WTC 1 & 2. What happened after collapse initiation?

[pomeroo]

???? Two miles? Where have you got that from? Read my articles and what I claim there. Pls, do no invent ridiculous claims. Two miles!

Your articles are worthless, incompetent rubbish.

To see where I got this from, start with my post #160. Your breathtakingly obtuse responses in posts #166, #180, #181, and #182 are topped only by your blindingly stupid #185. Other posters ridiculed your Kirkmanic denseness and you ran away, tail between your legs. Now you want to pretend it didn't happen?

 

[Heiwa]

You silly liar. I started this thought experiment by asking you to consider what happens if I magically remove the 109th floor of a 110-story building. The 110th floor drops onto the 108th. A certain amount of damage is done to both parts, but the building remains standing. Next, I asked if pulling out the 80th floor and allowing floors 81 through 110 to drop onto the 79th floor is the same thing. You insisted, insanely, that it was, that "Newton's laws" require that a "new equilibrium" be established. You completely ignored the enormous differences in the masses of the upper parts. Yes, the force pushing up must equal the force pushing down, BUT the the total force is much greater than the structure can withstand. To drive home the point, I asked what happens if I lift the top third of the building two miles and drop it onto the bottom two-thirds. You stuck by your lunatic garble of basic physics and maintained that a new equilbrium is established. Amid gales of laughter, you ran away, realizing that you had made a horse's ass of yourself.

You can't hope to lie your way out of your blunder.

Aha, I replied to a question about an imaginary two miles drop and then you say that I claim a two miles drop took place. But the distance really does not matter - there is always equilibrium - according Newton. Look at the universe with all these loose things moving around and sometimes colliding. Local failures take place at these collisions and can be explained using Newton's laws. At every stage during a collision there is equilibrium - the force applied is always balanced by an opposite reaction force of equal size. Evidently further local failures may develop, and that is the topic we discuss.

 

[Heiwa]

Your articles are worthless, incompetent rubbish.

To see where I got this from, start with my post #160. Your breathtakingly obtuse responses in posts #166, #180, #181, and #182 are topped only by your blindingly stupid #185. Other posters ridiculed your Kirkmanic denseness and you ran away, tail between your legs. Now you want to pretend it didn't happen?

Not at all - I was working elsewhere with very limited access to Internet for a month, which I probably mentioned then. It explains my absence. Now I am back teching you people about structural damage analysis, etc.

 

[WildCat]

Just to recap:

If I magically lift the 110th floor two miles above the 109th and drop it, a "new equilibrium" is quickly reached and no damage is done, right? Crush-up equals crush-down, RIGHT? If I drop the top thirty floors on the bottom eighty from a height of two miles, THEY ESTABLISH A "NEW EQUILIBRIUM," RIGHT??????

According Isaac Newton 1687 - yes! Verified several times since.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Aha, I replied to a question about an imaginary two miles drop and then you say that I claim a two miles drop took place. But the distance really does not matter - there is always equilibrium - according Newton. Look at the universe with all these loose things moving around and sometimes colliding. Local failures take place at these collisions and can be explained using Newton's laws. At every stage during a collision there is equilibrium - the force applied is always balanced by an opposite reaction force of equal size. Evidently further local failures may develop, and that is the topic we discuss.

Heiwa. the crux point is that becuase an object that collides with another results in an equal opposite force DOES NOT MEAN that the structure will remain intact in the process. That is a pipe dream.

You made a comparison between dropping a glass onto a table to demonstrate that the larger object would win. It's like saying the towers would be destroyed if they collided with the earth. That's a weak analogy that compares apples to fish. You need to get over that problem of yours.

Compare a glass falling on a glass, a building section falling on a building section. Weak analogies are a poor excuse to peddle you theories

 

[HyJinX]

Just to recap:

Holy crapsandwich, Batman.

 

[pomeroo]

Aha, I replied to a question about an imaginary two miles drop and then you say that I claim a two miles drop took place.

LIAR! WHERE DO I MAKE THAT CLAIM? SHOW US!

But the distance really does not matter - there is always equilibrium - according to Newton.

*****! A CHILD CAN UNDERSTAND THAT BOTH PARTS OF THE BUILDING GET COMPLETELY DESTROYED!

Look at the universe with all these loose things moving around and sometimes colliding. Local failures take place at these collisions and can be explained using Newton's laws. At every stage during a collision there is equilibrium - the force applied is always balanced by an opposite reaction force of equal size. Evidently further local failures may develop, and that is the topic we discuss.

Let me repeat what a poster asked you before you fled. If you roll a bowling ball at pins made of feathers, is it stopped by them? WHY NOT?
AREN'T THE FORCES EQUAL?????

Pomeroo - attack the argument and not the person making the argument. I have redacted the offending remark.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jmercer

 

[dudalb]

I really doubt that Heiwa or Dictator Cheney could solve a simple algebra equation,let alone have any knowledge of basic physics or engineering.

 

[pomeroo]

Not at all - I was working elsewhere with very limited access to Internet for a month, which I probably mentioned then. It explains my absence. Now I am back teching you people about structural damage analysis, etc.

Liar. You were laughed off the forum for your rock-headed imperviousness to correction. You are incompetent to teach anything about engineering.

 

[pomeroo]

Just to recap:

One dog? Only one dog??

 

[rwguinn]

LIAR! WHERE DO I MAKE THAT CLAIM? SHOW US!




IDIOT! A CHILD CAN UNDERSTAND THAT BOTH PARTS OF THE BUILDING GET COMPLETELY DESTROYED!





Let me repeat what a poster asked you before you fled. If you roll a bowling ball at pins made of feathers, is it stopped by them? WHY NOT?
AREN'T THE FORCES EQUAL?????

Pom:
Careful. We'd like to keep you around
Heiwa's well-documented violations of the MA by incivility, by cherry-picking, lying, and general acting the idiot is, apparently inactionable.
You are venturing close...

 

[rwguinn]

BTW: All you "Equal forces" nuts:
By the same logic (dropping a glass on a table) you have shown:
If you drop a table on a glass, why does the glass break? The forces are equal and opposite, are they not?

 

[pomeroo]

Pom:
Careful. We'd like to keep you around
Heiwa's well-documented violations of the MA by incivility, by cherry-picking, lying, and general acting the idiot is, apparently inactionable.
You are venturing close...

I appreciate the cautionary advice, RWGuinn, but I realize that the rules for me are a bit different from the rules for other obnoxious posters. The other day, I received a 24-hour suspension for one of my posts in the thread "Instant Classic." A conspiracy liar claimed that he couldn't understand the point "beachnut" was making. I replied that I was able to understand it well enough. There were several posts on the topic, but mine, bizarrely, was singled out for a warning. I wrote the following note to "Darat" and was immediately suspended.


Dear Darat,

I'm receiving a warning for saying that I understood Beachnut's post?!? My post was deleted, but all the other posts on the same topic remain? The point Beachnut was making is a good one. His opponent dismissed it by pretending that he couldn't understand it. I called attention to his dishonest tactic and I'm being warned about something?

Huh?

Ron

 

[pomeroo]

Pom:
Careful. We'd like to keep you around
Heiwa's well-documented violations of the MA by incivility, by cherry-picking, lying, and general acting the idiot is, apparently inactionable.
You are venturing close...

Just as an afterthought, I can certainly understand prohibiting contentless name-calling. Labeling an idiot an idiot AND explaining why he's an idiot is something else, no?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

AA. Any evidence for that? E.g. analysis of the fracture surfaces of a column?

NIST NCSTAR 1-3C talks about know column failure modes when it discusses the damage to the exterior wall panels. You yourself can read their analysis starting on page 111 of the document.

Page 119 of NIST NCSTAR 1-3C offers a general summary of their findings regarding connection and weld failure at or below the impact zones:

BB. I only use telescoping to describe the implosion of the 33 000 tons upper block prior any initiation of local failures below and resulting destruction of the lower structure.

What implosion? There was none, use proper terminology; an implosion means to collapse 'in on itself', not tilt, drop and rain drbris all over downtown. The entire 15 upper-most stories of tower 1 and the 29 upper-most stories of tower 2 simply failed in the impact regions and gravity did the rest of the work. The upper sections do not start coming apart until well after collapse initiation. 33000 tons is a gross understatement of the the weights, however we can deal with that some other time...

The outer wall assemblies - columns held together by spandrels - have enormous redundancy. They had no problem to carry the upper block.

The spandrels were not vertical loading members, they interconnected the exterior wall panels and aided in the lateral stability of the structure. What is the lateral loading capacity of these members? Is there any known value for how much resistance they would have had the capacity to resist? Remember, some of these columns in the impact region were bowing inward just from the floors undergoing creep stresses.

After initiation (alleged columns failures) any loose load from above is only applied on the floors below and will only cause local damage to the floors and evidently produce a lot of friction.

Once again, what is the capacity for the spandrels and perimeter columns to resist outward lateral forces if this model were assumed to take place by the book? Your claim requires that the perimeter columns have enough capacityu to resist the debris trying to fall 'out' of their containment.

No big loads will be transmitted to the columns below. So that they can slice the upper block apart in peace and quiet as explained before.

Once again, you're ignoring that the structure is undergoing a combination of lateral and vertical shear forces during the collapse. Loading in both axis is dynamic at this point.

 

[tanabear]

No. Tilting means the remaining columns at the collapse zone are buckling, and that means some destruction of the lower block. There is further destruction (of the "hinge") at the instant the upper block also begins to fall. There is a great deal more destruction after whole new floors are hit and destroyed later in the collapse, but whenever there is motion of any kind, there is some destruction.

Also, keep in mind that the upper block continues to rotate even after it begins to fall. It retains some angular momentum. This makes it very difficult to estimate exactly when it begins to fall. In your pictures, the fall is already underway, it's just hard to see because the sense of scale is so huge.

Finally, "the 3.7 meter drop is what supplied the necessary energy to destroy the tower" is wrong. There is additional gravitational energy injected all throughout the collapse. The 3.7 meter drop is only needed to begin destruction, i.e. enough energy to fail the second floor's worth of supports. And this is, indeed, enough energy to do so.

The rest of the structure consumes approximately 50% of the total gravitational energy during the collapse, much more than the initial kick after the upper block falls 3.7 meters.

I previously asked you which event happened first, the tilt of the south tower's upper block or the hypothetical 3.7 meter fall of the upper block onto the lower block. You answered the tilt. For there to be 3.7 meter free fall of the upper block onto the lower block all the columns would have to be severed.(i.e. a separation between the upper and lower block) As you wrote in your paper, "All such connections will fail before the far corner of the structure descends by a single floor."

You write, "In your pictures, the fall is already underway." So in this picture, all the columns have already been severed?



So the upper block tilts slightly, then the 3.7 meter fall occurs and the upper block continues to rotate as it falls. Then this rotation stops and the upper block falls vertically. So what causes the upper block to stop rotating after it begins to fall?

You write in your paper, "Since the upper block tilts, it first comes in contact with the lower structure at the down-tilted corner."

If this is the case then why do we notice the lower block being destroyed with a high degree of radial symmetry?

 

[Heiwa]

Heiwa. the crux point is that becuase an object that collides with another results in an equal opposite force DOES NOT MEAN that the structure will remain intact in the process. That is a pipe dream.

You made a comparison between dropping a glass onto a table to demonstrate that the larger object would win. It's like saying the towers would be destroyed if they collided with the earth. That's a weak analogy that compares apples to fish. You need to get over that problem of yours.

Compare a glass falling on a glass, a building section falling on a building section. Weak analogies are a poor excuse to peddle you theories

Good that we agree (pomeroo disagreeing) that when two objects collide the forces developing at contact are in equilibrium as postulated by Newton. What happens then, the initiation = topic, is interesting. Both objects may remain intact and bounce - one object going one way, the other another, like billiard balls. Alternatively one object remains virtually intact, while the other is damaged. Or both objects are damaged by the contact forces. There are other possibilites.
Re WTC1 NIST and Bazant suggest that the upper block remains intact, while the lower structure is destroyed. Simple damage analysis in my articles shows that assumption is false. It is as simple as that.
Detailed observations then demonstrate that the objects involved in the collision consist of strong parts (columns) and weak parts (floors) and the logical conclusion is that the strong parts of the object destroy the weak parts.
NIST and Bazant suggest that one floor is superstrong and remains intact and as a piston top loaded with energy compresses and destroys the structure below due to lack of strain energy there. Simple damage analysis in my articles shows that assumption is also false. It is as simple as that.
Etc, etc.
In my analysis it is shown that the energy involved in the collision is soon wasted as deformation of local failures and friction = the destruction is soon arrested.
NIST and Bazant suggest that there is no friction so that further destruction can proceed at free fall velocity. Simple damage analysis in my articles shows that assumption is also false. It is as simple as that.
I strongly support the efforts by relatives of victims of 9/11 that the investigations are redone by better qualified people.

 

[beachnut]

... What happens then, the initiation = topic, is interesting. Both objects may remain intact and bounce - one object going one way, the other another, like billiard balls. ...

That is a stupid statement, it beats the kids on the mattress! You continue to prove you have zero grasp of gravity, and collisions.



Now I see billiard balls falling (and Judy Wood with a stick, with the Keibler Elves in a elf tree, hitting billiard balls) and one goes faster down, the other follows, then they hit the ground and bounce up 1300 feet…

We'll continue our "Physics for Psychotics" dialogue. If I remove the 109th floor, the 110th floor drops neatly and quietly on the 108th, causing no strain on the load-bearing capacity. If I drop the 81st through the 110th floors on the 80th, it is EXACTLY THE SAME THING--

RIGHT????
The crush-up completely balances the crush-down? Really?

If I magically lift the 110th floor two miles above the 109th and drop it, a "new equilibrium" is quickly reached and no damage is done, right? Crush-up equals crush-down, RIGHT? If I drop the top thirty floors on the bottom eighty from a height of two miles, THEY ESTABLISH A "NEW EQUILIBRIUM," RIGHT??????

According Isaac Newton 1687 - yes! Verified several times since.

Now I see, it is like using billiard balls as brains for 9/11 issues! Exactly… I see it, yep

 

[Heiwa]

The spandrels were not vertical loading members, they interconnected the exterior wall panels and aided in the lateral stability of the structure. What is the lateral loading capacity of these members? Is there any known value for how much resistance they would have had the capacity to resist? Remember, some of these columns in the impact region were bowing inward just from the floors undergoing creep stresses.

Once again, what is the capacity for the spandrels and perimeter columns to resist outward lateral forces if this model were assumed to take place by the book? Your claim requires that the perimeter columns have enough capacityu to resist the debris trying to fall 'out' of their containment.

Once again, you're ignoring that the structure is undergoing a combination of lateral and vertical shear forces during the collapse. Loading in both axis is dynamic at this point.

Not at all. After local failures of the floors (columns are intact) and the floors are rubbing against each other as shown in my figure and wasting energy leading to arrest of further destruction, some of the friction forces on the slooping floors are evidently transmitted to the columns (via contacts).
The lateral (horizontal) component will push the column sideways and that's where the undamaged spandrels come into action. They keep the columns in place like a belt around the top of a pair of trousers. The capacity of the spandrels is enormous. Of course they are only bolted to wall perimeter columns and probably the bolted connections are the weakest link there.
But strangely enough we do not find many ruptured spandrels in the rubble. The perimeter wall box shaped columns are sheared/cut off horizontally at regular intervals like spaghetti and you should really wonder why! The plate thicknesses are quite substantial. Even more strange at the core! Some core column flanges and webs are 40-60-90 mm thick and there is no way friction forces produced by gravity can cut those. Only LCD can produce the energy required to cut the core columns. Should be investigated. Because if you knock out the core columns at regular intervals to release enormous amounts of potential energy, you do not need much assistance at the walls.

 

[Heiwa]

IDIOT! A CHILD CAN UNDERSTAND THAT BOTH PARTS OF THE BUILDING GET COMPLETELY DESTROYED!

Hm, according Bazant and NIST the upper block remains intact and destroys the lower structure after initiation = topic. When the lower structure is completely destroyed, the upper block finally decides to collapse in a push up, in spite of the fact that a fair amount of the core of the lower structure remains partly undamaged after the destruction as pointed out by somebody on this thread. Are NIST and Bazant idiots?
Using clear thinking, which seems to be lacking by many participants at this thread, I point out to children in my articles that it is only the weak components of both parts that are destroyed (due to lack of local strain energy) and that the strong parts remain intact (due to big built in strain energy exceeding any energy applied to them) when in contact with the weak parts. And contact only occurs locally up top. By including friction in the analysis (not done by NIST and Bazant) it is concluded that the local failures (of the floors) are soon arrested.

No big deal, actually. Happens all the time. Should have happened after initiations at WTC1/2.