WTC 1 & 2. What happened after collapse initiation?

[WildCat]

members of a powerful sect

You can use the more accurate term: the overwhelming consensus of the entire planet's engineering community.

But "lunatic fringe" remains the most accurate term for truthers.

 

[Heiwa]

Heiwa, how about you do an experiment. Take a quarter ton (500 lb) vending machine, one that you can probably push across the floor by yourself and tip it forward onto the edge. Release it and jump away really fast because after it slips about 2 feet it is moving at a rate of 2 meters per second and exerting a force in excess of one ton. I would like you to find a human body that could stop more than 1 ton of crushing force. This was a 500 pound object. In the same vein, take the upper 15 story block of the WTC and after the first 0.5 second of slippage can you explain what force could have stopped it? Simple question and you will be the first and ONLY person in the history of the planet that could answer it. We are all ears...

Sounds like my model test at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist1.htm#6 . Very popular. I use a weight of 1 750 kgs or almost 3 900 lb. The force on the lower structure is about 17 185 Newton, but the stresses in the structure below before heating up is just 0.3 of yield. Exactly as in WTC1/2.

But nothing is pushed to an edge and nothing is free falling and and nothing is impacting something below. The support structure of the upper block is heated, so it slowly loses strength and then the support structure starts to deform, bend, buckle and fail and the 3900 lbs upper block moves down ... but there is no free fall and no impact.

Reason is that there is always an opposing force of exactly 17 185 Newton in the failing structure (all the time) ... that prevents free fall. The local failures will just extend over the heated area and then stop. The upper block will remain on top of the lower, unheated structure! No collapse initiation will take place. The lower structure arrests any collapse. Happens all the time.

Only way to produce free fall/impact is by LCD (Local Controlled Demolition) that instantaneously removes the support structure below (as you suggest - push it to the edge). Then there is no opposing force.

And this is what we see on all videos of the WTC1/2 destructions. No opposing force that should arrest the local failures but sudden destructions BANG, BANG, BANG ... from top down of complete floors structures. It seems LCD is applied at every 5th or 10th floors with 0.5 to 1 second intervals. The upper block disappears first ... as tanabear points out. The massive amounts of dust, débrise and rubble is evidence of LCD.

Quite obvious actually. The NIST suggestion (no evidence of course) that potential energy released by the upper block exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure below is sectarian nonsense.

It seems that the sect has infiltrated NIST and is influencing many people at JREF Forum.

 

[WildCat]

It seems that the sect has infiltrated NIST and is influencing many people at JREF Forum 99.9999% of the world's engineering community.

Fixed that for ya Heiwa, you can thank me later.

Maybe you will be the first truther to get a paper published in an actual engineering journal?

Nah, of course you won't.

 

[Heiwa]

You can use the more accurate term: the overwhelming consensus of the entire planet's engineering community.

Any evidence for that? I have a feeling you support the sect. I have not seen any overwhelming support of the entire planet's engineering community of NIST's suggestion (no evidence of course) that the potential energy released by the small upper block due to local failures exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by the intact structure below.

Simple calculations show that the potential energy released can only produce local failures in the initiation area ... and that's it. The available strain energy that can be absorbed by the unheated structure below is 100 times greater and should arrest the destructions. It is a real pity that NIST cannot do those simple calculations.

 

[Heiwa]

Fixed that for ya Heiwa, you can thank me later.

Maybe you will be the first truther to get a paper published in an actual engineering journal?

Nah, of course you won't.

I am working on it. To start with I asked NIST to provide the evidence for their famous suggestion that the potential energy released exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by intact structure below ... and I assume NIST is working on that. Hopefully NIST will correct their report when they have done the calculations so there is no need to pursue the matter in an engineering journal.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

The lower structure arrests any collapse. Happens all the time.

Ronin point incident pretty much destroys that concept. It was by no means a 'total collapse' of the entire building, however by your logic the tonin point facility should not have suffered a partial progressive collapse of an entire corner

LINK

The collapse of that corner initiated at the 18th floor. Heiwa, I'd like your opinion, should a small gas explosion have resulted in such a significant collapse? Should the structure have arrested the upper section from collapsing further?

No opposing force that should arrest the local failures but sudden destructions BANG, BANG, BANG ...

These loud 'BANG BANG BANGS' seem to be missing from the video footage. Everything I hear is of a collapsing building.

from top down of complete floors structures. It seems LCD is applied at every 5th or 10th floors with 0.5 to 1 second intervals.

And like every other truther that tries to explain demolition explosions you have speculated wildly. After seeing your site, especially the description of debris you gave traveling up and out, you must also believe that the lateral ejection of debris is related to demolition explosives. IF this is true do feel free to name a single demolitions industry grade explosive the size of a truck bomb or larger that could enact enough impulse into the structural members to send them flying. It appears to me that the collision occurring from the collapse alone was more than enough for this.

And for the record, as you state on your site, that the debris was ejected 'up and' laterally, I'll point out that it's a false statement. Watch any video of the collapse and you will see the dust being pulled down in the wake of the collapse, that is ALL it did. Unless you can prove otherwise.

The upper block disappears first ... as tanabear points out. The massive amounts of dust, débrise and rubble is evidence of LCD.

This is circular logic... You should know all too well that explosives in controlled demolition do not generate the majority of the dust OR debris. The collapsing building generates most of the dust and debris. Why should dust created in the collapse of ANY large structure be surprising, regardless of collapse initiation? You have established a false rule that dust can only be generated in a controlled demolition, and your claim is based on ignorance.

 

[Lennart Hyland]

So Heiwa, got any respons from Shyam Sunder yet?

Maybe someone should just email Shyam Sunder and ask him for make his rebuttal of Heiwas fantasy article posted online?

 

[Newtons Bit]

I am working on it. To start with I asked NIST to provide the evidence for their famous suggestion that the potential energy released exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by intact structure below ... and I assume NIST is working on that. Hopefully NIST will correct their report when they have done the calculations so there is no need to pursue the matter in an engineering journal.

What do you mean provide evidence? You've done the calculations yourself and based on those we can say that the collapse would progress. Calculations that I might add are egregiously conservative in favor of collapse prevention.

What more do you want? Why ask them to provide something when it's so self-evident that someone as low on the engineering knowledge scale as yourself can do it?

 

[~enigma~]

Sounds like my model test at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist1.htm#6 . Very popular. I use a weight of 1 750 kgs or almost 3 900 lb. The force on the lower structure is about 17 185 Newton, but the stresses in the structure below before heating up is just 0.3 of yield. Exactly as in WTC1/2.

But nothing is pushed to an edge and nothing is free falling and and nothing is impacting something below. The support structure of the upper block is heated, so it slowly loses strength and then the support structure starts to deform, bend, buckle and fail and the 3900 lbs upper block moves down ... but there is no free fall and no impact.

Reason is that there is always an opposing force of exactly 17 185 Newton in the failing structure (all the time) ... that prevents free fall. The local failures will just extend over the heated area and then stop. The upper block will remain on top of the lower, unheated structure! No collapse initiation will take place. The lower structure arrests any collapse. Happens all the time.

Only way to produce free fall/impact is by LCD (Local Controlled Demolition) that instantaneously removes the support structure below (as you suggest - push it to the edge). Then there is no opposing force.

And this is what we see on all videos of the WTC1/2 destructions. No opposing force that should arrest the local failures but sudden destructions BANG, BANG, BANG ... from top down of complete floors structures. It seems LCD is applied at every 5th or 10th floors with 0.5 to 1 second intervals. The upper block disappears first ... as tanabear points out. The massive amounts of dust, débrise and rubble is evidence of LCD.

Quite obvious actually. The NIST suggestion (no evidence of course) that potential energy released by the upper block exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure below is sectarian nonsense.

It seems that the sect has infiltrated NIST and is influencing many people at JREF Forum.

Sounds similar but it isn't nor is it apparently teaching you anything. The question I asked was what force or power could stop a 15 story chunk of office building from collapsing after the first 0.5 seconds of slippage. Your non-answer is one of many truthers attempts. Care to try again and try answering this time?

 

[pomeroo]

Actually all observations in my paper http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm are still valid. No evidence of intact WTC upper blocks free falling anywhere on 911, of impacts, of crush downs during destruction or crush ups of the upper blocks at end of destructions have been presented ... except that they are hidden in the dust, débrise and rubble clouds, i.e. you have to believe they took place.
Actually an upper block, quite light structure, cannot destroy the lower, much stronger, structure according any law of physics. The lower structure will infact destroy the upper block if the latter actually drops down on the former ... and when the upper block is completely destroyed, the destruction would arrest.
But the upper block cannot even free fall drop down at all. All potential energy released is absorbed or consumed by local failures in the initiation zone, i.e. according laws of physics and simple energy calculations the upper block would always remain on top of the initiation zone, i.e. any collapse would be arrested at once.
However, it seems that members of a powerful sect believe differently ... and it is just typical sect mentality, i.e. a question of faith and pure fantasy. Has nothing to do with real physics.

Your incompetent embarrassment of a paper has been torn to shreds. You are a preposterous fraud who lacks any comprehension of physics or engineering. You were exposed as a complete fool who wants to pretend that lifting the top third of a building to a height of two miles and dropping it onto the bottom two-thirds won't reduce the whole structure to a pile of rubble.

No matter how many times you repeat your insane nonsense, the collapse would not--COULD NOT--be arrested.

"Simple energy calculations"--well, you're certainly simple: let's see some calculations.

 

[Myriad]

Sounds like my model test at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist1.htm#6 . Very popular. I use a weight of 1 750 kgs or almost 3 900 lb. The force on the lower structure is about 17 185 Newton, but the stresses in the structure below before heating up is just 0.3 of yield. Exactly as in WTC1/2.

But nothing is pushed to an edge and nothing is free falling and and nothing is impacting something below. The support structure of the upper block is heated, so it slowly loses strength and then the support structure starts to deform, bend, buckle and fail and the 3900 lbs upper block moves down ... but there is no free fall and no impact.

Heiwa, are you claiming that you have actually performed this model test? Your post implies this, but it's odd that you've never made that claim before.

If you've done the test, I'd like to see a photograph of the final condition of the metal legs that "just bulged" without permitting the mass to forcefully impact the concrete floor, as your paper describes.

Also, I think a detailed description of the instrumentation you used to measure temperatures during the experiment would certainly be useful to anyone wishing to repeat it.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[rwguinn]

Here we go 'round the mulberry bush, the mulberry bush...
I think he is applying rule 1 of the twoofer creed--
"IF they beat you with logic and facts, lay off a while, then come back. They'll have forgotten by then..."

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I am working on it. To start with I asked NIST to provide the evidence for their famous suggestion that the potential energy released exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by intact structure below ... and I assume NIST is working on that. Hopefully NIST will correct their report when they have done the calculations so there is no need to pursue the matter in an engineering journal.

Don't forget to factor in how much time they will spend laughing at you into the time frame.

 

[pomeroo]

Here we go 'round the mulberry bush, the mulberry bush...
I think he is applying rule 1 of the twoofer creed--
"IF they beat you with logic and facts, lay off a while, then come back. They'll have forgotten by then..."

This preposterous fraud is back saying the exact same rubbish that caused him to flee with his tail between his legs. The fool actually claimed that dropping the top third of a building onto the bottom two-thirds from a height of two miles merely "established a new equilibrium."

No, Heiwa, the bottom two-thirds are not unaffected--they get totally crushed!

 

[pomeroo]

Actually all observations in my paper http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm are still valid. No evidence of intact WTC upper blocks free falling anywhere on 911, of impacts, of crush downs during destruction or crush ups of the upper blocks at end of destructions have been presented ... except that they are hidden in the dust, débrise and rubble clouds, i.e. you have to believe they took place.
Actually an upper block, quite light structure, cannot destroy the lower, much stronger, structure according any law of physics. The lower structure will in fact destroy the upper block if the latter actually drops down on the former ... and when the upper block is completely destroyed, the destruction would arrest.
But the upper block cannot even free fall drop down at all. All potential energy released is absorbed or consumed by local failures in the initiation zone, i.e. according laws of physics and simple energy calculations the upper block would always remain on top of the initiation zone, i.e. any collapse would be arrested at once.
However, it seems that members of a powerful sect believe differently ... and it is just typical sect mentality, i.e. a question of faith and pure fantasy. Has nothing to do with real physics.

The bolded part is what got Heiwa laughed off the forum. Now this ridiculous impostor has returned to make the same insane claims.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Any evidence for that? I have a feeling you support the sect. I have not seen any overwhelming support of the entire planet's engineering community of NIST's suggestion (no evidence of course) that the potential energy released by the small upper block due to local failures exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by the intact structure below.

Simple calculations show that the potential energy released can only produce local failures in the initiation area ... and that's it. The available strain energy that can be absorbed by the unheated structure below is 100 times greater and should arrest the destructions. It is a real pity that NIST cannot do those simple calculations.

If they're that simple, perhaps you could do them and then show us your working.

Thanking you in advance.

 

[Heiwa]

This is circular logic... You should know all too well that explosives in controlled demolition do not generate the majority of the dust OR debris. The collapsing building generates most of the dust and debris. Why should dust created in the collapse of ANY large structure be surprising, regardless of collapse initiation? You have established a false rule that dust can only be generated in a controlled demolition, and your claim is based on ignorance.

Evidently the LCD explosives suddenly remove the supports initiating free falls and impacts that produce dust, débrise and rubble.
A normal fire (e.g. jet fuel) only produces gradual heating of structure and slowly developing local structural failures and no dust, débrise or rubble. As demonstrated in my model test.

 

[beachnut]

Evidently the LCD explosives suddenly remove the supports initiating free falls and impacts that produce dust, débrise and rubble.
A normal fire (e.g. jet fuel) only produces gradual heating of structure and slowly developing local structural failures and no dust, débrise or rubble. As demonstrated in my model test.

No wonder you are wrong. Bad paper. How are you other conspiracy theories coming?
Is that the model with your kids jumping on the bed. You thing the WTC are like kids jumping on a bed?

 

[twinstead]

Evidently the LCD explosives suddenly remove the supports initiating free falls and impacts that produce dust, débrise and rubble.
A normal fire (e.g. jet fuel) only produces gradual heating of structure and slowly developing local structural failures and no dust, débrise or rubble. As demonstrated in my model test.

Exactly which planet are you from?

 

[Heiwa]

If they're that simple, perhaps you could do them and then show us your working.

Thanking you in advance.

The method is described in my paper. To bend a steel column requires energy that can be calculated. Same for ripping a column apart or punching a hole in a floor. It is standard procedure when analysing structural damages of any kind. You are evidently interested in the forces and displacements (i.e. energies) causing or initiating the damage or contributing to it to explain the incident,i.e. to find out why the design parameters were exceeded.

But you have to get your assumptions right. You cannot just assume that, e.g. free fall a certain height of an upper block occured and that the upper block impacted the lower structure as these two events are not seen on any videos, etc.

Sudden free fall of structural parts or components is only possible if a part is actually physically removed, e.g. by LCD. A fire cannot remove a structural part! The heat will just deform it and any energy released is absorbed when gravity displaces the structural components concerned.

When gravity displaces a structural component, its available potential energy is evidently reduced as demonstrated in my model test, i.e. the 1 750 kgs of components above the fire and the cement floor are just gradually lowering itself to the intact structure (the cement floor) below. Etc, etc. Any further damages or collapse is arrested.

Basic physics! The sect is very upset about that and must thus invent events that did not occur, e.g. free fall or impact and that is where Bazant, Greeing and Seffen assist. All three assume that the upper block is solid and intact during the complete destruction, when it is clearly seen on all videos that the upper blocks are destroyed by LCD prior to any damages take place in the structure below. All described in my paper.

NIST carefully avoids to mention the FACT that the upper blocks are destroyed prior initiation and that free falls of them would not impact the structure below.