WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
Stop avoiding the question.
Do you have any intention of submitting a paper to a journal? If so, when?
WTC 1 & 2. What happened after collapse initiation?
- Thread starter tanabear
- Start date
Do you have any intention of submitting a paper to a journal? If so, when?
You have claimed, insanely, that the top third of a building dropped onto the bottom two-thirds from a height of two miles would do no damage to the bottom, that a "new equilibrium" would be established. This notion is ridiculous. The entire structure would be reduced to rubble. You are completely wrong and no engineer could possibly state such outlandish idiocy.
When will you acknowledge your egregious error?
Correct me if I'm wrong but if a building the size of the WTC had 1/3 of it dropped on the remaining 2/3 from a distance of 5-7 feet, the bottom 2/3 would be history.
Dr Adequate
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2004
- Messages
- 17,766
Isn't this like trying to prove that icebergs can't sink ships by sailing a toy boat into an icecube?
The Titantic Was An Inside Job!!!
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 36,711
Heh. See this video...
(There's another one that is even better - complete with shipbuilding, miniature people, and more - but I can't recall at the moment where I saw it)
Last edited:
tanabear
Critical Thinker
The video is not the only evidence? How can the video be evidence if it doesn't show this intact upper block riding on this supposed cushion of debris? The seismic record can be explained by debris hitting the ground, not by an intact upper block. In fact, that is how NIST explains it in their FAQ sheet,
"The seismic spikes for the collapse of the WTC Towers are the result of debris from the collapsing towers impacting the ground. The spikes began approximately 10 seconds after the times for the start of each building’s collapse and continued for approximately 15 seconds. There were no seismic signals that occurred prior to the initiation of the collapse of either tower."
But you stated that the upper block was riding on top of this cushion of debris. So in the video we can't see this upper block and we can't see this debris layer. So what empirical evidence could you offer to show the existence of this cushion of debris that is actually destroying the lower block? It seems that the government's explanation suffers from a paucity of real evidence.
Now what about this aspect of the South Tower's collapse:
During the collapse of the South Tower, which event came first, the tilt of the upper block or the 3.7 free fall of the upper block onto the lower block? Bazant and Verdure write in their paper, Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from WorldTrade Center and Building Demolitions,
"As a result, the upper part of the tower fell, with little resistance, through at least one floor height, impacting the lower part of the tower...Before disappearing from view, the upper part of the South tower was seen to tilt significantly."
Bazant and Zhou wrote in the paper, Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis
"The downward displacement from the initial equilibrium position to the point of maximum deflection of the lower part (considered to behave elastically) is h+(P/C) where P=maximum force applied by the upper part on the lower part and h=height of critical floor columns (=height of the initial fall of the upper part) ~=3.7 m....the upper part may be assumed to move through distance h almost in a free fall."
So did the upper block of the South Tower tilt then fall 3.7 meters or vice-versa?
Also the upper block is tilting to the east. After it falls, what is causing the west side of the building to be destroyed?
Ah, such confusion.
The video is not the only evidence. The seismic information is also evidence, as you apparently accept.
The video provides evidence in terms of the roofline height as a function of time, until hidden by the smoke. I already explained this to you.
The seismic spikes are not the only features in the seismic record. Also present is a persistent displacement signal, and that designates the period of collapse. See the BLBG paper, as I've already referred you to.
Whether or not the upper block remains intact until collision with the ground has almost no effect on the collapse timing. I've already explained that, too.
I told you. You can see it riding on top of the debris layer for about 1,000 feet, until it passes behind the dust/smoke cloud. And the timing of the collapse overall is consistent with this theory.
I also welcome you to come up with an alternate theory. Thus far, nobody has.
Tilt happens first. There is no expectation of differential resistance once the collapse begins. Very simple.
However, whatever initial angular momentum the upper block gains before collapse, is likely to be sustained. But those are different concepts.
This is yet another question that is so confused that it beggars belief.
There is no way for the west wall only to survive collapse. The upper block blankets the entire footprint and will crush all sides of the lower structure. Even if this was not the case, the west wall cannot survive under its own weight if the rest of the structure is destroyed. There is no anomaly here at all.
I will correct you. Assume there are local failures of parts in the initiation zone allowing downward displacement of other parts above supported by the failed part. Downward movement does not equal free fall. So the parts above displace downwards and when they encounter undamaged parts below new situations develop.
Example - a crystal glass is standing on a marble table, its foot shears off and the top part of the glass displaces downwards (free fall in this case) ... and guess what happens! Yes - the dropped glass part applies a force on the marble table and the marble table applies an equal force on the dropped part and kinetic energy is at play. In this case the marble table can easily absorb the energy released (and remains virtually intact) but the little glass part cannot ... and breaks.
Same with your example. When the upper part 1/3 of WTC2 encounters the lower 2/3 part, forces develop between them. However, the upper 1/3 part consists of many sub-parts and the forces are only applied to the lowest ones and is then transmitted through them to the other parts. Similar for the lower 2/3 part and its sub-parts.
As explained many times, only the weakest sub-parts of the two parts will be further damaged, i.e. the lowest floors of the upper part and the top floors of the lower structure are damaged when in contact with the columns. The columns of the upper and lower parts should remain intact as they are much stronger than the floors and are locally damaging the floors
So the weakest parts, the floors, are just locally damaged at say one edge and cannot free fall. Only the free edge may displace.
After a while the various parts get entangled into one another and now FRICTION develops and ... further local failures will be arrested.
According my observations only a few floors of both the upper and lower parts should be damaged. >95% of the lower part would remain intact as 90% of the upper, smaller, part. Etc, etc.
The NIST suggestion that global collapse ensues as the potential energy released exceeds the strain energy that can be absorbed by the structure is WRONG for the simple reason that NIST forgets, e.g. the energy absorbed by FRICTION between partly demaged and dislocated parts. This friction produces dust, débrise and rubble.
But we can of course assume there is no FRICTION. We are members of the 'no-friction' sect. Then the upper 1/3 part will be completely sliced apart by the upper half of the lower 2/3 part ... and only then the collapse is arrested.
Or take WTC1 - the upper 1/8 part gets lose and displaces downward on the lower 7/8 part. The upper 1/8 part will be completely sliced apart by the upper 1/8 part of the lower 7/8 part. 6/8s of WTC1 should then remain ... if there were no friction.
But as friction exists (friction is not fiction!) there would be much less local damage and defintiely no global collapse.
Somebody should remind NIST that they cannot ignore friction.
Evilgiraffe
Scatterer of X-rays
Awww, analogies are nice, aren't they? Unfortunately, you've (deliberately) set yours up so that the lower structure is vastly stronger than the upper block.
Can you provide evidence (maths would be nice) that the upper block would simply shatter on the lower structure like a crystal glass on a marble table?
If not, your analogy is bunk.
Read my article at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm and you will understand. Hopefully.
There is no magic. When two bodies collide many things happens and you have to do a proper, detailed analysis. Not just, like NIST, say that the potential/kinetic energy applied (no calculations) exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed (no calculations provided and forgetting friction) and that global collapses ensued due to gravity only.
There is no doubt that three global, steel structural collapses took place on 9/11 but to just blaim them on local structural failures caused by fire/heat and gravity is too simple. Unprofessional!
Reason is that steel structures do not globally collapse due to heat. Local failures may occur due to fire/heat but further failures of unheated structure not affected by and remote from the fire are normally arrested very soon. The energy released by the local failures not used to cause the local failures themselves is in fact absorbed by undamaged structure or lost by, e.g. friction. I have just 40 years experience of big steel structures none of which has collapsed. Local failures, yes! Plenty. Cracks, deformations, buckling, fatigue, overloading or re-distribution of loads after local failures, design or manufacturing faults - I have seen them all - and what consequential damages they can cause.
I cannot understand the commotion due to this simple observation. Maybe responsible persons were affected by the anthrax scare that occurred a few days after 9/11. The latter seems to have originated from a US federal laboratory. One reason appers to be to promote a human vaccin against anthrax, i.e. business as usual.
Many people wonder what actually caused the 9/11 collapses and even if it is outside my expertize I suggest multiple LCD. There are many dangerous sects around capable of things like that. And the sects infiltrate everywhere. But they are easy to spot!
The sect members do not like rational thinking and criticism! The sect members blindly follow orders from the leader and just repeat themselves. Their objective is holy. You can spot them at JREF Forum and in the media and among public servants. Quite a dangerous lot to say the least.
None.
Now please answer the question :
Have you actually done the experiment yourself?
If so, please provide doumentary evidence. Photos would be good.
Grizzly Bear
このマスクに&#
- Joined
- May 30, 2008
- Messages
- 7,963
Of course steel structures are not normally subject to incredible structural damage when a fire ignites. When you can find one steel building with a similar foundation to building height ratio, similar construction, and one that suffered similar damage to the towers we'll discuss.
If you were an engineer you would not simply focus on the capacity of the columns to carry the loads. You would also account for the connections which must resist vertical and lateral moment forces in order to keep the load bearing column in place.
This demonstrates the connection failures of the perimeter columns.
Your 40 years of experience hardly bears any weight here. You've not demonstrated any credibility in this topic.
The undamaged structure holds against the collapse of the upper section (by not failing all at once when the collapse initiated). The failures that led to the total collapse were the result of a domino effect of successive failures in individual structural members, most prevalently in bolt failures at the connections.
Hmmm sounds just like your truth movement 'sect' I hear all about. You seem to have an obsession with labeling people as sect members. Is this because most people in this thread actually demonstrate a better understanding of the structures than you do?
Semantics are great aren't they Heiwa? Get off the pills...
But I am an engineer and if you have read my article you can see that I focused on the capacity of the columns to carry loads. When the columns were intact and the floors were connected to the columns, the compressive stress in the columns were <0.32 yield = FoS about 3 due to the gravity loads of the floors being transmitted to the columns.
Then NIST (National Institute of Sects and Teleology ?) suggests that all columns failed in the initiation zone, i.e. did not carry or transmit gravity loads any longer.
This means, among other things, that the cmpressive stress in the top part of the lower structure columns became zero! Why? Because there is no gravity load on them just below the failures.
Then NIST suggests that the loose, upper block displaces downwards and contacts the lower structure. Actually it is the lowest floor of the upper block that contacts columns of the lower structure and I suggest that these lower structure columns punches holes or slices through the lowest floor of the upper block. It is also assumed that the floor bolt connection shears off, which means that no more gravity load is transmitted to those columns.
Those columns are also being unloaded.
The horizontal floor cannot damage the columns. Thus the columns of the structure below destroys the floors of the upper block locally.
Similarily the columns of the upper block punches holes and slices through the top floor of the lower structure.
If you have read my article you already know that only 50% of the wall columns contact any floor and damage the floor. The other 50% of the wall columns contact nothing! It is not magic. It is a fact.
Do you follow?
Anyway - when a floor has been damaged by the columns, the loose end of the floor evidently drops down on the floor below which means that 50% of the gravity load of the floor is now transmitted to the floor below (the other 50% is transmitted to the columns on the opposite edge via the intact bolted connection there.
No pancaking, no complete floors dropping down on floors below, etc, etc. Just local failures.
And no damages to the columns! What would damage the columns? The extra gravity load on the floors that another floor edge has dropped on? Not possible! It must go through the weak bolted connections that remains. Etc, etc. And the destruction is soon arrested due to friction between the partly loose floors and relocated columns as normally happens in the universe.
This the National Sect and Teleology Institute refuses to consider. They believe that the following event is due to the purpose that is served by it, apparently to globally collapse (?) the whole structure from top down as planned in a cave somewhere. Nevada?
That such an event has not taken place in the universe since the Big Bang does not embarrass NSTI. Probably affected by the anthrax scare, another event also made in USA.
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
I sent an example of Heiwa's idiocy to Michael Newman of NIST. He was gracious enough to reply:
Ron,
The first item in the FAQs we published in December 2007 ( http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_12_2007.htm) addresses HEIWA's claims. Here is that response:
1. Was there enough gravitational energy present in the World Trade Center Towers to cause the collapse of the intact floors below the impact floors? Why was the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 not arrested by the intact structure below the floors where columns first began to buckle?
Yes, there was more than enough gravitational load to cause the collapse of the floors below the level of collapse initiation in both WTC Towers. The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 11 additional floors if the load was applied gradually and 6 additional floors if the load was applied suddenly (as was the case). Since the number of floors above the approximate floor of collapse initiation exceeded six in each WTC Tower (12 and 29 floors, respectively), the floors below the level of collapse initiation were unable to resist the suddenly applied gravitational load from the upper floors of the buildings. Details of this finding are provided below:
Consider a typical floor immediately below the level of collapse initiation and conservatively assume that the floor is still supported on all columns (i.e., the columns below the intact floor did not buckle or peel-off due to the failure of the columns above). Consider further the truss seat connections between the primary floor trusses and the exterior wall columns or core columns. The individual connection capacities ranged from 94,000 lb to 395,000 lb, with a total vertical load capacity for the connections on a typical floor of 29,000,000 lb (See Section 5.2.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6C). The total floor area outside the core was approximately 31,000 ft2, and the average load on a floor under service conditions on September 11, 2001 was 80 lb/ft2. Thus, the total vertical load on a floor outside the core can be estimated by multiplying the floor area (31,000 ft2) by the gravitational load (80 lb/ft2), which yields 2,500,000 lb (this is a conservative load estimate since it ignores the weight contribution of the heavier mechanical floors at the top of each WTC Tower). By dividing the total vertical connection capacity (29,000,000 lb) of a floor by the total vertical load applied to the connections (2,500,000 lb), the number of floors that can be supported by an intact floor is calculated to be a total of 12 floors or 11 additional floors.
This simplified and conservative analysis indicates that the floor connections could have carried only a maximum of about 11 additional floors if the load from these floors were applied statically. Even this number is (conservatively) high, since the load from above the collapsing floor is being applied suddenly. Since the dynamic amplification factor for a suddenly applied load is 2, an intact floor below the level of collapse initiation could not have supported more than six floors. Since the number of floors above the level where the collapse initiated, exceeded 6 for both towers (12 for WTC 1 and 29 for WTC 2), neither tower could have arrested the progression of collapse once collapse initiated. In reality, the highest intact floor was about three (WTC 2) to six (WTC 1) floors below the level of collapse initiation. Thus, more than the 12 to 29 floors reported above actually loaded the intact floor suddenly.
Hope this helps!
Michael
Ron,
The first item in the FAQs we published in December 2007 ( http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_12_2007.htm) addresses HEIWA's claims. Here is that response:
1. Was there enough gravitational energy present in the World Trade Center Towers to cause the collapse of the intact floors below the impact floors? Why was the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 not arrested by the intact structure below the floors where columns first began to buckle?
Yes, there was more than enough gravitational load to cause the collapse of the floors below the level of collapse initiation in both WTC Towers. The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 11 additional floors if the load was applied gradually and 6 additional floors if the load was applied suddenly (as was the case). Since the number of floors above the approximate floor of collapse initiation exceeded six in each WTC Tower (12 and 29 floors, respectively), the floors below the level of collapse initiation were unable to resist the suddenly applied gravitational load from the upper floors of the buildings. Details of this finding are provided below:
Consider a typical floor immediately below the level of collapse initiation and conservatively assume that the floor is still supported on all columns (i.e., the columns below the intact floor did not buckle or peel-off due to the failure of the columns above). Consider further the truss seat connections between the primary floor trusses and the exterior wall columns or core columns. The individual connection capacities ranged from 94,000 lb to 395,000 lb, with a total vertical load capacity for the connections on a typical floor of 29,000,000 lb (See Section 5.2.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6C). The total floor area outside the core was approximately 31,000 ft2, and the average load on a floor under service conditions on September 11, 2001 was 80 lb/ft2. Thus, the total vertical load on a floor outside the core can be estimated by multiplying the floor area (31,000 ft2) by the gravitational load (80 lb/ft2), which yields 2,500,000 lb (this is a conservative load estimate since it ignores the weight contribution of the heavier mechanical floors at the top of each WTC Tower). By dividing the total vertical connection capacity (29,000,000 lb) of a floor by the total vertical load applied to the connections (2,500,000 lb), the number of floors that can be supported by an intact floor is calculated to be a total of 12 floors or 11 additional floors.
This simplified and conservative analysis indicates that the floor connections could have carried only a maximum of about 11 additional floors if the load from these floors were applied statically. Even this number is (conservatively) high, since the load from above the collapsing floor is being applied suddenly. Since the dynamic amplification factor for a suddenly applied load is 2, an intact floor below the level of collapse initiation could not have supported more than six floors. Since the number of floors above the level where the collapse initiated, exceeded 6 for both towers (12 for WTC 1 and 29 for WTC 2), neither tower could have arrested the progression of collapse once collapse initiated. In reality, the highest intact floor was about three (WTC 2) to six (WTC 1) floors below the level of collapse initiation. Thus, more than the 12 to 29 floors reported above actually loaded the intact floor suddenly.
Hope this helps!
Michael
Yes, this is typical NIST re the top floor of the structure below: "assume that the floor is still supported on all columns" and nothing about the columns ... and friction. NIST does not understand that the first thing that would happen in their invented, imaginary, fantasy scenario - the upper block free falls - is that columns damage the floor locally so that the floor is not supported on all columns. The floor hinges down in all directions and get entangled later with other floors above and below, etc, etc. Only some parts of the top floor of the lower structure is initially locally contacted by the bottom floor of the upper block damaged by the columns of the lower structure.
But so then they go on: more than the 12 to 29 floors reported above actually loaded the intact floor (of the lower structure - Heiwa clarification) suddenly.
Well, before that would have happened, the local failures of floors above and below the initiation zone would have been arrested by friction between partly loose parts (floors and columns).
Ron, ask Michael Newman why NIST ignores friction between locally damaged parts that would arrest serious destruction, incl. global collapse.
PS - Don't forget to ask him about what sect he is associated with.
So why did you ask NIST for advice?
Dr Adequate
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2004
- Messages
- 17,766
That's a con-ser-va-tive assumption.
It is easier to smash in a floor if the columns supporting it are damaged.
So, you don't have any calculations, then?
Last edited:
Don't worry. And keep OT.