the all-too-common cases - like this one - when you attempt to twist my words in a vain attempt to be clever.

lol.

I mean what I say literally. Take them that way.

If you had bothered to follow along my last several posts, you might have discerned the core points.

1) Force doesn't matter to parts failure. Stress does.
2) The collapse of the tower was NOT one single event. You can not treat it as such. It was a sequence of 116 separate events, i.e., floor by floor.
3) The lower part of the building was not significantly "stronger" in the specific way that matters to the building's destruction. Because the beams buckling was not the principle failure mode. The joints snapping was.

Now, if you'll excuse me...

[tfk]

Yes I know! Don't worry.
Share.

tom

[ozeco41]

You are off topic (my model) a little but allow me some comments. I am certainly discussing what happened with WTC on 9/11 and how your model relates to WTC on 9/11.

My explanations are accurate explanations of what happened with WTC, as are leftysergeant's Your earlier posts before you moved to this thread showed that you understood my explanations yet now you deliberately choose to return to your models which are fantasies and not analogous to WTC 9/11.

Several others seek to humour your fantasy. It is a moot point as to who is off topic. This sub-forum is WTC and 9/11 so your model is of the topic of the forum and I am On Topic of the forum

However, since you choose to discuss your fantasy model and not what happened with WTC, there is no point me debating further.

...I'll give you a second chance = topic! What fail's first, when part C collides with part A in my model?
Thank you for the offer. However I do not wish to discuss your model where it departs from what happened with WTC on 9/11. My objective is to discuss WTC, not fantasies.

Cheers

[bill smith]

Unsurprisingly, you guess "wrong".

There is no "principle" to what you said. It was a meaningless string of words.

Nothing I said would disturb Sir Isaac's slumber in the slightest.

Try reading what I wrote again. (Fruitless, I know.)



You're lack of honesty just becomes more glaring every time you profess it.

I'll give you a big hint here, bill. Stop GUESSING at what I mean. On the rare occasions that you honestly try to understand what I've said, you've proven yourself no good at it. And you are even worse in the all-too-common cases - like this one - when you attempt to twist my words in a vain attempt to be clever.

lol.

I mean what I say literally. Take them that way.

If you had bothered to follow along my last several posts, you might have discerned the core points.

1) Force doesn't matter to parts failure. Stress does.
2) The collapse of the tower was NOT one single event. You can not treat it as such. It was a sequence of 116 separate events, i.e., floor by floor.
3) The lower part of the building was not significantly "stronger" in the specific way that matters to the building's destruction. Because the beams buckling was not the principle failure mode. The joints snapping was.

Now, if you'll excuse me...

So you agree that the following is true and I can quote you on this ?

''Whatever downwards force the moving body exerts on the stationary body fixed in the ground is reciprocated by the stationary body equally and oppositely. After that it depends which is used up first.''

1. In this case downwards force (gravity) and the mass of C is what causes the stress on the elements of part A and gravity is what causes the stress in prt C as it becomes impaled of the upright columns of part A.

2. If the collapse was floor-by-floor then one floor of A was destroyed for each one of C that was destroyed. I'll even give you two A to one C and still come out with half an intact building lol

3 How did the joints snap from a homogenous compressive collapse (straight down) ? You would need side pressure to snap the joints.

4. Oops....no 4.

[3bodyproblem]

Do you mean the steel of the 48 floor pans that the concrete was poured into on each floor ? Each one 1/48th of an acre in size ? I think they must have vanished in that 9/11 way. There should be a total of 5,000 of them in each footprint but I'm darned if I can find a single one. Nah...they must have vanished...

The rest was a few bits of concrete and a fair amount of loose steel. That was about it really.

Wha? Floor pans? Vanished? Wha?

Anyways... You need only consider the area of contact between the upper and lower section at any given moment, and not their relative masses. Unless you think floors 1-85 (90%) were deformed when the upper section started to collapse, lol! Say it with me... progressive-collapse.

[bill smith]

Wha? Floor pans? Vanished? Wha?

Anyways... You need only consider the area of contact between the upper and lower section at any given moment, and not their relative masses. Unless you think floors 1-85 (90%) were deformed when the upper section started to collapse, lol! Say it with me... progressive-collapse.


Lol...that sounds like WTC7. Instant progressive collapse.

[3bodyproblem]

bill what would happen at a crash up derby with two identical cars? assume on remains stationary and the other smashes the heck out of the other one? just curious...

[bill smith]

bill what would happen at a crash up derby with two identical cars? assume on remains stationary and the other smashes the heck out of the other one? just curious...

If one car was braced against a wall this would be relevent. For the rest have a look at Heiwa's egg analogy a bit further back.

[3bodyproblem]

If one car was braced against a wall this would be relevent. For the rest have a look at Heiwa's egg analogy a bit further back.

Ok then, we will say the stationary one is braced against the wall :rolleyes:

What happens then?

[bill smith]

Ok then, we will say the stationary one is braced against the wall :rolleyes:

What happens then?

They would destroy each other in equal measure.

But imagine that each car had six speced large steel poles welded lengthways through them. Then you can imagine what hapens if the poles meet head on, or pass each other. Might be a fair analogy.

Maybe a VW bug and a school bus might even be closer .

[leftysergeant]

Sorry - in my model there is only parts C and A. Anything between parts C and A disappears to enable a free fall drop C on A. No part D!

And with that, your whole conception of what happened ran right down the sewer and out to sea.

Actually there is nothing between C and A except virtual columns that disappear due to FIRE!

There was air to be compressed, there were dangling floor slabs, there were broken pieces of core columns, there were falling desks, chairs, bodies, that sort of thing. There was no cvacuum, no utter lack of material that could be energized by that moving mass coming down on it. Even air has substance. (Witness dust being forced down stairwells and elevator shafts to emerge many floors below as fountains ejected horizontally.

So you suggest part D is compacted between C and A, and then that this part D impacts part A.

Obviously.

Doesn't part D also impact part C?

PartD is not projecting energy upward. It is being pullewd downward, by gravity, along with part C, slamming Part A.

And ... part D is damaging part A before part C gets there???!!!???

Not as seriously as does Part C when it gets there.

... all the way down!!!!

Effectively, no, because it has become a part of Part C once the first floor of Part A has slowed it's descent enough for Part C to catch up with it.

Please, do you suggest that part A is one-way crushed down by a part D of the building that was between A and C before impact? But it was only air? Nothing![/QUOTE]

Air is not nothing. It is something. Put 100 PSI of air into your motorcycle tires and come back and tell me whether it creatres any energetic objects that can damage surriounding. Put your ear to the tire and you can hear it working, even.:D

[QUOTEAnd please - gravity does not pull in one direction! Gravity is a force of attraction between two masses. Both masses are attracted. It is not like love![/QUOTE]

And Part D found Part A a hell of a lot more arttractive than it did Part C.

[3bodyproblem]

Maybe a VW bug and a school bus might even be closer .


Oh god, please don't tell me your that guy on youtube? Are you? lol, he was priceless. He was friends with "net force=0" boy. Those were the days...

So if I brace a Chevette to the wall then smash the heck out of it and manage to crack up the stationary one worse than the one I'm driving, will you acknowledge the lower section may have been damamged more by the collision(s) than the upper section?

Again, I'm just curious what kind of demonstration would be required to get you to drop your non-sense.

[OneRedEye]

However, the one-way crush down process is not possible under any circumstances.

http://i42.tinypic.com/11grezd.gif

[FineWine]

Something like that. But let's be fair! C is not damaged before impact but will be after impact. And get stuck on top of A.

I have been trying to follow this discussion, but I'm getting stuck. A group of floors of the building all fall on top of the ceiling of one floor. You say that they don't immediately smash through and do the same to the floor below and the floor below that. What stops them? I don't get it. How can the ceiling of one floor stop the combined weight of the floors falling on it?

[leftysergeant]

That was actually brilliant, ORE. The forces were not being all applied in an orderly fashion. The flexibility that allowed the towers to withstand the winds sort of demanded that evertything move in unison.

The chaos of the falling floor slabs put unpredictable stresses on all other components, making them move in directions in which they were not meant to move.

I think twoofers are twoofers because they just cannot hold two concepts in their field of vision of their minds' eyes at the same time, nor imagine two processes combining to produce the same end result.

[Mr.D]

Welcome to the Forum, FineWine,

How can the ceiling of one floor stop the combined weight of the floors falling on it?

Heiwa's theory has the rather dubious advantage of being unconstrained by either reality or a fundamental grasp of physics.

Search around and find his claim that jumping on a scale will not change its reading, then decide for yourself if continuing to attempt understanding Heiwa is worth the time.

[FineWine]

Welcome to the Forum, FineWine,



Heiwa's theory has the rather dubious advantage of being unconstrained by either reality or a fundamental grasp of physics.

Search around and find his claim that jumping on a scale will not change its reading, then decide for yourself if continuing to attempt understanding Heiwa is worth the time.

I'm not an engineer or anything. I can't argue with someone who claims to be an engineer. Can't he visualize what happens when all those floors fall at once on the ceiling of one floor? What does he think stops them?

[stateofgrace]

I have been trying to follow this discussion, but I'm getting stuck. A group of floors of the building all fall on top of the ceiling of one floor. You say that they don't immediately smash through and do the same to the floor below and the floor below that. What stops them? I don't get it. How can the ceiling of one floor stop the combined weight of the floors falling on it?

It cannot, the floors braced the outside of the building (the external perimeters) to the inner core. Basically the floors simply held two of the massive support elements together, the inner core and the external columns, they braced the towers together. This was actually reinforced by a massive steel structure at the top of each tower, the top hat.

The floors simply held their own weight and another weight that they were designed to take; they were not designed to take massive dynamic weights falling on top of them. The very simple action ,removed one floor, and the next and the next will and did continue all the way down. Simply remove the bracing, quickly and violently, and the entire building will collapse.

What is being suggested and promoted here is that the upper weight didn’t hit the floors but actually fell square onto of the support elements, the columns and core, rather than the bracing elements. What you are being asked to disprove is something that did not happen.Welcome to the forum, welcome to the world of the truthers

[FineWine]

It cannot, the floors braced the outside of the building (the external perimeters) to the inner core. Basically the floors simply held two of the massive support elements together, the inner core and the external columns, they braced the towers together. This was actually reinforced by a massive steel structure at the top of each tower, the top hat.

The floors simply held their own weight and another weight that they were designed to take; they were not designed to take massive dynamic weights falling on top of them. The very simple action removed one floor, and the next and the next. It continued all the way down. Simply remove the bracing, quickly and violently, and the entire building will collapse.

What is being suggested and promoted here is that the upper weight didn’t hit the floors but actually fell square onto of the support elements, the columns and core, rather than the bracing elements. What you are being asked to disprove is something that did not happen.Welcome to the forum, welcome to the world of the truthers

Thank you. I'm here to learn. I feel strange disagreeing with an engineer, but what Heiwa says doesn't seem possible.

[Shalamar]

Thank you. I'm here to learn. I feel strange disagreeing with an engineer, but what Heiwa says doesn't seem possible.

The proper question to ask is:

What is the load capacity of one of the floors in WTC 1 and 2?

What is the total weight of those buildings above the aircraft impacts?

[A W Smith]

As someone brought up before in another thread, once the top fails the next floor it impacts, It does not arrest. This is the point where truthers throw out gravity and attempt to make their survivability case by using a model of impact on a horizontal plane. (VW bugs and school bus for example) But both the top and the floors it collects are constantly gaining momentum due to gravity and have now passed the initial floor of acceleration. They continue to gain momentum as they impact the second and third floor and fail them. The very fact that it failed the first floor during the first 12 feet of acceleration makes global collapse inevitable. Otherwise that first floor would not have failed to begin with because at that point it had the best case scenario for survivability. Once the event moves past that threshold and gathers the mass of that floor collapse arrest becomes impossible. If you notice with every one of heiwas models. the first unit (lemon, sponge, pizza box, whatever) always survives. That behavior alone tells us his modeling examples are meaningless.

[stateofgrace]

Thank you. I'm here to learn. I feel strange disagreeing with an engineer, but what Heiwa says doesn't seem possible.

Rest assured what he is suggesting is more than possible; unfortunately it bears zero resemblance to what actually happened to the towers.

Truthers like to play up this imaginary scenario whereby the section above the plane crash simply fell and crushed the rest of the building. In crazytown they will compare the towers to pizza boxes, lemons, eggs and match boxes and it all makes perfect sense, in reality it is simply laughable.

[thewholesoul]

Many persons take for granted that steel structures of certain types, e.g. WTC Twin Towers, collapse from top down - one-way crush down - if you start a fire up top. The fire is supposed to weaken support steel structure up top and then the structure above displaces down and one-way crushes the complete steel structure below.
Bazant and Zhou explained this already 2 days after 911.
However, the one-way crush down process is not possible under any circumstances. I explain why at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/mac5.htm .

hey heiwa

i'm a truther and i used to reject the notion of "one crush down collapse" until someone could provide me a demonstration.

dave rogers went a long way to that end when he sent me the following link.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x17lks_demolition-tour-abc-balzac-vitry_news

its the Blzac Vitry demolition. it clearly shows 6 floors above "one way crushing" the rest of the building below (6 floors). one could imagine it would have crushed further floors below (not sure how many or if theres a limit) if further floors existed below.

what are you thoughts on the video link and why does it not support the notion of "one way crush down"?

peace

[stateofgrace]

hey heiwa

i'm a truther and i used to reject the notion of "one crush down collapse" until someone could provide me a demonstration.

dave rogers went a long way to that end when he sent me the following link.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x17lks_demolition-tour-abc-balzac-vitry_news

its the Blzac Vitry demolition. it clearly shows 6 floors above "one way crushing" the rest of the building below (6 floors). one could imagine it would have crushed further floors below (not sure how many or if theres a limit) if further floors existed below.

what are you thoughts on the video link and why does it not support the notion of "one way crush down"?

peace

Well ,TWS, I am truly impressed and tip my hat to you. You are finally applying a bit of critical thinking to your posts and asked reasonable questions from the other side of the fence.Keep asking, rational, sane questions like you have just done and maybe, just maybe you will realise, from the answers you get, that you really are being lead down the garden path

Congratulations, welcome back to the real world.

[FineWine]

Rest assured what he is suggesting is more than possible; unfortunately it bears zero resemblance to what actually happened to the towers.

Truthers like to play up this imaginary scenario whereby the section above the plane crash simply fell and crushed the rest of the building. In crazytown they will compare the towers to pizza boxes, lemons, eggs and match boxes and it all makes perfect sense, in reality it is simply laughable.

I mean it doesn't seem possible in the context of what happened on September 11. He seems to be saying that a floor designed to hold up one floor should hold up all the floors that are falling on it.

[stateofgrace]

I mean it doesn't seem possible in the context of what happened on September 11. He seems to be saying that a floor designed to hold up one floor should hold up all the floors that are falling on it.

Finewine, the floors of the WTC did not hold up the floors above them. It was a floor truss system. The floor truss system meant that individual floors literally braced the external columns to the inner core. This was the tube in tube design, whereby an inner and outer tube took the weight of individual floors but relied on the bracing of the floors to actually hold them together.

This bracing could not stop the massive falling dynamic weight once the upper section started to fall.

[WildCat]

The article was sent to ASCE Journal of Mechanical Engineering on 3 February 2009 and is still under peer review, I am told. Editor Ross Corotis has informed he will publish it. :)
It will be published just as soon as Ultima receives his FOIA request that shows Flight 93 was shot down.

[Mel Odious]

FineWine:

Welcome to the forums.

Mark Roberts, who posts as Gravy on these forums, has compiled an extensive list of links documenting Heiwa's gross incompetence and wildly flawed reasoning. Please visit Mark's website (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home) and scroll down to the "What's New?" section (February 2009). Heiwa is Anders Bjorkman, who was featured by ae911truth as their "New Petitioner of the Month."

And if you're wondering why pizza boxes come up so often in conversations with Heiwa, here's the reason. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=125881)

[Heiwa]

As someone brought up before in another thread, once the top fails the next floor it impacts, It does not arrest. This is the point where truthers throw out gravity and attempt to make their survivability case by using a model of impact on a horizontal plane. (VW bugs and school bus for example) But both the top and the floors it collects are constantly gaining momentum due to gravity and have now passed the initial floor of acceleration. They continue to gain momentum as they impact the second and third floor and fail them. The very fact that it failed the first floor during the first 12 feet of acceleration makes global collapse inevitable. Otherwise that first floor would not have failed to begin with because at that point it had the best case scenario for survivability. Once the event moves past that threshold and gathers the mass of that floor collapse arrest becomes impossible. If you notice with every one of heiwas models. the first unit (lemon, sponge, pizza box, whatever) always survives. That behavior alone tells us his modeling examples are meaningless.

Energy available is a good measure why one-way crush down of WTC 1 is not possible. Take the first storey crush down. How much energy is available? Say it is 606 kWh, when upper part C drops free fall >3.7 m! How much energy is used first to compress the building and then to crush various material in the impact zone into rubble? And how much is used to accelerate this rubble to same speed as the upper part?

One storey has mass 3760 tons. To accelerate it to 20 m/s requires 209 kWh.
So there is only 397 kWh left to compress a top storey structure and to to crush things.

Say that 209 kWh was used to compress the building structure parts C and A elastically after drop and at first impact until something breaks. This compression (energy absorption) will evidently decelerate the upper part C.

So only 188 kWh remains to crush things (the uppermost storey of part A)

We know a good car recycling factory requires abt. 36.8 kWh/ton to shred a car. Thus the energy available to crush one upper storey of WTC corresponds to the energy to shred 5.1 cars!

However one WTC storey has the mass of 3 760 one ton cars!

If you think you can crush 3 760 tons of steel and concrete using only 188 kWh or only 0.05 kWh/ton, then just prove that.

In all may calculations and models (pizza boxes, lemons, sponges, &c) it would appear that there is too little energy by gravity just to initiate any destruction. The same result applies to WTC 1.

This is THE reason why a part C of any structure cannot crush down the remainder part A of same structure by gravity (C<1/10A).

But as I always say! Suggest a structure, e.g. a composite one, where a little part C can one-way crush down bigger part A due to gravity only. If you can do that you will win a prize.

Re incompetence or being unqualified or not able to to something correctly, yes, many politicians and civil servants display such qualities, like many JREF posters.

[OneRedEye]

That was actually brilliant, ORE.
Thank you. That simulation was a bit chaotic due to a low setting for material friction, but notable because the single upper block connection survives through the entire crush-down, only to break at the end. Here's one (with high static and dynamic friction properties) where the upper block doesn't survive long but it does destroy everything below:

http://i41.tinypic.com/15eq8z.gif

Point being, obviously, simple simulations based on Newtonian dynamics can give the result which "is not possible under any circumstances." Nothing more than that, but that seems to be issue enough here.

I think twoofers are twoofers because they just cannot hold two concepts in their field of vision of their minds' eyes at the same time, nor imagine two processes combining to produce the same end result.

It's a pretty complex subject and, the closer you look, the more complex it gets. In all fairness, most folks don't have a good feel for this sort of catastrophic phase transition and who can blame them - it's so far outside ordinary experience. I'm still trying to get my mind around it.

[ozeco41]

It cannot, the floors braced the outside of the building (the external perimeters) to the inner core. Basically the floors simply held two of the massive support elements together, the inner core and the external columns, they braced the towers together. This was actually reinforced by a massive steel structure at the top of each tower, the top hat.

The floors simply held their own weight and another weight that they were designed to take; they were not designed to take massive dynamic weights falling on top of them. The very simple action ,removed one floor, and the next and the next will and did continue all the way down. Simply remove the bracing, quickly and violently, and the entire building will collapse.

What is being suggested and promoted here is that the upper weight didn’t hit the floors but actually fell square onto of the support elements, the columns and core, rather than the bracing elements. What you are being asked to disprove is something that did not happen.Welcome to the forum, welcome to the world of the truthers

Well said - couldn't have put it simpler myself.

Needs a bit of detail to explain the core - the outer tube columns explained by this:
http://conleys.com.au/webjref/002.jpg

THey don't look very crushed do they?

[bill smith]

As someone brought up before in another thread, once the top fails the next floor it impacts, It does not arrest. This is the point where truthers throw out gravity and attempt to make their survivability case by using a model of impact on a horizontal plane. (VW bugs and school bus for example) But both the top and the floors it collects are constantly gaining momentum due to gravity and have now passed the initial floor of acceleration. They continue to gain momentum as they impact the second and third floor and fail them. The very fact that it failed the first floor during the first 12 feet of acceleration makes global collapse inevitable. Otherwise that first floor would not have failed to begin with because at that point it had the best case scenario for survivability. Once the event moves past that threshold and gathers the mass of that floor collapse arrest becomes impossible. If you notice with every one of heiwas models. the first unit (lemon, sponge, pizza box, whatever) always survives. That behavior alone tells us his modeling examples are meaningless.

I think we should examine the nature of the 'drop' more closely, maybe on another thread. Some people talk about a 0.5 m drop,others a 3.7 m drop and some suggest even more.

I think it is obvious that the two sections did not at any point lose most of their hundreds of connecting solumns, both core and perimeter. Therefore there is no actual 'drop'. There may have been a bending of columns but that would not have been instantaneous. It should be more like that the top part lowered itself onto the bottom part. The speed of that lowering is what has become known as 'the drop'.

[leftysergeant]

Say that 209 kWh was used to compress the building structure parts C and A elastically after drop and at first impact until something breaks. This compression (energy absorption) will evidently decelerate the upper part C.

What is the spring that is being compressed? Floor joints? Not veryt elastic, as far as I can see? Perimeter and core columns? They were not subject to crushing, so do not enter into the processes occuring vertically.

In all may calculations and models (pizza boxes, lemons, sponges, &c) it would appear that there is too little energy by gravity just to initiate any destruction. The same result applies to WTC 1.


You seem to still be treating this like the collision of two ships. All you need is the energy to stave in the floors on one level, and you suddenly have an increasing mass accelerating downward. The floors get over loaded an fail in succession. Nothing need crush any columns. Didn't happen to any significant extent. Most of the crushing of columns that did occur appears to have occurred in the tumbling of the parts as they fell.

The collapse of the floors creatred a blivet. It jammed ten tons of stuff into a five ton space. Something has to give. What happened was that the towerrs popped open like an over-loaded pipe.

[Heiwa]

1. What is the spring that is being compressed? Floor joints? Not veryt elastic, as far as I can see? Perimeter and core columns? They were not subject to crushing, so do not enter into the processes occuring vertically.

2. You seem to still be treating this like the collision of two ships. All you need is the energy to stave in the floors on one level, and you suddenly have an increasing mass accelerating downward. The floors get over loaded an fail in succession. Nothing need crush any columns. Didn't happen to any significant extent. Most of the crushing of columns that did occur appears to have occurred in the tumbling of the parts as they fell.

3. The collapse of the floors creatred a blivet. It jammed ten tons of stuff into a five ton space. Something has to give. What happened was that the towerrs popped open like an over-loaded pipe.

1. When part C contacts part A all structural elements compress due to energy applied. Joints between elements remain unaffected.

2. No, impact is due to gravity only; part C (52 m tall) accelerating vertically by gravity and then impacting on static part A (359 m tall) at velocity 8.52 m/s (16.56 knots in nautical terms).

3. Whatever part C does to part A (and part A to part C) at impact, your task is to show that part C, still only assisted by gravity, can proceed down 359 m through what is/was part A. Elements and joints anywhere may be broken, broken elements anywhere may assist in the process, &c.

The problem is that elements and joints in C break as easily as those in part A and that C is completely broken before A.

Please do not suggest that broken pieces of C or A can damage intact C and A structure. THAT is easy to prove! Just drop pieces of the structure on the intact structure and ... intact structure remains intact.

THAT's why a one-way Crush down is not possible.

But maybe you can present a structure that behaves differently? :) Try! It is fun!

[Heiwa]

I think we should examine the nature of the 'drop' more closely, maybe on another thread. Some people talk about a 0.5 m drop,others a 3.7 m drop and some suggest even more.

I think it is obvious that the two sections did not at any point lose most of their hundreds of connecting solumns, both core and perimeter. Therefore there is no actual 'drop'. There may have been a bending of columns but that would not have been instantaneous. It should be more like that the top part lowered itself onto the bottom part. The speed of that lowering is what has become known as 'the drop'.

In my model gravity drop is 3.7 m through vacuum just to speed things up to impact speed 8.52 m/s. Don't worry about the drop. More interesting is what always happens to upper part C after drop and impact. It seems that C always gets damaged! According NIST and Bazant (and NWO experts) this is not permitted to happen.

[Heiwa]

Well said - couldn't have put it simpler myself.

Needs a bit of detail to explain the core - the outer tube columns explained by this:
http://conleys.com.au/webjref/002.jpg

THey don't look very crushed do they?

No, they look as if destroyed by controlled demolition from top down. Big, intact pieces of wall perimeter columns, &c!

[Fjolle]

In my model gravity drop is 3.7 m through vacuum just to speed things up to impact speed 8.52 m/s. Don't worry about the drop. More interesting is what always happens to upper part C after drop and impact. It seems that C always gets damaged! According NIST and Bazant (and NWO experts) this is not permitted to happen.

Just curious, do you have a quote where Bazant says that "C" doesn't get damaged?

[leftysergeant]

1. When part C contacts part A all structural elements compress due to energy applied. Joints between elements remain unaffected.

2. No, impact is due to gravity only; part C (52 m tall) accelerating vertically by gravity and then impacting on static part A (359 m tall) at velocity 8.52 m/s (16.56 knots in nautical terms).

You keep banging on about the height of the lower structure as though that meant something, so it would appear that the model you are trying to refute involves over-loading the perimeter and core columns vertically, which no one with any sense is suggesting here.

You're still trying to treat a building as two colliding ships.

[bill smith]

1. When part C contacts part A all structural elements compress due to energy applied. Joints between elements remain unaffected.

2. No, impact is due to gravity only; part C (52 m tall) accelerating vertically by gravity and then impacting on static part A (359 m tall) at velocity 8.52 m/s (16.56 knots in nautical terms).

3. Whatever part C does to part A (and part A to part C) at impact, your task is to show that part C, still only assisted by gravity, can proceed down 359 m through what is/was part A. Elements and joints anywhere may be broken, broken elements anywhere may assist in the process, &c.

The problem is that elements and joints in C break as easily as those in part A and that C is completely broken before A.

Please do not suggest that broken pieces of C or A can damage intact C and A structure. THAT is easy to prove! Just drop pieces of the structure on the intact structure and ... intact structure remains intact.

THAT's why a one-way Crush down is not possible.

But maybe you can present a structure that behaves differently? :) Try! It is fun!

I was thinking about your axiom Heiwa. If it is written in say two clear lines of text which absolutely defeat Bazant and the gvernment story, you could have it passed around among engineers in general with a request to only confirm the axiom and sign their name to it. No more thn that. In this way you would give them a way of saying that 9/11 was an inside job without them actually having to say he words. Richard Gage could pass these forms out at his lectures for instance. After a while you could have thousands of signed up engineers saying that Bazant is a fraud. Maybe you could write a counter-axiom that Bazant implies. Might be some mileage in this ?

[ozeco41]

In my model gravity drop is 3.7 m through vacuum just to speed things up to impact speed 8.52 m/s. Don't worry about the drop. More interesting is what always happens to upper part C after drop and impact. It seems that C always gets damaged! According NIST and Bazant (and NWO experts) this is not permitted to happen.

Ridiculous Heiwa. Neither NIST nor Bazant comment about your model. They refer to the actual collapses of the WTC Towers.

Why persist in conflating the two? Your model is artificially constructed to support your version of what you want to "prove". It does not represent or resemble the "collapse which actually happened" at WTC on 9/11.

[ozeco41]

No, they look as if destroyed by controlled demolition from top down. Big, intact pieces of wall perimeter columns, &c!

Yes, that is true. Of the three options on the table here those actual columns could be either:
1) What actually happened without demolition - as in fact they are; OR
2) The result of one of the possible demolitions - except they are not.

BUT they cannot be the result of:

3) the fantasy collapse of your "model" - the real WTC 9/11 collapse did not happen like your model.

And no amount of wishful thinking would cause the real WTC towers to act like you claim.

[bill smith]

Yes, that is true. Of the three options on the table here those actual columns could be either:
1) What actually happened without demolition - as in fact they are; OR
2) The result of one of the possible demolitions - except they are not.

BUT they cannot be the result of:

3) the fantasy collapse of your "model" - the real WTC 9/11 collapse did not happen like your model.

And no amount of wishful thinking would cause the real WTC towers to act like you claim.

Oz....do you confirm the following:-

''Whatever downwards force the moving body exerts on the stationary body of identical construction fixed in the ground is reciprocated by the stationary body equally and oppositely. After that it depends which is used up first.''

[bill smith]

That was actually brilliant, ORE. The forces were not being all applied in an orderly fashion. The flexibility that allowed the towers to withstand the winds sort of demanded that evertything move in unison.

The chaos of the falling floor slabs put unpredictable stresses on all other components, making them move in directions in which they were not meant to move.

I think twoofers are twoofers because they just cannot hold two concepts in their field of vision of their minds' eyes at the same time, nor imagine two processes combining to produce the same end result.

Sarge....do you confirm the following:-

''Whatever downwards force the moving body exerts on the stationary body of identical construction fixed in the ground is reciprocated by the stationary body equally and oppositely. After that it depends which is used up first.''

[ozeco41]

Oz....do you confirm the following:-

''Whatever downwards force the moving body exerts on the stationary body of identical construction fixed in the ground is reciprocated by the stationary body equally and oppositely. After that it depends which is used up first.''

On the surface that statement looks true bill, but it misses one important part as demonstrated by the WTC Towers on 9/11.

It is only true if the impact between the two puts like against like.

The "Top Block" on 9/11 did not contact column on column, floor on floor, core on core OR as I said "like on like".

The top bloc fell wedged inside the outer walls of the bottom section of tower - "C" inside "A" if we use HEiwa's letters.

The whole outer sections of the Top Block fell on the single floor beneath it. Also the core most probably had limited axial column on column contacts if any.

So, my answer, the only valid answer for me or anyone, is "No! I do not and cannot confirm the following. It is not always true." And in context of WTC 9/11 it is not true.

[bill smith]

As someone brought up before in another thread, once the top fails the next floor it impacts, It does not arrest. This is the point where truthers throw out gravity and attempt to make their survivability case by using a model of impact on a horizontal plane. (VW bugs and school bus for example) But both the top and the floors it collects are constantly gaining momentum due to gravity and have now passed the initial floor of acceleration. They continue to gain momentum as they impact the second and third floor and fail them. The very fact that it failed the first floor during the first 12 feet of acceleration makes global collapse inevitable. Otherwise that first floor would not have failed to begin with because at that point it had the best case scenario for survivability. Once the event moves past that threshold and gathers the mass of that floor collapse arrest becomes impossible. If you notice with every one of heiwas models. the first unit (lemon, sponge, pizza box, whatever) always survives. That behavior alone tells us his modeling examples are meaningless.

A.W....do you confirm the following:-

''Whatever downwards force the moving body exerts on the stationary body of identical construction fixed in the ground is reciprocated by the stationary body equally and oppositely. After that it depends which is used up first.''

[A W Smith]

A.W....do you confirm the following:-
''Whatever downwards force the moving body exerts on the stationary body of identical construction fixed in the ground is reciprocated by the stationary body equally and oppositely. After that it depends which is used up first.''


No., Again. You are omitting gravity. Therefore the force is not reciprocal. Why the hell cant you get that through your thick skull? What you are proposing is little different than expecting an automobile engine to stop running simply because of the collective energy loss due to friction and heat. It does not happen in the real physical world. Think of gravity as your engine fuel.


getting back to our collapse.The truss/perimeter column connections are all that is needed to fail for global collapse to ensue. It is as simple as that.

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/truss-side.jpg

[Heiwa]

I was thinking about your axiom Heiwa. If it is written in say two clear lines of text which absolutely defeat Bazant and the gvernment story, you could have it passed around among engineers in general with a request to only confirm the axiom and sign their name to it. No more thn that. In this way you would give them a way of saying that 9/11 was an inside job without them actually having to say he words. Richard Gage could pass these forms out at his lectures for instance. After a while you could have thousands of signed up engineers saying that Bazant is a fraud. Maybe you could write a counter-axiom that Bazant implies. Might be some mileage in this ?

As a starter 2 Feb 2009 I have submitted a Discussion of paper to ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics about the BLGB paper. ASCE informed on 8 April it was still being reviewed. Editor Ross Corotis seems to like the paper. The axiom may form part of my paper.
In the BLGB paper Bazant & Co suggest:

"It is well known that, in inelastic buckling, the deformation must localize into inelastic hinges (Bazant and Cedolin 2003, sec. 7.10). To obtain an upper bound on Wc, the local buckling of flanges and webs, as well as possible steel fracture, was neglected (which means that the ratio K/Wc was at least 8.4). When the subsequent stories are getting crushed, the loss m0gh of gravitational energy per story exceeds Wc exceeds 8.4 by an ever increasing margin, and so the velocity v of the upper part must increase from one story to the next. This is the basic characteristic of progressive collapse, well known from many previous disasters with causes other than fire (internal or external explosions, earthquake, lapses in quality control; see, e.g., Levy and Salvadori 1992; Bazant and Verdure 2007). Merely to get convinced of the inevitability of gravity driven progressive collapse, further analysis is, for a structural engineer, superfluous."

The quote is 100% nonsense. And the last sentence is really stupid.

And what about: ".... progressive collapse, well known from many previous disasters ..." ? It has never taken place before and after 911!

Anyway, to resolve the dispute I have asked for evidence of any structure that will be subject to progressive collapse. FGS, if there are structures around that can progressively collapse, we have to inform the public about them! Maybe they are working inside such a structure, &c. It is a safety matter.

My business is safety at sea - rotten ships, non-working life saving appliances, unsafe procedures aboard and ashore, corrupt national safety at sea agencies + staff, criminal ship owners and insurance fraud, &c. Evidently same things occur ashore and I advise on that, eg 911 WTC 1 structure.

Safety first is my motto.

[Heiwa]

Just curious, do you have a quote where Bazant says that "C" doesn't get damaged?

Just read my paper http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm + links and you'll find it. To get rid of C, Bazant suggests it happens afterwards - crush-up! Bazant needs C to one-way crush down A first.

[Heiwa]

Ridiculous Heiwa. Neither NIST nor Bazant comment about your model. They refer to the actual collapses of the WTC Towers.

Why persist in conflating the two? Your model is artificially constructed to support your version of what you want to "prove". It does not represent or resemble the "collapse which actually happened" at WTC on 9/11.

???? Sorry, my model is just to show what happens, when part C drops and impacts and compresses part A. Does a gravity driven one-way crush down of part A follows?

According my axiom and experience one-way crush down is luckily not possible.

Conclusion - the WTC 1 destruction on 911 was not a gravity driven one-way crush down of part A.

So what was it?

[Heiwa]

No., Again. You are omitting gravity. ... The truss/perimeter column connections are all that is needed to fail for global collapse to ensue. It is as simple as that.


Is it? Produce any structure with said connections ... and let it globally collapse, when you damage the connections! You'll win a prize!

[Heiwa]

You keep banging on about the height of the lower structure as though that meant something, so it would appear that the model you are trying to refute involves over-loading the perimeter and core columns vertically, which no one with any sense is suggesting here.

You're still trying to treat a building as two colliding ships.

???? You can overload any element/joint you like in part C and A, just remember you need energy for it. Tell me what element/joint fails first ... and what happens then.

[A W Smith]

Is it? Produce any structure with said connections ... and let it globally collapse, when you damage the connections! You'll win a prize!

Sure Anders, Get back to me when you can successfully scale that 1 inch bolt truss connection, A bolt diameter dimension that represents 1/16656 of any models total height. And thats not even including the square of the area. Mmkay?

[phunk]

Sorry - in my model there is only parts C and A. Anything between parts C and A disappears to enable a free fall drop C on A. No part D!

Then your model has nothing to do with reality.

Actually there is nothing between C and A except virtual columns that disappear due to FIRE!

Nothing magically disapeared on 9/11.

But let's assume there is a part D on top of part A.

No need to assume, it's a known fact.

So you suggest part D is compacted between C and A, and then that this part D impacts part A.

I suggest that before part C even moves, part D is slowly falling apart. In fact it's the failure of part D that leads to C dropping in the first place. The parts that fall are damaging part A before part C even moves. The parts that fall off are also adding load to the top floor of A before C moves.

Doesn't part D also impact part C?

Yes, but not as hard as it impacts part A. The lose parts of D can only fall downward (damn gravity...) to impact part A. They can't fall upward, they can only impact C when C falls into them. The damage to C and D is not symetrical, D is disintgrating at this point while C is mostly intact.

And ... part D is damaging part A before part C gets there???!!!??? all the way down!!!!

Yes, but after part D collapses, part D is mostly crushed and being pushed down from above by part C (and that pesky gravity). It becomes the buffer at the base of part C. As A is crushed floor by floor, it's mass does not disapear, it adds to the falling mass. Each floor of part A is hit harder than the one before it, while the buffer between C and A grows, all the way down.

Please, do you suggest that part A is one-way crushed down by a part D of the building that was between A and C before impact? But it was only air? Nothing!

It was only nothing in your fantasy world.

And please - gravity does not pull in one direction! Gravity is a force of attraction between two masses. Both masses are attracted. It is not like love!

The acceleration of the earth upwards towards part C is about 1/1015 of the acceleration of part C downwards. Do you really want to consider that relevant?

[ozeco41]

???? Sorry, my model is just to show what happens, when part C drops and impacts and compresses part A. Does a gravity driven one-way crush down of part A follows?

According my axiom and experience one-way crush down is luckily not possible.

Conclusion - the WTC 1 destruction on 911 was not a gravity driven one-way crush down of part A.

So what was it?

Heiwa - your apparently deliberate circling becomes tedious - you appear to be more intelligent than you therefore pretend when you miss the point.

Is that for my benefit - I will not fall for it? Is it for others who may?

Here is is - a response at basic level of logic: "my model is just to show what happens," - your model can show what happens to your model - it does not model what happened at WTC on 9/11 Does a gravity driven one-way crush down of part A follows? No - not with your model ; According my axiom and experience one-way crush down is luckily not possible. Taking the axiom first your statement omits the necessary qualifiers - it would be more correct to say "crush down is luckily not possible for my model and any structures of which my model is representative" - and "luckily" stricken because luck is not a factor; According my axiom and experience one-way crush down is luckily not possible. That may be true of your model. I doubt you have experience of WTC and even so you would need to show how the model was analogous - that you may have learned from experience is irrelevant to the truth or otherwise of the necessary explanation;; Conclusion - the WTC 1 destruction on 911 was not....... - Your conclusion does not follow from what you state as has been explained to you many times. So what was it? - setting aside the terminology you choose the global collapse of the WTC Towers on 9/11 has been explained for you on several occasions. It is not the same as what would happen with your model. Why that is so has also been explained. You have not responded to those explanations.

I remain prepared to give reasonable assistance to you if you wish to understand what actually happened with the WTCV Towers on 9/11.

I have no interest in discussing your model. It is quite obvious that it will not "top down collapse" under gravity. That is because it does not model the WTC Collapses.

[bill smith]

No., Again. You are omitting gravity. Therefore the force is not reciprocal. Why the hell cant you get that through your thick skull? What you are proposing is little different than expecting an automobile engine to stop running simply because of the collective energy loss due to friction and heat. It does not happen in the real physical world. Think of gravity as your engine fuel.


getting back to our collapse.The truss/perimeter column connections are all that is needed to fail for global collapse to ensue. It is as simple as that.

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/truss-side.jpg

Here is the sitation I laid out earlier again. If gravity is not lready contained in it ,then please plug gravity in and show us how it would make the situation different.

''Whatever downwards force the moving body exerts on the stationary body of identical construction fixed in the ground is reciprocated by the stationary body equally and oppositely. After that it depends which is used up first.''

[bill smith]

On the surface that statement looks true bill, but it misses one important part as demonstrated by the WTC Towers on 9/11.

It is only true if the impact between the two puts like against like.

The "Top Block" on 9/11 did not contact column on column, floor on floor, core on core OR as I said "like on like".

The top bloc fell wedged inside the outer walls of the bottom section of tower - "C" inside "A" if we use HEiwa's letters.

The whole outer sections of the Top Block fell on the single floor beneath it. Also the core most probably had limited axial column on column contacts if any.

So, my answer, the only valid answer for me or anyone, is "No! I do not and cannot confirm the following. It is not always true." And in context of WTC 9/11 it is not true.

Two things Oz. If you look up at the bottom of C in your minds eye you will see a pattern of column locations and so on. Then if you look at the top of A you wll see the same pattern in reverse. So the damages are equal when the two parts engage.
The other thing is if the columns top and bottom were were out of alignment then so was the whole block which puts the top block perimeter walls out of line with the walls on the bottom of the building on at least two sides. So I doubt that the top fell into the bottom.

[Heiwa]

The parts that fall are damaging part A before part C even moves. The parts that fall off are also adding load to the top floor of A before C moves.



In my model upper part C drops and impacts lower part A. You suggest that there is another part D between part C and part A that moves before part C and adds load on part A before C moves.

I am confused! What is between part C and A except air, furniture and human beings that I exclude in my model for obvious reasons. Does part D produce the one-way crush down? Pls feel free to include this part D in my model and then explain what element in part C and A fails first, when parts C and A ... and D impact each other.
Is it support elements in C or A? Note - there are no support elements in D.

And, please, do not suggest that no support elements fail but only joints between vertical support elements and horizontal floor elements and that just 97 floors pan cake on top of each other!

Or was it part D that produced all joint failures?

Anyway - just produce a model where a top part can crush down a bigger bottom part and we are in business.

[Heiwa]

Heiwa
I have no interest in discussing your model. It is quite obvious that it will not "top down collapse" under gravity. That is because it does not model the WTC Collapses.

Thanks! Pls return to this thread when you can produce a structure that models the one-way crush down WTC destructions.

[Heiwa]

Sure Anders, Get back to me when you can successfully scale that 1 inch bolt truss connection, A bolt diameter dimension that represents 1/16656 of any models total height. And thats not even including the square of the area. Mmkay?

My model is full scale and about 411 m high! See http://heiwaco.tripod.com/mac5.htm .

So no need to scale anything. If you want to include any joints between horizontal element m and its supports below that forms the units in the model, pls feel free.

OK - we have parts C and A as before. Now horizontal elements m are connected to vertical supports via joints.

Actually, the joints were there before, because you cannot connect a horizontal element m with a vertical support without a joint. But now there is a bolted joint.

OK - part C drops on and impacts part A! There is compression everywhere. And then something breaks! What element or joint or bolt fails first? A joint or a bolt? OK, in C or A? Where? What floor? And what happens then?

Pls, explain how a one-way crush down by C of A takes place because a joint or bolt fails.

Do you suggest that WTC 1 was destroyed because a bolt failed?

[phunk]

In my model upper part C drops and impacts lower part A. You suggest that there is another part D between part C and part A that moves before part C and adds load on part A before C moves.


Part D is the several floors that were impacted by the plane and set on fire. I'm not saying part D as a whole moved before C. I'm saying pieces of part D fell on part A before the global collapse began. And part D was significantly weakened already before part C began to move (obviously, as this is why C moved to begin with). Which direction do you think the pieces of D went when D broke apart? Up towards C, or down towards A?

[Grizzly Bear]

Anyway - just produce a model where a top part can crush down a bigger bottom part and we are in business.
I told something to this effect to thewholesoul not long ago. The size is not relevant so much as the dynamic weight of the mass exceeding the ultimate strength of the structural members.

[leftysergeant]

I have not seen a Heiwa model in which the entire structure does not consist of integrated parts. The bottoms of the pizza boxes are integral with the edges. A sponge, a stacking tray, a lemon, all are totally homogeneous.

This has diddly to do with the way the towers were put together.

The faliure as, by all evidence, entirely in the columns on, at most, three floors and in the floor-to-perimeter-column joints.

Your models do not have frangible floor-to-perimeter joints and are, thus, irrelevant to the discussion.

[FineWine]

???? Sorry, my model is just to show what happens, when part C drops and impacts and compresses part A. Does a gravity driven one-way crush down of part A follows?

According my axiom and experience one-way crush down is luckily not possible.

Conclusion - the WTC 1 destruction on 911 was not a gravity driven one-way crush down of part A.

So what was it?


You still haven't explained how the ceiling of one floor stops all the other floors crashing down on it. Maybe you think you have explained it, but you haven't.

[FineWine]

Part D is the several floors that were impacted by the plane and set on fire. I'm not saying part D as a whole moved before C. I'm saying pieces of part D fell on part A before the global collapse began. And part D was significantly weakened already before part C began to move (obviously, as this is why C moved to begin with). Which direction do you think the pieces of D went when D broke apart? Up towards C, or down towards A?


This is what I was trying to say. When the whole top part of the building starts to fall, what stops it?

[Newtons Bit]

This is what I was trying to say. When the whole top part of the building starts to fall, what stops it?

Heiwa thinks that friction stops it. Friction with what, I don't know. But... friction! You can stop multi-thousand-pound steel members falling vertically with friction!

[bill smith]

This is what I was trying to say. When the whole top part of the building starts to fall, what stops it?

Well it doesn't REALLY start to fall in the sense of 'fall'. There were over 300 columns holding up part C to begin with until the plane severed about 40 perimeter columns and a few core ones. So there were still better than 85% of the columns between the upper part C and the lower part A intact.

[twinstead]

There might have been a couple two or three columns weakened by the resulting huge, unfought fires, bill, don't you think?

[bill smith]

There might have been a couple two or three columns weakened by the resulting huge, unfought fires, bill, don't you think?
You must have some photographs I haven't seen. Can you post some of them ?

[ozeco41]

This is what I was trying to say. When the whole top part of the building starts to fall, what stops it?Nothing did. Heiwa persists in referring to his model falling by a method which is not analogous to how the WTC towers fell

Heiwa thinks that friction stops it. Friction with what, I don't know. But... friction! You can stop multi-thousand-pound steel members falling vertically with friction!
I don't think Heiwa has commented on how the WTC Towers fell .. I may be wrong.

However the towers fell by the Top Block dropping down so there are Two questions to answer to "disprove" demolition. Those questions go the two event:
The initial collapse OR Why did the top block START to fall; AND The global collapse OR why did it continue rather than stop.

Heiwa's claim for his model is correct in that a little bit MAY not destroy a bigger bit. But that is MAY not the exclusive WILL NEVER which Heiwa keeps trying to "sell". AND even there he is wrong on the reason why.

His assumption is that the little bit falls and makes contact between like parts of the big and little blocks. That is the false assumption that most truthers imply even if they do not state it explicitly. Sadly many posters on the "no demolition" side make the same error. Including some of the "big names" :o

One group of those committing this error assume that the Top Block fell as a sort of homogeneous entity and struck a similar homogeneous entity. As if two blocks of wood were involved.

The others recognise that the falling block and the lower block were more like wire cages but still fell "wire on wire".

The cue word to either of these assumptions is "crushed" or derivatives such as "crushing". Where you see those words look for claims that columns were crushed. The outer tube columns were not crushed - the fell in peeled off sheets (BTW that is true whether or not demolition peeled them off ;) )

There is some but not complete evidence of how the core failed. So we need to think to work out what must have happened to sufficiently robust probability.

AND a point I have not made previously on this forum. One which has not been addressed here to my knowledge. Even if the core had been an infinitely strong solid block the outer floors would still have fallen. (For those who know the structure it is unlikely that the "hat truss" could have held the outer floors of the falling top block)

The reality is that the Top Block fell by wedging inside the outer walls of the lower section. It went past the outer columns. The lower "face" of the falling block struck two areas: [list=1] The outer tube office space where an overwhelming overload sheared the floor joists off the columns at both ends; AND the core area which, despite all the rhetoric of "extremely strong" was like two halves of a birdcage falling.

Failure of the outer floor area is obvious.

Failure of the core needs a little more thought.

The chance of "wire on wire" (or column on column in WTC) contact was small - at most only a portion of core columns would have got close to the aligned end for end contact needed to transfer axial loads. All the others would have been pushed aside and a few other mechanisms. None of which matters other than they all involved failure modes of much lower strength than the axial compression for which columns are designed.

[ozeco41]

You must have some photographs I haven't seen. Can you post some of them ?

There are lots of them out there bill.

try this as a starter: http://www.debunking911.com/collapse.htm

Naturally there is no single photo which shows the lot. But plenty to show that some floors sagged and that many outer columns bowed inwards. That bowing inwards was IMO a basis of for a cascade (or "runaway" or "snowballing") type failure which would also incorporate other modes of failure.

[bill smith]

There are lots of them out there bill.

try this as a starter: http://www.debunking911.com/collapse.htm

Naturally there is no single photo which shows the lot. But plenty to show that some floors sagged and that many outer columns bowed inwards. That bowing inwards was IMO a basis of for a cascade (or "runaway" or "snowballing") type failure which would also incorporate other modes of failure.

Which building is this ?
http://www.debunking911.com/columnd.jpg

[ozeco41]

Which building is this ?
http://www.debunking911.com/columnd.jpg

The one top right with the circular patterns as your pic is posted is the WinterGarden

This is the layout (courtesy FEMA) I have rotated the plan to match the orientation. The front wall layout of the building WFC2 is clear to identify.
http://conleys.com.au/webjref/002.jpg____http://conleys.com.au/webjref/FEMA2rightrot.jpg

[FineWine]

Finewine, the floors of the WTC did not hold up the floors above them. It was a floor truss system. The floor truss system meant that individual floors literally braced the external columns to the inner core. This was the tube in tube design, whereby an inner and outer tube took the weight of individual floors but relied on the bracing of the floors to actually hold them together.


This bracing could not stop the massive falling dynamic weight once the upper section started to fall.



Where I'm having trouble with Heiwa is his idea that the collapsing floors slow down, not speed up. Is he saying that I'd be better off jumping out of the window of a very tall building because I would have time to slow down? I'm not trying to make fun of him but how can an engineer think that a falling mass hitting one floor after another, gaining weight and momentum, will slow down and not speed up? Isn't it obvious that the collapsing part of the building weighs more and hits harder with each floor it smashes through? He thinks friction slows it down? Is he joking?

I apologize if everything I'm saying has been said before. I don't understand why this isn't obvious to an engineer.

[dtugg]

Where I'm having trouble with Heiwa is his idea that the collapsing floors slow down, not speed up. Is he saying that I'd be better off jumping out of the window of a very tall building because I would have time to slow down? I'm not trying to make fun of him but how can an engineer think that a falling mass hitting one floor after another, gaining weight and momentum, will slow down and not speed up? Isn't it obvious that the collapsing part of the building weighs more and hits harder with each floor it smashes through? He thinks friction slows it down? Is he joking?

I apologize if everything I'm saying has been said before. I don't understand why this isn't obvious to an engineer.

Don't try to make sense of what Heiwa says, it is pretty much impossible. I stopped trying to make sense of him after he started comparing the WTC to stacks of pizza boxes, lemons, sponges, matchboxes, ect. Just appreciate Heiwa for the unintentional comedic genius that he is.

[leftysergeant]

What Heiwa posts regarding friction is true in a conventional structure, witrh evenly-spaced vertical elements. The vertical elements absorb the force.

In the towers, there were no internal vertical elements, thus no arresting structure.

He is still comparing it to colliding ships.

[ozeco41]

....I apologize if everything I'm saying has been said before. I don't understand why this isn't obvious to an engineer.

I wouldn't want to disillusion you BUT many engineers see things from a narrow focus in parts and lose track of the whole.

Remember "cannot see the forest for all the trees"

And "When up to your arse in alligators it is easy to forget the objective was drain the swamp"

Those engineers need "steering" by engineers managers who don't lose the plot. They enjoy doing detail,

Anecdote:

I was once called on to check design calculation for a series (details not relevant). the things were 20 items with identical layout except the main dimension increased as a series say 90 - 91 - 92-------------118 - 119

The person doing the calculations had spent weeks calculating every one and was proud of it. I looked at the two extremes, 90 and 119, and saw that they were OK and the 18 from 91 to 118 were a waste of time - fell between the extremes. WOW!!! :rolleyes:

Said So to the boss. :(

Mmmm.......mmm not a prudent move EC :o

The irony was in the original calculation. At the end the man's final comment was "Since they all fall between the 90 and 119 and 119 is worst case we will build them all the same other than that measurement."

Grrrr - could have said it way back and saved weeks of work.

So all same with Heiwa's model - it starts off wrong so stays wrong and does not relate to WTC.

Different to my anecdote which got the right answer but wasted a lot of effort getting there.

Heiwa's modeling is a dead end

And, for the record ozeco BE (Civil, UNSW 1967) and a bit more alphabet soup so I am allowed to criticise engineers. :blush::blush:

[bje]

What Heiwa posts regarding friction is true in a conventional structure, witrh evenly-spaced vertical elements. The vertical elements absorb the force.

In the towers, there were no internal vertical elements, thus no arresting structure.

He is still comparing it to colliding ships.

I am reminded of this:

A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics. (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html)


- 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.

- 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".

[Heiwa]

Heiwa's modeling is a dead end



You are just jealous! My model, which is exactly like Mackey's, shows that a one-way crush down of a structure A by a part C of it by gravity is not possible, which is the whole purpose of the model and this thread.

Very succesful model, I have to say. It is live and opens new perspectives.

[Heiwa]

What Heiwa posts regarding friction is true in a conventional structure, witrh evenly-spaced vertical elements. The vertical elements absorb the force.

In the towers, there were no internal vertical elements, thus no arresting structure.

He is still comparing it to colliding ships.

No internal vertical elements? How was the structure standing in the first place and what kept the 111 horizontal elements in place?

No, a 3D steel structure always consists of elements in all three dimensions and these elements are held together by joints. Has nothing to with scale or size. And demolishing the structure A by dropping a part C of A on A (C<1/10A) is not possible. Friction assist in this, when elements and joints are broken and broken elements rub against each other.

But if you do not believe me, produce a structure that can demolish itself by gravity by dropping a piece of same structure on it.

[3bodyproblem]

My model, which is exactly like Mackey's, shows that a one-way crush down of a structure A by a part C of it by gravity is not possible, which is the whole purpose of the model and this thread.


Yur funny, you have no model. You have "Heiwa's Conjecture"

[ozeco41]

You are just jealous! My model, which is exactly like Mackey's, shows that a one-way crush down of a structure A by a part C of it by gravity is not possible, which is the whole purpose of the model and this thread.

Very successful model, I have to say. It is live and opens new perspectives.

So you admit "is the whole purpose of the model and this thread."

Whether it is "live" could be controversial. And it reveals nothing new.

GREAT to see your clarification. Can we therefore drop all references explicit or by inference to WTC and 9/11

Folks let us Rejoice, Heiwa confirms that his model is not representative of WTC on 9/11.

Discussion of WTC can now move to other threads.

PS Heiwa! What is there to be jealous of in a simple demonstration of basic physics?

[bill smith]

The one top right with the circular patterns as your pic is posted is the WinterGarden

This is the layout (courtesy FEMA) I have rotated the plan to match the orientation. The front wall layout of the building WFC2 is clear to identify.
http://conleys.com.au/webjref/002.jpg____http://conleys.com.au/webjref/FEMA2rightrot.jpg

Thanks. ..Jeez just HOW many buildings went down that day ? They always say 'three skyscrapers' but with this one I count five..

http://www.debunking911.com/columnd.jpg WF2

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image115.jpg Winter Gardens

http://conleys.com.au/webjref/FEMA2rightrot.jpg FEMA layout

[ozeco41]

Thanks. ..Jeez just HOW many buildings went down that day ? They always say 'three skyscrapers' but with this one I count five..

http://www.debunking911.com/columnd.jpg WF2

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image115.jpg Winter Gardens

http://conleys.com.au/webjref/FEMA2rightrot.jpg FEMA layout

Yup - at least three lower ones plus damage to the surrounding ones.

As a word of caution be careful with linking some sites - the Judy Wood link is to picture in a file which is a 255k JPG - seveal of those will bog down even 1.5 meg adsl

I deliberately prune mine for size and squeeze to "just good enough" resolution. The FEMA map is only 25k compared with 100s of k's for the originals.

Also a benefit of the one you link from J Wood. Do you see the girders stuck in the WFC building. On the map they look like they were "outfliers" sent 100's of feet further than the others. So a common cl;aim for "explosives".

But it is clear from the Wood's Liked photo that they were merely a couple of bits which got stuck and left behind when a whole swathe of falling over columns wiped past the building. Pulls the rug from under a lot of "explosive projection" claims. Not all but a lot.

Eric C

[bill smith]

Yup - at least three lower ones plus damage to the surrounding ones.

As a word of caution be careful with linking some sites - the Judy Wood link is to picture in a file which is a 255k JPG - seveal of those will bog down even 1.5 meg adsl

I deliberately prune mine for size and squeeze to "just good enough" resolution. The FEMA map is only 25k compared with 100s of k's for the originals.

Also a benefit of the one you link from J Wood. Do you see the girders stuck in the WFC building. On the map they look like they were "outfliers" sent 100's of feet further than the others. So a common cl;aim for "explosives".

But it is clear from the Wood's Liked photo that they were merely a couple of bits which got stuck and left behind when a whole swathe of falling over columns wiped past the building. Pulls the rug from under a lot of "explosive projection" claims. Not all but a lot.



Eric C
They say that the Winter Gardens (above) was destroyed by a 4-ton piece that came off WTC1 600 feet away. In that case WF2 must have been quite a distance off too. Why did IT fall down ?

[bill smith]

Yesterday I posted the statement below thinking that it paraphrased Newton's similar law. 'Every action has an equal and opposite reaction'. However several posters came back and told me that my statement is in fact incorrect. So thinking as I still do that it is applicable and immutable let it henceforth be known as 'Smith's Law'

Smith's Law
''Whatever downwards force the moving body exerts on the stationary body of identical construction fixed in the ground is reciprocated by the stationary body equally and oppositely. After that it depends which is used up first.''

[ozeco41]

They say that the Winter Gardens (above) was destroyed by a 4-ton piece that came off WTC1 600 feet away. In that case WF2 must have been quite a distance off too. Why did IT fall down ?

WFC2 (World Finance Ceter 2) did not fall down - it was seriously damaged. I have no knowledge as to whether it was subsequently damaged.

A good single point reference is the FEMA report Chapter 7 available from http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch7.pdf

The Winter Garden was hit by far more than one 4 ton piece see these

http://conleys.com.au/webjref/wintgard1.jpg
http://conleys.com.au/webjref/wintgard2.jpg

Get yourself the pdf - I cannot do all the work for you. :D

Those pics come from page 7 - 7 There is a summary of the building damage at page 7-2.

WTC 1,2,3 and 7 collapsed, WTC 4,5 & 6 partially collapsed - that is ALL the WTC buildings plus major damage to 3 WFC, 3WFC and Winter Garden

[ozeco41]

Yesterday I posted the statement below thinking that it paraphrased Newton's similar law. 'Every action has an equal and opposite reaction'. However several posters came back and told me that my statement is in fact incorrect. So thinking as I still do that it is applicable and immutable let it henceforth be known as 'Smith's Law'

Smith's Law
''Whatever downwards force the moving body exerts on the stationary body of identical construction fixed in the ground is reciprocated by the stationary body equally and oppositely. After that it depends which is used up first.''

Sorry bill but it is still not correct. The first sentence is true in a trivial sense. The second only applies in the case of the upper part falling on the lower and it can only be correct if you specify that the falling part must land on the lower part with all the corresponding bits coming into contact at the same instant. In practice difficult to impossible to achieve.

Even under those circumstances the second sentence prediction is at best a "may" and will depend on the details of the failure mode of the first impacts.

Reason being that once debris from failing starts to accumulate it joins with the upper "block" to make a larger total load falling on the next level of the lower block. So from the 2nd stage on the forces cease to be equal and opposite. Even if you have achieved the impossible in practice and got them equal for the first impact.

Further elaboration if you wish and I don't become impatient or distracted by the 2 litre sachet of Sauvignon Blanc I am testing.

http://conleys.com.au/webjref/white.gif


EDIT Rong spellin

[Heiwa]

So you admit "is the whole purpose of the model and this thread."

Whether it is "live" could be controversial. And it reveals nothing new.

GREAT to see your clarification. Can we therefore drop all references explicit or by inference to WTC and 9/11

Folks let us Rejoice, Heiwa confirms that his model is not representative of WTC on 9/11.

Discussion of WTC can now move to other threads.

PS Heiwa! What is there to be jealous of in a simple demonstration of basic physics?

No, model is very relevant to WTC 1 and 9/11. Part C cannot one-way crush part A only assisted by gravity, which is applicable to WTC 1. Your task is to prove the model wrong.

[bill smith]

Sorry bill but it is still not correct. The first sentence is true in a trivial sense. The second only applies in the case of the upper part falling on the lower and it can only be correct if you specify that the falling part must land on the lower part with all the corresponding bits coming into contact at the same instant. In practice difficult to impossible to achieve.

Even under those circumstances the second sentence prediction is at best a "may" and will depend on the details of the failure mode of the first impacts.

Reason being that once debris from failing starts to accumulate it joins with the upper "block" to make a larger total load falling on the next level of the lower block. So from the 2nd stage on the forces cease to be equal and opposite. Even if you have achieved the impossible in practice and got them equal for the first impact.

Further elaboration if you wish and I don't become impatient or distracted by the 2 litre sachet of Sauvignon Blanc I am testing.

http://conleys.com.au/webjref/white.gif


EDIT Rong spellin

I pointed this out yesterday too.

If you look up at the bottom of block C in your minds eye you will see a pattern of column and other element locations.. Then if you look at the top of block A you wll see the same pattern of columns and elements in reverse. So when the two blocks engage the damages are equal.

Smith's Law still applies.

[ozeco41]

I pointed this out yesterday too.

If you look up at the bottom of block C in your minds eye you will see a pattern of column and other element locations. Then if you look at the top of block A you will see the same pattern of columns and elements in reverse. So when the two blocks engage the damages sre equal.

Smith's Law still applies.

You need to specify that you align the two.
Heiwa's model assumes alignment.

The WTC Tower collapses were not aligned.

Heiwa's model is a theoretical model which would be very close to impossible to put into practice - you could offer a million dollar bet on that provided....…

The WTC "not aligned" collapse is what actually happened.

eco's law "You can con most of the of the people most of the time but some people you will never fool." (Apologies understood to be due to Lincoln, A [citation needed])

ozeco41 (the eco from oz and the 41 is "mysterious") is one of those usually in the "some people" group on WTC and 9/11

Other subjects I occasionally get wrong. :) :D :o

[Heiwa]

You need to specify that you align the two.
Heiwa's model assumes alignment.

The WTC Tower collapses were not aligned.

Heiwa's model is a theoretical model which would be very close to impossible to put into practice - you could offer a million dollar bet on that provided....…

The WTC "not aligned" collapse is what actually happened.



No alignment is necessary. Just drop C on A - do not miss (too much misalignment?) - and try to crush A with C.

How is the area of part A crushed that C misses due to misalignment? Nothing contacts it?

Pls, make a sketch! C drops and gets inclined and impacts? Or C drops gets displaced sideways and impacts? What happens then? Any deformations or failures?

[bill smith]

Is it true to say that Bazant's hypothesis is not in fact a graphic representation of what he thinks happened.literally ? If that is so then we can dispense with Bazant because debunking him is not debunking anything.

But does that mean that there is no official collapse theory other than a general statement of 'the buildings fell down from damage and fire' ?

[beachnut]

Is it true to say that Bazant's hypothesis is not in fact a graphic representation of what he thinks happened.literally ? If that is so then we can dispense with Bazant because debunking him is not debunking anything.

But does that mean that there is no official collapse theory other than a general statement of 'the buildings fell down from damage and fire' ?
You can't explain Bazant's paper and like others who attacked Bazant with a real paper, they were busted in a real journal. Your failed attempt to talk about Bazant proves you lack engineering skills, and you have zero comprehension of physics. Your support of Heiwa's delusions on 911 is priceless; keep up the comedy with more dumb statements based on your opinions based on lies, hearsay and more delusions. You can't do a worse job if you tried.

[Tony Szamboti]

You can't explain Bazant's paper and like others who attacked Bazant with a real paper, they were busted in a real journal. Your failed attempt to talk about Bazant proves you lack engineering skills, and you have zero comprehension of physics. Your support of Heiwa's delusions on 911 is priceless; keep up the comedy with more dumb statements based on your opinions based on lies, hearsay and more delusions. You can't do a worse job if you tried.

Beachnut, the paper "The Missing Jolt" refutes Dr. Bazant's hypothesis so completely that those who still feel a need to cling to a non-controlled demolition theory for the collapses are now forced to try and claim that there were lots of smaller jolts which somehow weren't visible. That is not what Dr. Bazant said, as he knew that a natural collapse would require a serious jolt or impulse to generate an amplified load. He probably wasn't being dishonest but just looking to explain it in a naturally possible way. The problem is that there was no jolt or impulse, so his natural explanation doesn't work.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf

The multiple small jolt theory is surreal. It simply can't happen that way, and those using it and dressing it in words such as "it just means Bazant's most optimistic scenario isn't what happened" don't have a way to explain how these smaller impulses could take place without being observable.

[WildCat]

This is what I was trying to say. When the whole top part of the building starts to fall, what stops it?
The ground.

[Tony Szamboti]

The ground.

Usually the columns which have enough strength to carry many times the load that is on them above. The only way around it naturally is with an amplified load. That requires deceleration which did not occur in the measureable fall of the upper block of the North Tower.

[3bodyproblem]

Beachnut, the paper "The Missing Jolt" refutes Dr. Bazant's hypothesis so completely that those who still feel a need to cling to a non-controlled demolition theory for the collapses are now forced to try and claim that there were lots of smaller jolts which somehow weren't visible. That is not what Dr. Bazant said, as he knew that a natural collapse would require a serious jolt or impulse to generate an amplified load. He probably wasn't being dishonest but just looking to explain it in a naturally possible way. The problem is that there was no jolt or impulse, so his natural explanation doesn't work.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf

The multiple small jolt theory is surreal. It simply can't happen that way, and those using it and dressing it in words such as "it just means Bazant's most optimistic scenario isn't what happened" don't have a way to explain how these smaller impulses could take place without being observable.

Anything that gets an 11 story building in motion is going to be considered a "jolt" IMHO. It's hard to tell from any video, but the idea the upper section perfectly "nestled" down on itself is just as surreal.

[Tony Szamboti]

Anything that gets an 11 story building in motion is going to be considered a "jolt" IMHO. It's hard to tell from any video, but the idea the upper section perfectly "nestled" down on itself is just as surreal.

There was no jolt. The fall of the upper block has been measured and there is no negative velocity change or deceleration. If there was no jolt then there is no natural collapse mechanism meaning something else removed the strength of the columns.

Maybe you need to see for yourself so measure it yourself. The Missing Jolt paper provides a step by step way for anyone to do it themselves. It is not hard to tell. Read the paper which is in the quote you used from my earlier post.

[3bodyproblem]

Usually the columns which have enough strength to carry many times the load that is on them above. The only way around it naturally is with an amplified load. That requires deceleration which did not occur in the measureable fall of the upper block of the North Tower.

"Many times the load" should read "About 2 times the static load".

"Many" is deliberately misleading. Knowing this and stating it as fact could be considered a lie. I'll assume you're simply ignorant of this and leave it at that.

[3bodyproblem]

There was no jolt. The fall of the upper block has been measured and there is no negative velocity change or deceleration. If there was no jolt then there is no natural collapse mechanism meaning something else removed the strength of the columns.

Maybe you need to see for yourself so measure it yourself. The Missing Jolt paper provides a step by step way for anyone to do it themselves. It is not hard to tell. Read the paper which is in the quote you used from my earlier post.

Jolt is an ambiguous term. What do you consider a "jolt"? If i move an entire building 1cm in 1 second is that a "jolt"? Break it down for me again, given the video evidence, what is the observable amount of movement over what time frame? If i remember correctly, the entire upper section could have moved upwards of a few feets in 1/32 of second without being detectable. That's a considerable "jolt" in my book.

[Tony Szamboti]

Jolt is an ambiguous term. What do you consider a "jolt"? If i move an entire building 1cm in 1 second is that a "jolt"? Break it down for me again, given the video evidence, what is the observable amount of movement over what time frame? If i remember correctly, the entire upper section could have moved upwards of a few feets in 1/32 of second without being detectable. That's a considerable "jolt" in my book.

You need to read the paper. It will explain what a jolt is for you. The real term is "impulsive load".

[Tony Szamboti]

I would like to see an additional requirement for the Heiwa model challenge, especially for those who believe there could have been indiscernable impulses in the fall of the upper block of the North Tower.

The additional requirement would be to also show how these indiscernable impulses could occur, while still causing a collapse.

Of course, this could be done on a second model, so as not to interfere with the point Heiwa is trying to make and others here are trying to disprove.

[leftysergeant]

There was no jolt. The fall of the upper block has been measured and there is no negative velocity change or deceleration. If there was no jolt then there is no natural collapse mechanism meaning something else removed the strength of the columns.

No.

The debris falling inside the perimeter columns pushed them outward and broke the floors loose. It doesn't matter how much the columns could take verticlly. What matters most is how much they could take from the inside, andhow strong the brackets supporting the floor slabs were.

[Tony Szamboti]

"Many times the load" should read "About 2 times the static load".

"Many" is deliberately misleading. Knowing this and stating it as fact could be considered a lie. I'll assume you're simply ignorant of this and leave it at that.

No, I am not ignorant of what the Factors of Safety of the Twin Tower columns were. They were 3.00 to 1 for the core and 5.00 to 1 for the perimeter. I even wrote about it in a paper which can be found at

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/SzambotiSustainabilityofControlledDemolitionHypoth esisForDestructionofTwinTowers.pdf

with the Factor of Safety of the columns discussed in the Reference section.

[Tony Szamboti]

No.

The debris falling inside the perimeter columns pushed them outward and broke the floors loose. It doesn't matter how much the columns could take verticlly. What matters most is how much they could take from the inside, andhow strong the brackets supporting the floor slabs were.

What happened to the core columns there Lefty?

[leftysergeant]

What happened to the core columns there Lefty?Theygot broken on the floor where the collapses originated. They were pounded by falling debris a the floors gave out

They shook themselves to pieces.

[A W Smith]

your late Tony
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22missing+jolt%22++site%3Arandi.org&btnG=Search

[Tony Szamboti]

your late Tony
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22missing+jolt%22++site%3Arandi.org&btnG=Search

AW, sorry but I didn't have the time to discuss it everywhere. I chose to discuss it at Gregory Urich's forum. Frank Greening and Dave Benson, who have both been involved in papers on this topic with Zdenek Bazant, were involved in the discussion there.

I believe a link to the discussion, that was taking place on Gregory's forum concerning the paper, was provided on this forum.

[Tony Szamboti]

Theygot broken on the floor where the collapses originated. They were pounded by falling debris a the floors gave out

They shook themselves to pieces.

Then there should have been a deceleration of the upper block when the core columns were pounded. Why isn't there one?

[UNLoVedRebel]

Tony, this is off topic, but I was shocked to **** when I read it. In the first line in your paper you claimed this:
In the past two years there has been an exponential growth in the number of people questioning the explanations we have been given, by official U.S. government bodies, concerning the collapses of the three WTC buildings in NYC on 9/11/2001.
Do you have a source for that?

[UNLoVedRebel]

:dl:
"Pre-positioned cutter charges"

Oh man, you sure know a lot about the demolition industry. :wackyrolleyes:

[A W Smith]

AW, sorry but I didn't have the time to discuss it everywhere. I chose to discuss it at Gregory Urich's forum. Frank Greening and Dave Benson, who have both been involved in papers on this topic with Zdenek Bazant, were involved in the discussion there.

I believe a link to the discussion, that was taking place on Gregory's forum concerning the paper, was provided on this forum.


Yes tony. I saw where you you had your ass handed to you between Fri Jan 16, 2009 and Fri Apr 03
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/new-jones-paper-by-szamboti-and-graeme-macqueen-t119.html

Why would you expect to see deceleration "jolts" between your data points when there was a rotation and tilt of the upper floors? This tells us that the collision over an acre of floor area would not be instantaneous slap but a progressive crush wave spread out across the floor. Doesn't reading the replies in the thread I linked to from Benson, One White Eye, Greening and Dave Rogers cause you concern with your paper?

EDT: I went back and re-read a post by Ryan Mackey in the "debunk alert" thread
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4350623&postcount=73

In a controlled demolition. You would EXPECT to see a jolt because of the simultaneous cutting of columns. We don't see that, QED: progressive collapse due to gradual structural failure.

[3bodyproblem]

AW, sorry but I didn't have the time to discuss it everywhere. I chose to discuss it at Gregory Urich's forum. Frank Greening and Dave Benson, who have both been involved in papers on this topic with Zdenek Bazant, were involved in the discussion there.

I believe a link to the discussion, that was taking place on Gregory's forum concerning the paper, was provided on this forum.

I thought this was discussed here as well? I'm not up to date on my woo. ( I didn't even know Greg had a site?) From a quick read I'd say the data was interpolated over the point you are looking for and the FoS you quoted was well above what was quoted by both NIST and the designers. Not to mention any building codes I've ever seen. In the same breath I'm not sure what the FoS has to do with dynamic loads. I suppose I need to get up to speed.

[3bodyproblem]

Yes tony. I saw where you you had your ass handed to you between Fri Jan 16, 2009 and Fri Apr 03
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/new-jones-paper-by-szamboti-and-graeme-macqueen-t119.html

Why would you expect to see deceleration "jolts" between your data points when there was a rotation and tilt of the upper floors? This tells us that the collision over an acre of floor area would not be instantaneous slap but a progressive crush wave spread out across the floor. Doesn't reading the replies in the thread I linked to from Benson, One White Eye, Greening and Dave Rogers cause you concern with your paper?

Thanks for the link. I must have seen this before and forgot. Either that or I'm pretty quick, because it seems to echo my statement that there's a tilt to consider and the data wouldn't necessarily indicate a jolt due to the sampling frequency (or error in measured distances).

Having failed at the 9/11 forum "many" months ago he's here now trying to get it incorported in Heiwa's fantasy challenge. Seems appropriate. :rolleyes:

[beachnut]

Then there should have been a deceleration of the upper block when the core columns were pounded. Why isn't there one?
There was, but the video need about 100 to 300, all the way to 1000 frames per second to catch it. Your ideas on the WTC failed. 7 years and you can't figure out 911. Good job being all you can be; a failed 911Truth engineer, you and 0.0001 percent of all the engineers can't figure out 911. Failed ideas are few in engineering you and 911Truth have cornered the market on this delusion you have.


Tony, it comes down to bad physics for you. You can't do a proper study; what you are looking for is not to be found at video frames of 15 to 30 fps. 911Truth's failure to understand reality is expected how did you as an engineer fail and fall for delusions? Why can't you publish a paper and expose 911 as the big inside job with cutter charges, thermite and what every else Jones has dreamed up for you guys?

Since you and Heiwa are so right with your delusions and the rest of the 99.999 percent of all engineers are wrong with reality; you and 911Truth will have to take over the world to have your junk science prevail in a world dumbed down to your level of nonsense on 911.

[Heiwa]

In post #1 I explain why a one-way crush down process is not possible under any circumstances, sizes, scales, &c, where upper part C is <1/10A and C is dropped on A.

It also explains why controlled demolition companies do not drop top parts of buildings to demolish them. It doesn't work.

Actually if you even tried to drop C on A the result would just be one BIG JOLT and then immediate ARREST of C on A with a fair amount of local failures to A and C structure, iwo contact area unless C just bounced on A. But no one-way crush down of A by C.

I find it amazing that I have to explain this easy to understand phenomenons, jolt, arrest and bounce, to the public. Do people really believe that structures just collapse by themselves, when you drop a little piece of them on them selves?

Apparently they do! Probably because they watch too much TV where a lot of unreal things happen, a lot produced in Hollywood?

Even more surprising are all posters supporting the idea of structural one-way crush downs as common events. In their world, if you drop anything, it just continues to accelerate breaking everything in its way. If you tell them it is wrong, you are called .... many things! But crush-down. I would say it is a mental crush down. Somebody must have hit them on their heads and they crushed down.

[beachnut]

Thanks for the link. I must have seen this before and forgot. Either that or I'm pretty quick, because it seems to echo my statement that there's a tilt to consider and the data wouldn't necessarily indicate a jolt due to the sampling frequency (or error in measured distances).

Having failed at the 9/11 forum "many" months ago he's here now trying to get it incorporated in Heiwa's fantasy challenge. Seems appropriate. :rolleyes:

Poor Heiwa, proved wrong twice on 911. Priceless humor as we have a welder try his hand at engineering and inventing super fantasy engineering to help the delusions of the A&E for dumb ideas on 911. No idea is too dumb on 911 for Gage to turn down membership in his group out to present fraud and take donations.

[3bodyproblem]

I find it amazing that I have to explain this easy to understand phenomenons, jolt, arrest and bounce, to the public.

You'd figure at some point you'd catch on as to why.

[bill smith]

In post #1 I explain why a one-way crush down process is not possible under any circumstances, sizes, scales, &c, where upper part C is <1/10A and C is dropped on A.

It also explains why controlled demolition companies do not drop top parts of buildings to demolish them. It doesn't work.

Actually if you even tried to drop C on A the result would just be one BIG JOLT and then immediate ARREST of C on A with a fair amount of local failures to A and C structure, iwo contact area unless C just bounced on A. But no one-way crush down of A by C.

I find it amazing that I have to explain this easy to understand phenomenons, jolt, arrest and bounce, to the public. Do people really believe that structures just collapse by themselves, when you drop a little piece of them on them selves?

Apparently they do! Probably because they watch too much TV where a lot of unreal things happen, a lot produced in Hollywood?

Even more surprising are all posters supporting the idea of structural one-way crush downs as common events. In their world, if you drop anything, it just continues to accelerate breaking everything in its way. If you tell them it is wrong, you are called .... many things! But crush-down. I would say it is a mental crush down. Somebody must have hit them on their heads and they crushed down.

I was always worried that even if we debunked Bazant in a completely undeniable way the other side could just walk away and say 'well, it was just a hypothesis after all...no problem' What I am beginning to undertand is that it is not really a question of debunking Bazant. There IS no theory other than Bazant. Without Bazant it was definately a controlled demolition so the other side MUST stick with it or admit to that fact.

So we can drive the other side to ever more stretched and ridiculous claims in support of an indefensible hypothesis. They can only end up going (with their hands over their ears) ' Nah na ne-nah nah....I can't HEAR you).

Are we there in all but name already ?

[Redtail]

I was always worried hat even if we debunked Bazant in a completely undeniable way the other side could just walk away and say 'well, it was just a hypothesis after all...no problem' What I am beginning to undertand is that it is not really a question of debunking Bazant. There IS no theory other than Bazant. Without Bazant it was definately a controlled demolition so the other side MUST stick with it or admit to that fact.

So we can drive the other side to ever more stretched and ridiculous claims in support of an indefensible hypothesis. They can only end up going (with their hands over their ears) ' Nah na ne-nah nah....I can't HEAR you).

Are we there in all but name already ?

If you are, when will you do something beyond posting on the internet?

[bill smith]

If you are, when will you do something beyond posting on the internet?

Unfortunately we can only lead the horses to the water. The next task is to persuade them them to drink. That's the hard part.

[Dave Rogers]

I was always worried that even if we debunked Bazant in a completely undeniable way the other side could just walk away and say 'well, it was just a hypothesis after all...no problem' What I am beginning to undertand is that it is not really a question of debunking Bazant. There IS no theory other than Bazant. Without Bazant it was definately a controlled demolition so the other side MUST stick with it or admit to that fact.

This is a classic example of conspiracy theorist denialism. There are two glaring fundamental errors in it. I'll try and explain both.

Firstly, Bazant's analysis is not only not the only collapse hypothesis, it isn't even intended to be an accurate model of the collapse. The concept of a limiting case has been explained so many times on this forum that it seems futile to try again, but I'll try. Bazant's collapse scenario is one which is unrealistically biased in favour of collapse arrest, and it is found that even in that biased scenario there is a considerable excess of energy over that required to collapse the structure. Therefore, in any realistic scenario, the excess of energy is even greater. If Bazant's model is shown to be an unrealistic depiction of the actual collapse, that's not disproving anything. The only valid criticism of Bazant would be if the actual collapse mechanism could be shown to be energetically even more unfavourable to collapse. However, it's clear from the actual evidence that the converse is the case; the energy requirements of the actual collapse were much less than those for Bazant's model.

Secondly, you're making the classic error of the false dilemma. Disproving a particular model of the collapse does not, and cannot, automatically prove a single alternative model of the collapse. If Bazant's model were invalidated, all it would prove is that Bazant's model of the collapse were not a good model, and that a better model was needed. This superior model would have to give a better explanation of all the observed phenomena than the Bazant model. The controlled demolition hypothesis (I'm being charitable in using the word "hypothesis", because there is effectively no fully developed hypothesis, just a general belief that the towers were demolished somehow) would automatically be excluded, because it is already known to give a worse explanation of all the observed phenomena than the Bazant model.

So we can drive the other side to ever more stretched and ridiculous claims in support of an indefensible hypothesis. They can only end up going (with their hands over their ears) ' Nah na ne-nah nah....I can't HEAR you).

That sounds strangely familiar, but it's not coming from this side of the debate.

Are we there in all but name already ?

Yes, you are, but not in the sense that you meant it.

Dave

[Tony Szamboti]

Yes tony. I saw where you you had your ass handed to you between Fri Jan 16, 2009 and Fri Apr 03
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/new-jones-paper-by-szamboti-and-graeme-macqueen-t119.html

Why would you expect to see deceleration "jolts" between your data points when there was a rotation and tilt of the upper floors? This tells us that the collision over an acre of floor area would not be instantaneous slap but a progressive crush wave spread out across the floor. Doesn't reading the replies in the thread I linked to from Benson, One White Eye, Greening and Dave Rogers cause you concern with your paper?

EDT: I went back and re-read a post by Ryan Mackey in the "debunk alert" thread
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4350623&postcount=73

In a controlled demolition. You would EXPECT to see a jolt because of the simultaneous cutting of columns. We don't see that, QED: progressive collapse due to gradual structural failure.

I'll even give you your tortured tilt explanation for the first floor there Smith. But what happens after that? There was no jolt for 114 feet that the upper block's fall was visible. Did it seesaw all the way down?

Your explanation is ridiculously tortured and without a basis. GRADUAL structural failure is not possible without an amplified load. You apparently don't understand that.

As for me getting my ass handed to me on Gregory Urich's forum, it seems that is in the eye of the beholder or should I say in the wishes of the beholder. There were a number of people who told me they saw it 180 degrees from the way you did.

[Tony Szamboti]

I was always worried that even if we debunked Bazant in a completely undeniable way the other side could just walk away and say 'well, it was just a hypothesis after all...no problem' What I am beginning to undertand is that it is not really a question of debunking Bazant. There IS no theory other than Bazant. Without Bazant it was definately a controlled demolition so the other side MUST stick with it or admit to that fact.

So we can drive the other side to ever more stretched and ridiculous claims in support of an indefensible hypothesis. They can only end up going (with their hands over their ears) ' Nah na ne-nah nah....I can't HEAR you).

Are we there in all but name already ?

Bill, I think you are understanding the situation perfectly. As more evidence of controlled demolition comes to light, the Nah na na-nah nahs are actually heard in the ever more tortured explanations we are presently hearing from those who refuse to admit that those three NYC high rise buildings were brought down via controlled demolitions on Sept. 11, 2001.

You know total reality defying statements like like there was no jolt because there was a tilt and it was gradual, or there was no active thermite found in the dust it was just paint. Of course, these things are just thrown out there with very little to no basis for good reason, because there isn't any.

[Tony Szamboti]

There was, but the video need about 100 to 300, all the way to 1000 frames per second to catch it. Your ideas on the WTC failed. 7 years and you can't figure out 911. Good job being all you can be; a failed 911Truth engineer, you and 0.0001 percent of all the engineers can't figure out 911. Failed ideas are few in engineering you and 911Truth have cornered the market on this delusion you have.


Tony, it comes down to bad physics for you. You can't do a proper study; what you are looking for is not to be found at video frames of 15 to 30 fps. 911Truth's failure to understand reality is expected how did you as an engineer fail and fall for delusions? Why can't you publish a paper and expose 911 as the big inside job with cutter charges, thermite and what every else Jones has dreamed up for you guys?

Since you and Heiwa are so right with your delusions and the rest of the 99.999 percent of all engineers are wrong with reality; you and 911Truth will have to take over the world to have your junk science prevail in a world dumbed down to your level of nonsense on 911.

Beachnut, it is not necessary to see the actual jolt.

I would hope you realize that a deceleration would cause a velocity drop and that it would then take the upper block time to regain it's pre-impact velocity. This time turns out to be nearly a second, during which we have taken five measurements since we take them every 167 milliseconds. There is no indication of any velocity drop having taken place, where the velocity was lower than just before impact, it just kept increasing.

Beachnut, you say you are an engineer, although I have yet to see any legitimate calculations or basis for the things you say. I would also mention that calling other engineers delusional is not very becoming of an engineer especially when you make posts like the above.

[bill smith]

Bill, I think you are understanding the situation perfectly. As more evidence of controlled demolition comes to light, the Nah na na-nah nahs are actually heard in the ever more tortured explanations we are presently hearing from those who refuse to admit that those three NYC high rise buildings were brought down via controlled demolitions on Sept. 11, 2001.

You know total reality defying statements like like there was no jolt because there was a tilt and it was gradual, or there was no active thermite found in the dust it was just paint. Of course, these things are just thrown out there with very little to no basis for good reason, because there isn't any.

Tony, have you seen this video ? It's the one with the antenna falling into the building before there is any other movement. No rotation at the top of the building...not an inch. You see the top block crunch together. Loads more observations here and it's reasonable qualty.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9-owhllM9k

[bill smith]

Tony, have you seen this video ? It's the one with the antenna falling into the building before there is any other movement. No rotation at the top of the building...not an inch. You see the top block crunch together. Loads more observations here and it's reasonabe qualty.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9-owhllM9k

PS. sorry for going a bit off topic.

[A W Smith]

I'll even give you your tortured tilt explanation for the first floor there Smith. But what happens after that? There was no jolt for 114 feet that the upper block's fall was visible. Did it seesaw all the way down?

Your explanation is ridiculously tortured and without a basis. GRADUAL structural failure is not possible without an amplified load. You apparently don't understand that.

As for me getting my ass handed to me on Gregory Urich's forum, it seems that is in the eye of the beholder or should I say in the wishes of the beholder. There were a number of people who told me they saw it 180 degrees from the way you did.

So you are saying it should right itself after the initial impact? thats preposterous. Where the hell do you get seesaw? Its an asymmetric collapse. The crush front can be ahead by three floors or more from one corner of the building to the opposite. You are expecting to see a "jolt" in that? And no Tony. It is clear that you got your ass handed to you. "any number of people" would be Metamars and Heiwa. That makes two total. You lost. deal with it. You abandoned that thread to try a best out of three over here. So keep dreaming.

[Dave Rogers]

I'll even give you your tortured tilt explanation for the first floor there Smith. But what happens after that? There was no jolt for 114 feet that the upper block's fall was visible. Did it seesaw all the way down?

A jolt would only be seen if every column of the upper block struck the corresponding column of the lower block within a short interval compared to the interval between successive collisions. Since this cannot possibly be the case once the block has rotated, the upper block simply had not to right itself perfectly during the drop for no jolt to be visible. Since this agrees with the observed behaviour of the upper block, which was not seen to rotate back to a level orientation, no jolt is expected.

As for your repeated claim that a deceleration would have been visible, this is simply a failure to understand trivially simple vector analysis. The downward force of gravity and the upward effective force produced by the collisions give a resultant acceleration of the upper block. Since the collapse is observed to propagate, the upward effective force is less than the downward force, so the resultant acceleration is downwards.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

Tony, have you seen this video ? It's the one with the antenna falling into the building before there is any other movement. No rotation at the top of the building...not an inch. You see the top block crunch together. Loads more observations here and it's reasonable qualty.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9-owhllM9k

And bill will now tell us all why other videos of the same event, which show that the rotation is present but not visible in this one because it's taken from the direction towards which the antenna is rotating, can simply be ignored.

Dave

[Bananaman]

Tony:
As more evidence of controlled demolition comes to light

That's funny. After 8 years you have no evidence to support your barking ideas. When you say '"as more evidence comes to light" do you mean making up more lies and misinterpreting and twisting facts? Because if you had the slightest shred of real evidence the world would know about it by now.

Bananaman (who's ban is over. Yay).

[twinstead]

As for your repeated claim that a deceleration would have been visible, this is simply a failure to understand trivially simple vector analysis.

This failure to understand trivially simple physics and engineering concepts is one of the reasons this debate is STILL happening only on relatively obscure internet forums and blogs. If they had a REAL theory, and had the support of REAL experts, this debate would be happening in the mainstream media, university lecture halls, courtrooms, and even the halls of Congress right now.

I can't stress enough how important this fact is to a layman.

[Tony Szamboti]

Yes tony. I saw where you you had your ass handed to you between Fri Jan 16, 2009 and Fri Apr 03
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/new-jones-paper-by-szamboti-and-graeme-macqueen-t119.html

Why would you expect to see deceleration "jolts" between your data points when there was a rotation and tilt of the upper floors? This tells us that the collision over an acre of floor area would not be instantaneous slap but a progressive crush wave spread out across the floor. Doesn't reading the replies in the thread I linked to from Benson, One White Eye, Greening and Dave Rogers cause you concern with your paper?

EDT: I went back and re-read a post by Ryan Mackey in the "debunk alert" thread
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4350623&postcount=73

In a controlled demolition. You would EXPECT to see a jolt because of the simultaneous cutting of columns. We don't see that, QED: progressive collapse due to gradual structural failure.

There was a jolt in WTC 7's collapse after the eight story freefall. It seems the towers were demolished continuously or at least no jolt was evident for the first nine stories. Without a jolt there is no mechanism for natural collapse. You don't seem to understand what Dr. Bazant obviously did when trying to explain it in a natural way.

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony:


That's funny. After 8 years you have no evidence to support your barking ideas you have nothing. When you say '"as more evidence comes to light" do you mean making up more lies and misinterpreting and twisting facts? Because if you had the slightest shred of real evidence the world would know about it by now.

Bananaman (who's ban is over. Yay).

Talk about barking!

[Tony Szamboti]

A jolt would only be seen if every column of the upper block struck the corresponding column of the lower block within a short interval compared to the interval between successive collisions. Since this cannot possibly be the case once the block has rotated, the upper block simply had not to right itself perfectly during the drop for no jolt to be visible. Since this agrees with the observed behaviour of the upper block, which was not seen to rotate back to a level orientation, no jolt is expected.

As for your repeated claim that a deceleration would have been visible, this is simply a failure to understand trivially simple vector analysis. The downward force of gravity and the upward effective force produced by the collisions give a resultant acceleration of the upper block. Since the collapse is observed to propagate, the upward effective force is less than the downward force, so the resultant acceleration is downwards.

Dave

You have to know what you are saying is ridiculous, especially the second paragraph.

[Bananaman]

Tony:
Talk about barking!

I'm not the one who believes in fantasies.

I see you're a hopeless case though. No evidence but you believe it. I see.

Bananaman (The not surprised).

[Tony Szamboti]

So you are saying it should right itself after the initial impact? thats preposterous. Where the hell do you get seesaw? Its an asymmetric collapse. The crush front can be ahead by three floors or more from one corner of the building to the opposite. You are expecting to see a "jolt" in that? And no Tony. It is clear that you got your ass handed to you. "any number of people" would be Metamars and Heiwa. That makes two total. You lost. deal with it. You abandoned that thread to try a best out of three over here. So keep dreaming.

The thread is now just over 16 pages long and has had little activity over the last month. My last post was near the end of page 15. How you get that I abandoned the post I can't fathom. But with that charge coming from someone who doesn't see a need for a jolt in a natural collapse of a building with columns which are designed to support several times the weight above them, I guess I can understand.

As for support for my position I am not just counting those who did in the thread. There were a number of people who e-mailed me about it.

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony:


I'm not the one who believes in fantasies.

I see you're a hopeless case though. No evidence but you believe it. I see.

Bananaman (The not surprised).

Here you go again Banana, just adding more to the splendid fact based argument you are making.

[Bananaman]

Tony:
Here you go again Banana, just adding more to the splendid fact based argument you are making.

You have no evidence to support your theory:FACT.

And you can't get round it.

Bananaman.

[ozeco41]

Well, I didn't particularly wish to do this but....... there are a few questions which need to be answered in the context of what actually happened.

Here are the basics - in overview and applicable to WTC 1 and WTC 2.

First there was a sequence of events which should be agreed common ground to any reasonable proponent from "either side" if I list them this way: (Someone may have pre-positioned demolition devices - multiple options have been suggested); There may have been pre-cutting to assist collapse; Plane strikes tower and does damage, starts fire, disables fire fighting etc BUT tower remains standing; Fires rage and do other damage. (Pro demolition supporters would want the option to include some demolition here depending on their specific hypothesis); Some trigger point is reached and the Top Block starts to move downwards; The "Global collapse phase is started; ...and rapidly runs to completion; ...aftermath - not of interest for this post.

Now I would like to address the several references to the "Global Collapse" phase. It starts at the trigger point of "4" and how we got to four is now irrelevant - whether by crash plus fire plus consequences plus a uniquely vulnerable building OR all that plus a little demolition.

Save the debate of what caused the initial collapse for later - let's look at the global collapse.

Now in the global collapse phase there were three parts of structure potentially available to resist and possibly arrest the fall of the "Top Block". Those three are: The columns of the outer wall tube; The core; AND The floors between the core and outer wall (accepting that those floors depended on the columns of the core and the outer wall tube).

Now taking the outer wall columns first the evidence is clear that they peeled off and fell away and were not crushed. Whatever the proportion of load they were designed for they were not involved in resisting the fall of the top block with their full strength. Two options we need to consider The no demolition option - that the descending mass sheared the joist to column connectors; AND The demolition option - they were cut (and the option supported by most pro demolition claimants id explosive cutting of "something" and it wasn't the outer columns so it must be some part of the joist and the connection is obvious preference). (But "their call" - it is their hypothesis.)

Next come the outer tube floors which I would posit failed at the inner end by the same mechanism as the failure at the outer end. And I am still leaving the option open for the pro demolition folk to insert explosives.

Then the core. There are many claims for the core. I will take only the first and obvious steps at this stage. The core consists of the falling bit of the top block and the standing bit of the lower tower. Despite all the rhetoric about it being strong (it was in its original and designed function) the collapse situation at the start saw the core as if it was the two cut halves of a bird cage with very thick bars and beams. BUT a hell of a lot of space.

Many folk from both sides seem to presume that the falling core would land on the standing core and meet a full strength resistance. That is clearly not so. I will explain qualitatively at this stage leaving quantitative till later.

(And this is the point where I move from what should be agreed position towards my own interpretation.)

And I remind the non-engineers that the original usage of a column properly braced is to resist axial loads where compression is the critical and most likely mode. If deflected or bent and if not loaded centrally the axial strength is severely reduced. Similarly cross beams in the core are not designed for the massive loads of multiple floors.

So the "thick wire bird cage" of the top block core falls onto the thick wire birdcage of the lower core and a lot of the columns do not land on columns properly centred to take full original design axial load. Some columns miss altogether at the first fall others "hit and glance off," possible bending one or the other. And some horizontal beams land on other horizontal beams and bend them because they impact with way over design load. And to add insult to injury those struck beams when bending pull their end columns out of line and weaken those columns.

And the chance of some columns missing altogether must be high. (Remember I am not quantifying at this stage.)

Now there are many permutations and combinations BUT the total effect is that the falling core meets only the resistance from a fraction of the strength that the core originally had. AND it is a dynamically applied load.

So simply put and leaving all the interaction and second order effects till a later post this is what happened. (Now fully my opinion - and still leaving justification till later)

The falling Top Block wedged itself inside the outer columns ("proof" relatively trivial but deferred) It took no significant part other than resisting the fall to the shear strength failure of the joist connections (Or taking no part if we accept demolition in the global collapse)

The inner end of the joist to core column fails the same way and for the same reason. Either the falling weight of floors plus debris was overwhelming Or demolition.

The core contributes some resistance but could not be enough to stop the top block - several aspects here and all answerable later if needed.

Now in that scenario it is clear that no explosives were needed. Nor are any detailed calculations. 10 floors of total structure in the lesser case lands dynamically on the floor designed to hold one full floor load statically and it has a safety factor. No support from outer tube very reduced support of core by core. And the core would not add significant support if any to the outer floors. Again another bold assertion backable by reasons if needed.

So there is the basic outline of what I suggest happened. Other posters in recent days/weeks have supported parts of it - I have not seen the full overview posted in the couple of weeks I have been her.

So that is the background against which recent questions about the "Global collapse" can be answered. And I look forward to other comments or answering some of those questions myself.

[ozeco41]

... who doesn't see a need for a jolt in a natural collapse of a building with columns which are designed to support several times the weight above them......
The columns were not involved other than to resist the shearing failure of the floor joists plus a proportion of the core column capacity.

Therefore the falling load for that situation was so overwhelming that the jolt would be small.

Sure there was a jolt. But too small to be detectable at the crude "macro" level.

Assuming that columns were "crushed" is the commonest failure of analysis I have seen - and sadly from both sides of the "great divide"

Fortunately for some "no demolition posters" who use energy calculations there is more than enough energy for their wrong analysis to give, what is for them, the "right answer". i.e. including column crushing energy.

And the available energy was orders of magnitude "overwhelming" for the actual mechanism of the collapse which at most used less than half the column strength and probably far less.

[Dave Rogers]

You have to know what you are saying is ridiculous, especially the second paragraph.

Non-answer. Please explain why you think it's ridiculous.

Dave

[twinstead]

Since people who insist the collapse initation as described by the NIST and others was impossible arrogantly claim it is so obvious, the only thing left to do is tell them to put up or shut up, because they obviously don't want to hear any arguments that put their theories into any doubt whatsoever.

So, if it is indeed so OBVIOUS, get a person or organization who is actually respected in engineering and scientifc circles who can actually DO SOMETHING about it to carry your torch. With evidence SO compelling you'd think SOMEBODY would be stepping up. But, here we are 8 years after the fact and we have a tiny minory of laymen investigoogling pseudoscientists and snake oil salesmen--with a few disgraced and ignored real scientists thrown in for dramitic effect--debating on internet forums.

For Christ's sake truthers, do you have any idea how ludicrious that looks to an abject layman like me? Do you have any idea how impotent and irrational you appear to us? I can only imagine how frustrating you folks must be to people who actually study the collapses in a rational way and know what the hell they are talking about.

[ozeco41]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers
A jolt would only be seen if every column of the upper block struck the corresponding column of the lower block within a short interval compared to the interval between successive collisions. Since this cannot possibly be the case once the block has rotated, the upper block simply had not to right itself perfectly during the drop for no jolt to be visible. Since this agrees with the observed behaviour of the upper block, which was not seen to rotate back to a level orientation, no jolt is expected.

As for your repeated claim that a deceleration would have been visible, this is simply a failure to understand trivially simple vector analysis. The downward force of gravity and the upward effective force produced by the collisions give a resultant acceleration of the upper block. Since the collapse is observed to propagate, the upward effective force is less than the downward force, so the resultant acceleration is downwards.

DaveYou have to know what you are saying is ridiculous, especially the second paragraph.
The statements are not perfect but why do you say the second paragraph is ridiculous? Which bits do you disagree with?

[leftysergeant]

In post #1 I explain why a one-way crush down process is not possible under any circumstances, sizes, scales, &c, where upper part C is <1/10A and C is dropped on A.

It also explains why controlled demolition companies do not drop top parts of buildings to demolish them. It doesn't work.

If you have been paying attention, and following the links that people post in response to your blather, you would, if you are not retarded, know that it has been done and it WORKED. Google it. BALZAC+VITRY.

You do know how to at least Google, don't you?

I find it amazing that I have to explain this easy to understand phenomenons, jolt, arrest and bounce, to the public. Do people really believe that structures just collapse by themselves, when you drop a little piece of them on them selves?

That doesn't happen in the real world. Only between the ears of lunatics is it possible for the top of a building to bounce off the lower part when the middle fails.

[leftysergeant]

Then there should have been a deceleration of the upper block when the core columns were pounded.

Why?

[ingoa]

Both results confirm that C cannot crush down A as per the Björkman Axiom.

Wiki on Axiom:
In traditional logic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic), an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence), or subject to necessary decision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision). Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths. In mathematics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics), the term axiom is used in two related but distinguishable senses: "logical axioms" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom#Logical_axioms) and "non-logical axioms" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom#Non-logical_axioms). In both senses, an axiom is any mathematical statement that serves as a starting point from which other statements are logically derived. Unlike theorems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theorem), axioms (unless redundant) cannot be derived by principles of deduction, nor are they demonstrable by mathematical proofs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof), simply because they are starting points; there is nothing else from which they logically follow (otherwise they would be classified as theorems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theorems)).

Sir, me thinks your Axiom is broken. :D

[bill smith]

Well, I didn't particularly wish to do this but....... there are a few questions which need to be answered in the context of what actually happened.

Here are the basics - in overview and applicable to WTC 1 and WTC 2.

First there was a sequence of events which should be agreed common ground to any reasonable proponent from "either side" if I list them this way: (Someone may have pre-positioned demolition devices - multiple options have been suggested); There may have been pre-cutting to assist collapse; Plane strikes tower and does damage, starts fire, disables fire fighting etc BUT tower remains standing; Fires rage and do other damage. (Pro demolition supporters would want the option to include some demolition here depending on their specific hypothesis); Some trigger point is reached and the Top Block starts to move downwards; The "Global collapse phase is started; ...and rapidly runs to completion; ...aftermath - not of interest for this post.

Now I would like to address the several references to the "Global Collapse" phase. It starts at the trigger point of "4" and how we got to four is now irrelevant - whether by crash plus fire plus consequences plus a uniquely vulnerable building OR all that plus a little demolition.

Save the debate of what caused the initial collapse for later - let's look at the global collapse.

Now in the global collapse phase there were three parts of structure potentially available to resist and possibly arrest the fall of the "Top Block". Those three are: The columns of the outer wall tube; The core; AND The floors between the core and outer wall (accepting that those floors depended on the columns of the core and the outer wall tube).

Now taking the outer wall columns first the evidence is clear that they peeled off and fell away and were not crushed. Whatever the proportion of load they were designed for they were not involved in resisting the fall of the top block with their full strength. Two options we need to consider The no demolition option - that the descending mass sheared the joist to column connectors; AND The demolition option - they were cut (and the option supported by most pro demolition claimants id explosive cutting of "something" and it wasn't the outer columns so it must be some part of the joist and the connection is obvious preference). (But "their call" - it is their hypothesis.)

Next come the outer tube floors which I would posit failed at the inner end by the same mechanism as the failure at the outer end. And I am still leaving the option open for the pro demolition folk to insert explosives.

Then the core. There are many claims for the core. I will take only the first and obvious steps at this stage. The core consists of the falling bit of the top block and the standing bit of the lower tower. Despite all the rhetoric about it being strong (it was in its original and designed function) the collapse situation at the start saw the core as if it was the two cut halves of a bird cage with very thick bars and beams. BUT a hell of a lot of space.

Many folk from both sides seem to presume that the falling core would land on the standing core and meet a full strength resistance. That is clearly not so. I will explain qualitatively at this stage leaving quantitative till later.

(And this is the point where I move from what should be agreed position towards my own interpretation.)

And I remind the non-engineers that the original usage of a column properly braced is to resist axial loads where compression is the critical and most likely mode. If deflected or bent and if not loaded centrally the axial strength is severely reduced. Similarly cross beams in the core are not designed for the massive loads of multiple floors.

So the "thick wire bird cage" of the top block core falls onto the thick wire birdcage of the lower core and a lot of the columns do not land on columns properly centred to take full original design axial load. Some columns miss altogether at the first fall others "hit and glance off," possible bending one or the other. And some horizontal beams land on other horizontal beams and bend them because they impact with way over design load. And to add insult to injury those struck beams when bending pull their end columns out of line and weaken those columns.

And the chance of some columns missing altogether must be high. (Remember I am not quantifying at this stage.)

Now there are many permutations and combinations BUT the total effect is that the falling core meets only the resistance from a fraction of the strength that the core originally had. AND it is a dynamically applied load.

So simply put and leaving all the interaction and second order effects till a later post this is what happened. (Now fully my opinion - and still leaving justification till later)

The falling Top Block wedged itself inside the outer columns ("proof" relatively trivial but deferred) It took no significant part other than resisting the fall to the shear strength failure of the joist connections (Or taking no part if we accept demolition in the global collapse)

The inner end of the joist to core column fails the same way and for the same reason. Either the falling weight of floors plus debris was overwhelming Or demolition.

The core contributes some resistance but could not be enough to stop the top block - several aspects here and all answerable later if needed.

Now in that scenario it is clear that no explosives were needed. Nor are any detailed calculations. 10 floors of total structure in the lesser case lands dynamically on the floor designed to hold one full floor load statically and it has a safety factor. No support from outer tube very reduced support of core by core. And the core would not add significant support if any to the outer floors. Again another bold assertion backable by reasons if needed.

So there is the basic outline of what I suggest happened. Other posters in recent days/weeks have supported parts of it - I have not seen the full overview posted in the couple of weeks I have been her.

So that is the background against which recent questions about the "Global collapse" can be answered. And I look forward to other comments or answering some of those questions myself.

Before getting into this long post Oz will you clear up one thing for me ?

People often speak of a 'drop', but can you explain what they mean exactly ? You see as I see it the two blocks, C being the upper 10% and A being the lower 90% were connected by about 300 columns both core and perimeter. We know that the plane severed about 40 perimeter clumns and a few core ones.That left at least 250 columns still holdng up the top block (around 85%). So how did we get from that situation to the situation of a 'drop' which is often reated as though it was a freefall drop ? Where did the remaining 85% of the connecting columns come into the picture ?

[WildCat]

Unfortunately we can only lead the horses to the water. The next task is to persuade them them to drink. That's the hard part.
Substitute "kool-aid" for "water" and this statement is 100% correct.

[Heiwa]

If you have been paying attention, and following the links that people post in response to your blather, you would, if you are not retarded, know that it has been done and it WORKED. Google it. BALZAC+VITRY.

You do know how to at least Google, don't you?



That doesn't happen in the real world. Only between the ears of lunatics is it possible for the top of a building to bounce off the lower part when the middle fails.

But Balzac/Vitry is a controlled demolition by clever French, where part C = part A, and where both parts C and A are destroyed in the collision. Ok, parts of part A remain afterwards. It has nothing to do with a one-way crush down = topic. It is rather a two-way crush down or destruction. It has been explained many times in other threads. At Balzac/Vitry you have to physically destroy the supports of three floors just to get the two-way destruction started.

[AndrewIlluminatus]

Before getting into this long post Oz will you clear up one thing for me ?

People often speak of a 'drop', but can you explain what they mean exactly ? You see as I see it the two blocks, C being the upper 10% and A being the lower 90% were connected by about 300 columns both core and perimeter. We know that the plane severed about 40 perimeter clumns and a few core ones.That left at least 250 columns still holdng up the top block (around 85%). So how did we get from that situation to the situation of a 'drop' which is often reated as though it was a freefall drop ? Where did the remaining 85% of the connecting columns come into the picture ?

Just believe in magic. Any remaining support suddenly vanished, OK, permitting the top to accelerate under virtually irresistible gravity at 9.8m/s/s, to create all that amazing low resistance kinetic energy explosiveness that we witnessed. Steelwork was no longer ductile on 9/11, but amazingly brittle. Perhaps an invisible and very heavy giant god stomped on the buildings. Might have been the old Jesus fish Age of Pisces sun god dude throwing a temper tantrum since we are now in the New Age of Aquarius, so we need a new sun god messiah for the profane peasants to worship with blind faith!
Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur.

[twinstead]

Just believe in magic. Any remaining support suddenly vanished, OK, permitting the top to accelerate under virtually irresistible gravity at 9.8m/s/s, to create all that amazing low resistance kinetic energy explosiveness that we witnessed. Steelwork was no longer ductile on 9/11, but amazingly brittle. Perhaps an invisible and very heavy giant god stomped on the buildings. Might have been the old Jesus fish Age of Pisces sun god dude throwing a temper tantrum since we are now in the New Age of Aquarius, so we need a new sun god messiah for the profane peasants to worship with blind faith!
Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur.

Amazing how many experts believe in that magic, isn't it? Maybe it seems like magic to you because you have no idea what you're talking about and understand nothing about how the structure actually collapsed? That's usually how reports of 'magic' get started, you know.

[TheRedWorm]

I think he/she may have been sarcastic...

[Disbelief]

I think he/she may have been sarcastic...

It can be very hard to tell, especially with it being the first post.

[TheRedWorm]

True that...

[twinstead]

Yes, I guess you never know. If it was sarcasm I certainly apologize.

[beachnut]

Before getting into this long post Oz will you clear up one thing for me ?

People often speak of a 'drop', but can you explain what they mean exactly ? You see as I see it the two blocks, C being the upper 10% and A being the lower 90% were connected by about 300 columns both core and perimeter. We know that the plane severed about 40 perimeter clumns and a few core ones.That left at least 250 columns still holdng up the top block (around 85%). So how did we get from that situation to the situation of a 'drop' which is often reated as though it was a freefall drop ? Where did the remaining 85% of the connecting columns come into the picture ?

You have hitched your wagon to Heiwa who makes up real stupid idea based on his delusional views of 911. You don't have a clue that the people who you support are dolts on 911 issues. I suggest you go to school and obtain a doctorate in engineering before 7 mores years pass and you will still support idiotic ideas on 911. 911Truth is like Bigfoot save all the scat 911Truth has.

You could save looking stupid in engineering by going to an engineer and asking; we have several engineers here, but you are not listening to them.

If Heiwa is saying a gravity collapse of the WTC towers are not possible he is wrong since 911 and the ideas is terminally stupid. The chief structural engineer agrees with me that the order of magnitude greater than designed for impacts of 911 critically wounded the towers and the fires started on multiple floors with 66,000 pounds of fuel caused the gravity collapse of the WTC towers.

Heiwa has not built buildings; Robertson did build the towers and he says the collapse mechanism is how they would respond after the impacts and fires. You have picked the dumbest ideas to believe due to your complete lack of knowledge in the subject areas. Go get an engineer to help you; can't you do any original research?

[bill smith]

You have hitched your wagon to Heiwa who makes up real stupid idea based on his delusional views of 911. You don't have a clue that the people who you support are dolts on 911 issues. I suggest you go to school and obtain a doctorate in engineering before 7 mores years pass and you will still support idiotic ideas on 911. 911Truth is like Bigfoot save all the scat 911Truth has.

You could save looking stupid in engineering by going to an engineer and asking; we have several engineers here, but you are not listening to them.

If Heiwa is saying a gravity collapse of the WTC towers are not possible he is wrong since 911 and the ideas is terminally stupid. The chief structural engineer agrees with me that the order of magnitude greater than designed for impacts of 911 critically wounded the towers and the fires started on multiple floors with 66,000 pounds of fuel caused the gravity collapse of the WTC towers.

Heiwa has not built buildings; Robertson did build the towers and he says the collapse mechanism is how they would respond after the impacts and fires. You have picked the dumbest ideas to believe due to your complete lack of knowledge in the subject areas. Go get an engineer to help you; can't you do any original research?

I am not as impressed with Robertson as you are Beachnut.I know another 600 degreed building professionnals who don't agree with him either. In fact I hink ole Les might be in a bit of a bind when this finally unravels. Accusations of Treason may be the order of the day. You see he is one of the people who will be seen not to be wearing any underpants when the tide goes out.

[GlennB]

Then there should have been a deceleration of the upper block when the core columns were pounded. Why isn't there one?

There were many thousands of small decelerations as component hit component during a chaotic and off-centre collapse. But, as the two sections were not unit structures, there was no single collision that could give rise to a visible unitary deceleration of the entire block. Gregory Urich explained this perfectly well to you already.

Are you really an engineer? In what field?

[ozeco41]

Before getting into this long post Oz will you clear up one thing for me ?

People often speak of a 'drop', but can you explain what they mean exactly ? You see as I see it the two blocks, C being the upper 10% and A being the lower 90% were connected by about 300 columns both core and perimeter. We know that the plane severed about 40 perimeter clumns and a few core ones.That left at least 250 columns still holdng up the top block (around 85%). So how did we get from that situation to the situation of a 'drop' which is often reated as though it was a freefall drop ? Where did the remaining 85% of the connecting columns come into the picture ?

bill there are really only two points about the tower collapses which need explanation. The initial collapse - Point 4 in the sequence I included in my post; AND The Global Collapse - Point 5 in my post.I specifically went to point 5 first because: It is the easiest to explain to people who have limited technical understanding. So it makes a better starting point for explanation than the more complex "initial collapse mechanism" of points 3 & 4; AND It was the phase where Tony Szamboti has, incorrectly in my view, criticised and disagreed with posting members who have commented on Szamboti's own flawed explanation.

So it is a bit cheeky for you to suggest I reverse the order I offered to post in.

If we agree to a model for the global collapse we can turn to the earlier initial collapse. I have presented the Global Collapse whilst allowing the points where a pro demolition person may wish to insert demolition.

Demolition was unnecessary given the way that the towers collapsed.

AND there is no sustainable evidence that demolition was used in that phase even though it was not necessary.

I am not aware of any pro demolition advocate supporting use of demolition in the global collapse whilst acknowledging that it was not needed.

EDIT Typos

[Swing Dangler]

You have hitched your wagon to Heiwa who makes up real stupid idea based on his delusional views of 911. You don't have a clue that the people who you support are dolts on 911 issues. I suggest you go to school and obtain a doctorate in engineering before 7 mores years pass and you will still support idiotic ideas on 911. 911Truth is like Bigfoot save all the scat 911Truth has.
You could save looking stupid in engineering by going to an engineer and asking; we have several engineers here, but you are not listening to them.
If Heiwa is saying a gravity collapse of the WTC towers are not possible he is wrong since 911 and the ideas is terminally stupid. The chief structural engineer agrees with me that the order of magnitude greater than designed for impacts of 911 critically wounded the towers and the fires started on multiple floors with 66,000 pounds of fuel caused the gravity collapse of the WTC towers. Heiwa has not built buildings; Robertson did build the towers and he says the collapse mechanism is how they would respond after the impacts and fires. You have picked the dumbest ideas to believe due to your complete lack of knowledge in the subject areas. Go get an engineer to help you; can't you do any original research?

Really? Please source the designed impact parameters from the towers? To our knowledge they have never been produced. FEMA told you Beechnut what those parameters were. Why do you forget?
-----------------------
From the Seattle Times
Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision
Business: Saturday, February 27, 1993
Eric Nalder

Engineers had to consider every peril they could imagine when they designed the World Trade Center three decades ago because, at the time, the twin towers were of unprecedented size for structures made of steel and glass.

"We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," said John Skilling, head structural engineer. "However, back in those days people didn't think about terrorists very much."


Skilling, (head Structural Engineer of the WTC based in Seattle), is among the world's top structural engineers.

Ok, lets see what one of the best in the world have to offer.

He is responsible for much of Seattle's downtown skyline and for several of the world's tallest structures, including the Trade Center.

Apparently a person in the know! After all he was the head honcho in the design of the building.

Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.

Remember, the date of the interview is 1993. To remove the size matters argument. The planes although different in size are marginalized based upon the difference in length: 6 feet and the width of 10 feet. And actually the building was designed to withstand the 707's greater cruising speed of 607 mph versus the 767's 530mph. (data from FEMA's report)


"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

So even after a crash, and the fire, the designer states the building would still be there!


Heiwa- I applaud you for your challenge and the persistence in the face of character attacks and non-sense.
You can tell by the responses alone these people will not accept the challenge because they can not achieve the stated goal in your challenge. Excuse after excuse is offered. No results are produced.

I suspect this is EXACTLY why NIST did not model the global collapse and offered the excuse "too chaotic to model". They didn't model it because it CAN'T happen. You point that out quite eloquently at your website by using any material a skeptic wants to use be it lemons, pizza boxes, or for heaven's sakes a scale model of WTC 1.

It has been fun watching people offer the favorite tactic of a "debunker" ,attack the character, when confronted with the science. So true and so tired of a response.

One would think that this process would be EASY to model considering it happened twice in one day. One would think a supporter of the OCT would have fun modeling this process to shut people like Hewia up once and for all.
One would think this process would be enthusiastically modeled to shut the 9/11 Truth Movement up once and for all. But many of the response show exactly why Hewia's process isn't modeled. Because it simply can not happen.

Thanks again Hewia for your enlightenment.

[ozeco41]

...Heiwa- I applaud you for your challenge and the persistence in the face of character attacks and non-sense.
You can tell by the responses alone these people will not accept the challenge because they can not achieve the stated goal in your challenge. Excuse after excuse is offered. No results are produced.....

There is nothing scary about Heiwa's "Challenge" except that it does not model what happened at WTC on 9/11. HEiwa has designed the challenge in a way which does not model 9/11. Yes, there are some problems with it for what it does model but my interest is in 9/11 not Heiwa's arbitrary and unrelated model. So I see no benefit in commenting on Heiwa's model whilst ever he does not admit it is not WTC on 9/11 and there is risk of my comments being seen as endorsing it as relevant to WTC.

Heiwa has been fully informed of my position. All he has to say is "It doesn't represent 9/11" and I would be free to tell him what else is wrong or potentially wrong with his model.

[Heiwa]

Heiwa- I applaud you for your challenge and the persistence in the face of character attacks and non-sense.
You can tell by the responses alone these people will not accept the challenge because they can not achieve the stated goal in your challenge. Excuse after excuse is offered. No results are produced.

I suspect this is EXACTLY why NIST did not model the global collapse and offered the excuse "too chaotic to model". They didn't model it because it CAN'T happen. You point that out quite eloquently at your website by using any material a skeptic wants to use be it lemons, pizza boxes, or for heaven's sakes a scale model of WTC 1.

It has been fun watching people offer the favorite tactic of a "debunker" ,attack the character, when confronted with the science. So true and so tired of a response.

One would think that this process would be EASY to model considering it happened twice in one day. One would think a supporter of the OCT would have fun modeling this process to shut people like Hewia up once and for all.
One would think this process would be enthusiastically modeled to shut the 9/11 Truth Movement up once and for all. But many of the response show exactly why Hewia's process isn't modeled. Because it simply can not happen.

Thanks again Heiwa for your enlightenment.

My pleasure. I just started out 2007 teaching some kids scared of the WTC collapses, i.e. the destructions, that they could not take place due to fire and failures up top and gravity, &c.

Steel composite structures cannot be one-way crushed down by parts of themselves. I have 40+ years experience of those. And I put the lecture on the Internet. And there we are. Now it is up to the American people to do a proper 911 investigation.

I really wonder when the ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics will publish my paper about the impossibility of one-way crush down of a structure by a part of itself? It was handed in 3 February 2009.

[Disbelief]

Heiwa- I applaud you for your challenge and the persistence in the face of character attacks and non-sense.
You can tell by the responses alone these people will not accept the challenge because they can not achieve the stated goal in your challenge. Excuse after excuse is offered. No results are produced.



Except that his challenge was accepted, yet he basically refused to answer any of the posts. Couple that with the fact he backed out of actually paying any of the money he had promised, and you have a fraud. Way to continue your history of supporting frauds.

[GlennB]

Steel composite structures cannot be one-way crushed down by parts of themselves. I have 40+ years experience of those.

No you don't.

You have some years experience of insurance assessment of minor maritime scrapes, ships' welding and so on.

Stop lying. Lying is bad, m'kay?

[twinstead]

I really wonder when the ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics will publish my paper about the impossibility of one-way crush down of a structure by a part of itself? It was handed in 3 February 2009.

You aren't the only one who wonders. Frankly, I would be shocked.

Hold on though! Now it appears you have the esteemed Swing Dangler on your side. That will add to your already brilliant luster as a respected engineer. The Journal of Engineering Mechanics can't HELP but publish you now!

[AndrewIlluminatus]

Amazing how many experts believe in that magic, isn't it? Maybe it seems like magic to you because you have no idea what you're talking about and understand nothing about how the structure actually collapsed? That's usually how reports of 'magic' get started, you know.

Would that be "experts" in magic tricks, or military deception operations, or experts in rubbish, or experts in propaganda? Yes I am being sarcastic, because I do not believe in magic, or nationalism, or patriotism, or party politics, or religion, or experts, or TV propaganda, or elites, or oligarchies, or any faith based appeals to "authority". This, hypothetically speaking, virtually irresistible force of gravity being the only energy source of the hypothetical kinetic energy explosiveness, is asking rather too much of gravity, in my opinion. Energy has to come from somewhere and when you use gravity as the only energy input to convert potential energy into kinetic energy explosiveness, on such a dramatic scale, you necessarily create deceleration, through resistance. You cannot "have your cake and eat it at the same time" or turn "gravity" into an essentially irresistible force that can, apparently, simultaneously create additional energy out of nowhere to create this absurd idea of low resistance kinetic energy explosiveness. That idea is as stupid as so many imbecilic Americans believing in the Rapture, Obama, party politics, nationalism, patriotism, and these brain-dead-worms intoning loathsome meaningless drivel like saying "God Bless America" or that disgusting brainwashing "US pledge of allegiance" mantra, or imbecilic slaves "serving" in the evil US military! You can find "experts" in religion and all kinds of meaningless rubbish, including expert "scientist experts" who are apologists for evil war criminal neo-nazi imperialist regimes like in the USA that used 9/11 terrorism as a political pretext to mass murder innocent peasants in Afghanistan and Iraq. Innocent peasants who were certainly nothing to do with any 9/11 attack by (theoretically) 19 grumpy suicidal people who might justifiably "hate American freedoms" to murder Third World peasants in an orgy of "revenge collective punishment" through illegal wars of aggression. I have no idea what caused WTC1, 2 and 7 to blow up and fall out of the sky, in a virtually resistance free manner, but if it was "gravity" it was evidently not even being a consistent force for kinetic energy explosiveness on 9/11. Because WTC1 and 2 Exploded (kinetically or otherwise) in a virtually resistance free manner, whereas WTC7 Imploded.

[Heiwa]

No you don't.

You have some years experience of insurance assessment of minor maritime scrapes, ships' welding and so on.

Stop lying. Lying is bad, m'kay?

Want to bet? I started out 1966 in ship repairs (damaged ice breakers hitting too thick ice - thick steel plates, &c) and today is 2009? In 1965 I was working in a printing office (lead types) but I preferred the fresh air at the shipyard across the bay. And the steel!

Why do you waste your time writing posts like that? You are a little OT.

[Heiwa]

Except that his challenge was accepted, yet he basically refused to answer any of the posts. Couple that with the fact he backed out of actually paying any of the money he had promised, and you have a fraud. Way to continue your history of supporting frauds.

The Heiwa Challenge is still on ... another popular thread. And the money award? Still another thread. 2000+ posts = noone was able to collect.

And I answer every civilized post. TG for the ignore button. :)

[ozeco41]

...Steel composite structures cannot be one-way crushed down by parts of themselves. I have 40+ years experience of those. ....
Heiwa that statement is false and no matter how many times you repeat it it will still be false. Even if you reach an age where you are able to claim you have been doing it for 140 years the claim will still be false.

[Disbelief]

The Heiwa Challenge is still on ... another popular thread. And the money award? Still another thread. 2000+ posts = noone was able to collect.

And I answer every civilized post. TG for the ignore button. :)

No, as proven by your challenge thread. Did you respond to Myriad? He was more than polite, yet you seem to have lost your stomach when you realized he might prove you wrong. You also never proved you had the money, one of his conditions and only 1/10th your promised amount, even though you stated you would pay up. Your words are there for all to see.

I think he/she may have been sarcastic...
Guess not.

[beachnut]

Would that be "experts" in magic tricks, or military deception operations, or experts in rubbish, or experts in propaganda? ...


This, hypothetically speaking, virtually irresistible force of gravity being the only energy source of the hypothetical kinetic energy explosiveness, is asking rather too much of gravity, in my opinion.

...
That idea is as stupid as so many imbecilic Americans believing in the Rapture, Obama, party politics, nationalism, patriotism, and these

brain-dead-worms intoning loathsome meaningless drivel like saying "God Bless America" or that disgusting brainwashing "US pledge of allegiance" mantra, or

imbecilic slaves "serving" in the evil US military!

... evil war criminal neo-nazi imperialist regimes like in the USA that used 9/11 terrorism as a political pretext to mass murder innocent peasants in Afghanistan and Iraq. Innocent peasants who were certainly nothing to do with any 9/11 attack by (theoretically)


... 19 grumpy suicidal people who might justifiably "hate American freedoms"

... I have no idea what caused WTC1, 2 and 7 to blow up and fall out of the sky, in a virtually resistance free manner, but if it was "gravity" it was evidently not even being a consistent force for kinetic energy explosiveness on 9/11. Because WTC1 and 2 Exploded (kinetically or otherwise) in a virtually resistance free manner, whereas WTC7 Imploded.
Rant, and more rant based on your failed opinion.

So in your opinion the release of 130 to 150 TONS of TNT energy due to gravity is magic? Sorry, it is simple physics which you failed to use. Failure in gaining knowledge has made you a poster of super stupid ideas on 911. Good for you and saving all that time learning physics. Your rant on energy is pure hogwash. Super duper hearsay and lies are your best bet.

Calling physics idiotic is your right to be stupid on 911. How did you avoid gaining knowledge on physics?

God Bless America sounds better than killing pilots and running planes into buildings. Seems you support Saddam and have some idea he was connected to 911, he was not; we hated Saddam and we were being shot at by him after the first gulf war. You like the taliban too? Good for you. So you hate Bush and Obama? Your hate must be messing up your ability to figure out 911.

So I was a slave in the US military? Good for you sparky. Is this the best you can do for a weak delusional insult? Pathetic.

The WTC 1 and 2 did not fall without resistance; if you could do physics you would see the collapse time is consistent with momentum transfer. Got Physics? No you have your failed opinions on 911. No science just woo whoo whoo. Whining drivel based on hearsay, lies and delusions. Good for you. Thank goodness for freedom of speech or we would miss your delusion filled posts.

[Heiwa]

Heiwa that statement is false and no matter how many times you repeat it it will still be false. Even if you reach an age where you are able to claim you have been doing it for 140 years the claim will still be false.

Join The Heiwa Challenge and produce any structure that can one-way crush down itself.
So far NIST, NASA, FEMA, FBI, CIA, NSA, Bazant & Co have failed. If is easy, prove it. Do not just talk! Like them!

[Heiwa]

Did you respond to Myriad? He was more than polite, yet you seem to have lost your stomach when you realized he might prove you wrong.

I did! Haven't heard from him or his lawyers since. Why don't you prove me wrong, instead? Join The Heiwa Challenge for honour or go for the BIG Money at the thread with 2000+ posts.

[ozeco41]

Sorry for the omission! IMO believers in Judaism are just as stupid as believers in Christianity, Islam, gods, in magic, or nationalism, or patriotism, or party politics, or any religion, or experts, or TV propaganda, or elites, or oligarchies or any faith based appeals to "authority".
How does that influence the technical question of "Were the towers demolished?"

Do explosives have a built in sensor system so they know who fired them? Who positioned them? Who planned the operation? Who funded it?

I have this funny idea, but cannot cite a peer reviewed paper, that explosives have the same effect and are needed or not needed based on technical aspects only.

[beachnut]

I did! Haven't heard from him or his lawyers since. Why don't you prove me wrong, instead? Join The Heiwa Challenge for honour or go for the BIG Money at the thread with 2000+ posts.
You are too challenged to know you were proved wrong by the WTC towers on 911. You failed before you even began your delusional engineering web page for dolt ideas on 911.

[bill smith]

If they did I would condemn them but I normally have Christian filth turning up on my doorstep proselytising their disgusting sun god cult.

Andrew....a word to the wise. this particular thread has a specific subject which we are not supposed to stray too far off. The moderators here can be very strict. I''ve only nbeen here a short while myself and have fallen foul of them a few times. This is a link to another thread for general discussion where anything goes. Welcome to the forum by the way.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=126817

[leftysergeant]

This, hypothetically speaking, virtually irresistible force of gravity being the only energy source of the hypothetical kinetic energy explosiveness, is asking rather too much of gravity, in my opinion.


True dat. It was not the only input.

Energy has to come from somewhere and when you use gravity as the only energy input to convert potential energy into kinetic energy explosiveness, on such a dramatic scale, you necessarily create deceleration, through resistance.

The resistance increased only slightly as the structure being destroyed was more robustly built farther down the columns. But, at the same time, there was an ever-increasing supply of PE, being converted into KE with the collapse of each floor.

Do take the time to model in yopur head what actually happened. You are treating the towers like colliding ships.

Dumb.

[AndrewIlluminatus]

Andrew....a word to the wise. this particular thread has a specific subject which we are not supposed to stray too far off. The moderators here can be very strict. I''ve only nbeen here a short while myself and have fallen foul of them a few times. This is a link to another thread for general discussion where anything goes. Welcome to the forum by the way.
[/url]

Thanks.

[Tricky]

Moving a number of post over to AAH for bickering. Most were off topic too, but that topic might be okay for another thread in Politics or Social Events if you can manage to do it without bickering. I apologize if some on-topic stuff got moved with this, but there were simply too many posts to try to edit each one. If a point of yours was lost, make it again and leave out the personal attacks.

[AndrewIlluminatus]

True dat. It was not the only input.

The resistance increased only slightly as the structure being destroyed was more robustly built farther down the columns. But, at the same time, there was an ever-increasing supply of PE, being converted into KE with the collapse of each floor.

Do take the time to model in yopur head what actually happened.



The way the WTC1, 2 (and 7) buildings blew up on 9/11 was interesting to observe so let us try a little thought experiment. There is nothing particularly special about acceleration due to gravity at 9.8m/s/s, I hope you will agree. We can achieve much higher accelerations than that with our machines. Since we can achieve much higher accelerations we can also achieve much higher collision speeds, momentum and sudden impact loads than the ones that you may believe caused all the damage on 9/11. Imagine if you can then, rotating a WTC 1 or 2 by 90 degrees and laying it down horizontally. Next, in the thought experiment, imagine that a great deal of money and energy and construction facilities might be available to you so that you can levitate the building like a Maglev Train (a linear electric motor system train). So there is no rolling friction and there are no wheels or direct interaction with the Maglev track. Back up the bottom end of the horizontal tower train against a vertical cliff face so that it cannot recoil when hit. Cut off 20 floors from the front end of the train and move this smaller train a few hundred yards up the Maglev track. Next get these 20 floors to accelerate as fast as you like towards the remaining stationary 90 floor rotated tower train and film the event. It would be an impressive crash to witness, even if the small 20-floor train reached say 100Mph before collision and had an acceleration rate much greater than about 10m/sec/sec. But as the floating 20-floor Maglev train hits the huge 90 floor stationary train it will start to decelerate, no matter how hard the linear electric motors keep on trying to keep up the forward momentum in the impact event. At this very high speed of impact we may even witness kinetic energy explosions between, the now vertical sheets, of concrete in the two trains coming together very rapidly. Now what happens in vehicle collisions when the two vehicles are both equally strongly constructed? The fronts of these vehicles begin to crush and absorb the energy of the impact. The 20-floor Maglev train is not made of stronger stuff than the parked 90-floor Maglev train, but of exactly the same stuff. Therefore the front ends of the two trains will be progressively crushed at exactly the same rate in such an imaginary collision. The interfacing concrete floors that (possibly) mutually explode in the "kinetic energy collisions" will be destroyed at the same rate. However the parked 90-floor train has a lot more floors to offer up to be sacrificed in these annihilating collisions. The impacting 20-floor train will have run out of floors to be mutually annihilated by the time it has eaten into the parked 90-floor train, by floor 70. Remember also that actually the back end of the 90-floor train is much more strongly constructed than the front end, the steelwork construction is much thicker and heavier at the back, so the smaller train would meet progressively greater resistance as it eats into the 90-floor train.

You do not like this idea simply because it is horizontal and you want the "gathering snowball" effect back? Even though perhaps 40% of the exploded material was ejected sideways and even upwards so was not added to the "weight" (mass X gravity) of the mass of broiling disassembled matter "falling" under the distortion of space called "gravity". OK try the thought experiment again at 45 degrees and then back up to vertical again, deceleration during the impact event will still occur. The official theory of two objects impacting, and exploding, without any really significant deceleration, is quite simply an impossible hoax concept and a pre-impact acceleration rate of 9.8m/s/s over a short distance is not even that impressively large. Compared to the kinds of very highly energetic collisions that we all know all about from our everyday experience.

[T.A.M.]

The way the WTC1, 2 (and 7) buildings blew up on 9/11 was interesting to observe so let us try a little thought experiment.

Oh boy, where have I heard that before. Oh yes oh wise one, show me the way. Show me where the scientists at NIST and the engineers were wrong oh holder of the knowledge.


There is nothing particularly special about acceleration due to gravity at 9.8m/s/s, I hope you will agree.

Apart from it being the basis of fundamental physics, no apart from that nothing.


We can achieve much higher accelerations than that with our machines.


Our? machines? okie dokie.


Since we can achieve much higher accelerations we can also achieve much higher collision speeds, momentum and sudden impact loads than the ones that you may believe caused all the damage on 9/11. Imagine if you can then, rotating a WTC 1 or 2 by 90 degrees and laying it down horizontally. Next, in the thought experiment, imagine that a great deal of money and energy and construction facilities might be available to you so that you can levitate the building like a Maglev Train (a linear electric motor system train).


Oh jesus, why did I know he was going to go down this well trod, beaten down path....AGAIN!!!


So there is no rolling friction and there are no wheels or direct interaction with the Maglev track. Back up the bottom end of the horizontal tower train against a vertical cliff face so that it cannot recoil when hit. Cut off 20 floors from the front end of the train and move this smaller train a few hundred yards up the Maglev track. Next get these 20 floors to accelerate as fast as you like towards the remaining stationary 90 floor rotated tower train and film the event. It would be an impressive crash to witness, even if the small 20-floor train reached say 100Mph before collision and had an acceleration rate much greater than about 10m/sec/sec. But as the floating 20-floor Maglev train hits the huge 90 floor stationary train it will start to decelerate, no matter how hard the linear electric motors keep on trying to keep up the forward momentum in the impact event. At this very high speed of impact we may even witness kinetic energy explosions between, the now vertical sheets, of concrete in the two trains coming together very rapidly. Now what happens in vehicle collisions when the two vehicles are both equally strongly constructed? The fronts of these vehicles begin to crush and absorb the energy of the impact. The 20-floor Maglev train is not made of stronger stuff than the parked 90-floor Maglev train, but of exactly the same stuff. Therefore the front ends of the two trains will be progressively crushed at exactly the same rate in such an imaginary collision. The interfacing concrete floors that (possibly) mutually explode in the "kinetic energy collisions" will be destroyed at the same rate. However the parked 90-floor train has a lot more floors to offer up to be sacrificed in these annihilating collisions. The impacting 20-floor train will have run out of floors to be mutually annihilated by the time it has eaten into the parked 90-floor train, by floor 70. Remember also that actually the back end of the 90-floor train is much more strongly constructed than the front end, the steelwork construction is much thicker and heavier at the back, so the smaller train would meet progressively greater resistance as it eats into the 90-floor train.

You do not like this idea simply because it is horizontal and you want the "gathering snowball" effect back? Even though perhaps 40% of the exploded material was ejected sideways and even upwards so was not added to the "weight" (mass X gravity) of the mass of broiling disassembled matter "falling" under the distortion of space called "gravity". OK try the thought experiment again at 45 degrees and then back up to vertical again, deceleration during the impact event will still occur. The official theory of two objects impacting, and exploding, without any really significant deceleration, is quite simply an impossible hoax concept and a pre-impact acceleration rate of 9.8m/s/s over a short distance is not even that impressively large. Compared to the kinds of very highly energetic collisions that we all know all about from our everyday experience.

blah blah...leave a message at the beep, this is a truther recording...

---------

FOR THE 5 MILLIONTH TIME! THE TWIN TOWERS WERE NOT TRAINS. THEY WERE NOT PIZZA BOXES!!!

You cannot in any way, expect the twin towers to function the same way during a collapse scenario.

For the love of god!!!

TAM

[AndrewIlluminatus]

How does that influence the technical question of "Were the towers demolished?"


Pretty clearly the 1 and 2 towers were very literally speaking "demolished" and they fell out of the sky in a ripple down explosive manner. Either by low resistance gravity fed kinetic energy explosiveness (gravity weirdly doing two things simultaneously without apparently converting much energy in creating the kinetic explosiveness) or by explosiveness by some other energy input means and gravity only really had the job of getting the already explosively disassembled buildings to the ground.

[UNLoVedRebel]

It also explains why controlled demolition companies do not drop top parts of buildings to demolish them. It doesn't work.
syzKBBB_THE

[3bodyproblem]

@AI- No one has claimed that the collapse acclerated at 1g. There was a negative acceleration due to restistence. This point has been made again and again yet some such as yourself remain willfully ignorant of it. Either show how the deceleration should have been greater than was observed or move on. There isn't one single person here that believes the collapse accelerated at 1g, making analogies to show how this isn't possible is quite boring and useless.

[FineWine]

Pretty clearly the 1 and 2 towers were very literally speaking "demolished" and they fell out of the sky in a ripple down explosive manner. Either by low resistance gravity fed kinetic energy explosiveness (gravity weirdly doing two things simultaneously without apparently converting much energy in creating the kinetic explosiveness) or by explosiveness by some other energy input means and gravity only really had the job of getting the already explosively disassembled buildings to the ground.


Speaking of trains, this is where I get off.

[AndrewIlluminatus]

You cannot in any way, expect the twin towers to function the same way during a collapse scenario.
TAM

They did not "collapse" they blew up. They blew up so aggressively that they broke windows hundreds of feet away with blast overpressure. They blew up so aggressively they disassembled human bodies and explosively ejected human bone fragments onto surrounding rooftops.

[Heiwa]

Moving a number of post over to AAH for bickering. Most were off topic too, but that topic might be okay for another thread in Politics or Social Events if you can manage to do it without bickering. I apologize if some on-topic stuff got moved with this, but there were simply too many posts to try to edit each one. If a point of yours was lost, make it again and leave out the personal attacks.

Thanks a lot. There are more to remove!
Heiwa!

[T.A.M.]

They did not "collapse" they blew up. They blew up so aggressively that they broke windows hundreds of feet away with blast overpressure. They blew up so aggressively they disassembled human bodies and explosively ejected human bone fragments onto surrounding rooftops.

sorry, they collapsed. You can sputter and spew irrelevant nonsense all you want...they collapsed.

TAM:)

[GlennB]

syzKBBB_THE

Well, yeah, apart from that one. I mean it could have been just a coincidence, or just lucky, or something....

[Ragnarok]

I suppose that video has been doctored then, and all the explosive 'flashes' and 'booms' edited out?

[A W Smith]

There was a jolt in WTC 7's collapse after the eight story freefall. It seems the towers were demolished continuously or at least no jolt was evident for the first nine stories. Without a jolt there is no mechanism for natural collapse. You don't seem to understand what Dr. Bazant obviously did when trying to explain it in a natural way.


Apples and Oranges Tony. You are not seriously comparing the collapse of the twin towers to building 7? are you? Top down VS bottom up. The initiating event in building 7 began approximately at floor 13. While in the towers it was in the high nineties north tower And between 80-82 south tower.

[3bodyproblem]

They did not "collapse" they blew up. They blew up so aggressively that they broke windows hundreds of feet away with blast overpressure. They blew up so aggressively they disassembled human bodies and explosively ejected human bone fragments onto surrounding rooftops.

The New World Hotel Collapse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotel_New_World_Disaster): A 6 story hotel collapses and 33 people were killed. One of the 17 rescued was a woman found naked in the debris pile. The force of the wind in the collapse was strong enough to rip the clothes off her body. No explosives were used.

In cased you missed it the point is the air being compressed by the falling floors is strong enough to rip clothes from peoples bodies and eject material great distances.

And FYI, no windows were broke hundreds of feet away due to blast pressure. You made that up.

[leftysergeant]

Imagine if you can then, rotating a WTC 1 or 2 by 90 degrees and laying it down horizontally.

And you have instantaneously thrown reality out the window. In your train example, or Heiwa's colliding ships, the energy expended is a single shot. The engines cease to drive the two objects together.

Gravity continued to act about an accumulating mass of debris, resulting in a hiugher release of energy far beyond what trhe towers could absorb.

You do not like this idea simply because it is horizontal and you want the "gathering snowball" effect back?

The gathering snowball is a fact and you are stuck with it. Colliding trains, boats and buses have nothing to do with what we are seeing.

Even though perhaps 40% of the exploded material was ejected sideways and even upwards so was not added to the "weight" (mass X gravity) of the mass of broiling disassembled matter "falling" under the distortion of space called "gravity".

You have nop source for the assumprtion that there was a 40% loss of mass. Even if you did, you still have that 60% gathering speed and over loading the next floor truss, picking up 60% of the mass of the next floor truss and creating that much more kinetic energy with each floor staved in.

The energy is not going away. It is propogating itself.

. OK try the thought experiment again at 45 degrees and then back up to vertical again, deceleration during the impact event will still occur.[/QUOTE]

Why?

The official theory of two objects impacting, and exploding, without any really significant deceleration, is quite simply an impossible hoax concept and a pre-impact acceleration rate of 9.8m/s/s over a short distance is not even that impressively large. Compared to the kinds of very highly energetic collisions that we all know all about from our everyday experience.

You have a constant input of new energy from the breaking of the floors. Why would there be a deceleration?

What color is the night sky in your time/space continuum?