WTC 1 & 2. What happened after collapse initiation?

[DC]

Let's make one last despairing attempt:

I have two china vases filled with sand or water (take your pick), one four feet tall and the other two feet, the smaller resting on top of the larger. I lift up the smaller vase and drop it from a height of ten feet onto the larger vase. We all get the idea that the forces balance. Now,

1) The smaller vase smashes, leaving the larger vase intact;

2) Neither vase breaks (a new equilibrium is established);

3) Only the larger vase breaks;

4) Both vases get smashed.


Choose one of the four possible answers.

oh a quiz it has nothing to do with the WTC but ok.

i would say 4 is the correct answer atleast when the big vase is not extremly strong.

but i return the question , what will happen when i dropp it from only 0.1 feet?

 

[pomeroo]

Aha, now a multiple answers quiz! What is the purpose of that? Desperation? But good that you agree that the forces developing at contact are in equilibrium, i.e. the downward, gravity force is balanced by an opposite reaction force of equal size. You have learnt something!!

Again, the condescension of an incompetent fool. EVERYBODY understands that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. You are incapable of teaching because you lack comprehension.

Now if the larger, imobile vase is very strong and the the smaller, dropping vase is very weak 1) may occur. On the contrary, if the large vase is very weak and the small one is very strong, 3) may occur.
If both vases are very weak 4) may happen.
If both vases are very strong, 2) may happen, i.e. the small vase bounces on the large vase and continues somewhere else. It is unlikely that the small vase lands on top of the large on. The small one will slip off.

It is thus not possible to choose one of the four possible answers as all answers are possible.

According NIST, if the potential energy released by the small vase, exceeds the strain energy that can be absorbed by the vases, global collapse ensues.

A fifth possibility is however that the small vase is partly damaged in its base and the big vase is partly damaged at its top at contact and that the small vase gets stuck in the top part of the large vase due to friction developing.

Why did you eliminate the fifth possibility? Sectarian elimination of dangerous facts?

When doing structure damage analysis you must evidently consider all possibilites. NIST failed doing that.

The two vases are identical in every way except size. BOTH get shattered.

 

[pomeroo]

oh a quiz it has nothing to do with the WTC but ok.

i would say 4 is the correct answer atleast when the big vase is not extremly strong.

but i return the question , what will happen when i dropp it from only 0.1 feet?

Would you care to refresh your memory? Beachnut, in post # 558, recounts my earlier exchange with Heiwa, the one that chased him off the forum.

Heiwa seems to think that removing floor # 109 from a 110-story building and allowing the top floor to drop on the lower 108 floors is exactly the same as removing floor # 80 and allowing the top thirty floors to drop the lower seventy-nine.

Do you agree that his opinion is absurdly wrong; moreover, that it could not possibly be the opinion of a structural engineer?

Heiwa went one rather big step beyond his extraordinary error. He also claims that lifting the top thirty floors to a height of two miles and then dropping them onto the bottom part "establishes a new equilibrium." He contends that Isaac Newton wouldn't have grasped the idea, clear enough to any sane human, that the whole structure gets smashed to bits.

Do you agree that Heiwa is either engaging in a bizarre game or suffers from a serious cognitive disorder?

 

[Heiwa]

Again, the condescension of an incompetent fool. EVERYBODY understands that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. You are incapable of teaching because you lack comprehension.The two vases are identical in every way except size. BOTH get shattered.

Wrong again! They may break into rather big pieces but not shatter or get pulverized like WTC1/2. And what about my suggestion, alternative 5?

But it is good that you now understand that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. NIST and Bazant have not understood that (lack of comprehension?). Consider also friction, another unknown phenomenon of NIST and Bazant, and you will get a clearer picture of the world around you that does not fit what the sects teach.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Evidently fire/heat cause local failures/deformation prior initiation but if they in turn cause free falls or impacts is not proven anywhere.

That's a weird way to phrase it... This is like a combination of circular reasoning and a red herring all at once... just what did you expect to happens once the structure was no longer able to bear the weight of the upper section? Fall like a feather? Gently let itself down and rest on top? 'Free fall' is acceleration, so you mean the collapse accelerated at 9.81 m/s^2? The collapse times do not justify this. To date no one truther has defined what 'speed' exactly defines free fall, or for that matter used the proper terminology of acceleration.

Wrong again! They may break into rather big pieces but not shatter or get pulverized like WTC1/2.

Nice nit pick, but you missed the entire point. Newton's third law does not dictate that two separate objects will remain intact if their capacity to withstand the forces are exceeded. Short of your distraction to the pulverization subject the two are of completely different scales, the strength to weight ratio is different on a huge scale. To try and compare how the two come apart is apples and fish...

Consider also friction, another unknown phenomenon of NIST and Bazant, and you will get a clearer picture of the world around you that does not fit what the sects teach.

The only response I got from you regarding the exterior columns is that the "spandrels have enormous redundancy." That's very non-specific for something so important to your little friction argument. The problem lies not with NIST or Bazant, but with your interpretation of what should have happened.

I take at issue one of Bazant's model assumptions actually. I don't agree that the upper block stays perfectly intact for the entire collapse, I believe the exterior columns came apart as the initiation transitioned to progression. but I do believe that the gist of his model is accurate in that the mass of the floors from it were still there.

 

[FactCheck]

"Some individuals within the debunking community seemed rather confused when they are attempting to explain exactly what happened to the towers. "Debunking911" and Brent Blanchard are good examples.

From Debunking9/11, "The building didn't pancake CAUSING the collapse but evidence is strong the building pancaked AFTER the collapse was "inevitable".

This is a typical truth movement tactic. They take something which is three dimensional and remove two of them. Is there a reason the collapse must be an "either/or" event? Do truthers get that easily confused that they can't imagine the columns being pulled in as what started the collapse and that the massive weight on the floors caused pancaking after? Is splitting the event just to confusing for truthers? As if what started the collapse has to be how the collapse progressed or it can't happen. Do we suspend physics and destroy the evidence on my site because you can't comprehend the facts?

No, I'm not confused for putting that in debunking911.com. Your confused for being one dimensional.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Wrong again! They may break into rather big pieces but not shatter or get pulverized like WTC1/2. And what about my suggestion, alternative 5?

But it is good that you now understand that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. NIST and Bazant have not understood that (lack of comprehension?). Consider also friction, another unknown phenomenon of NIST and Bazant, and you will get a clearer picture of the world around you that does not fit what the sects teach.

The twoof movement doesn't seem to realize that actually understanding engineering is far more important than claiming to understand it. Thus this common notion that the buildings were single solid objects is one of the biggest reasons these cult groups are so often laughed at.

 

[WildCat]

The twoof movement doesn't seem to realize that actually understanding engineering is far more important than claiming to understand it. Thus this common notion that the buildings were single solid objects is one of the biggest reasons these cult groups are so often laughed at.

It's also why Heiwa doesn't dare submit any of his crapola to a real engineering journal.

 

[Newtons Bit]

It's also why Heiwa doesn't dare submit any of his crapola to a real engineering journal.

He knows that "omg, lol!" isn't a valid response to criticism.

 

[Heiwa]

That's a weird way to phrase it... This is like a combination of circular reasoning and a red herring all at once... just what did you expect to happens once the structure was no longer able to bear the weight of the upper section? Fall like a feather? Gently let itself down and rest on top? 'Free fall' is acceleration, so you mean the collapse accelerated at 9.81 m/s^2? The collapse times do not justify this. To date no one truther has defined what 'speed' exactly defines free fall, or for that matter used the proper terminology of acceleration.

So what do I expect once the structure was no longer able to bear the weight of the upper section?
Well, I have written two long articles about it and the answer is there. But I repeat.

The structure you refer to is the 230+ remaining columns in the initiation/fire zone. They are assumed to simultaneosuly fail/deform/buckle due to heat. Not seen of course and has never happened before but OK. Let's assume it.
In my famous model test with only four columns it is shown that no deformation takes place at 500°C. But you can heat further and then deformation takes place and the upper structure displaces downwards. It takes time. It is a gradual effect. No free fall.

But to satisfy my readers, I assume free fall at 9.82 m/s². Not like a feather, even if a feather in vacuum also falls at 9.82 m/s² like a block of lead. If that takes place at perfect alignment, the upper section just bounces on the lower structure! The lower structure acts as a spring!

More realistically is of course that there is no perfect alignment and that the upper section also displaces sideways. It would take place, if the 230+ failures were not simultaneous.

Misalignment means that two walls of the upper section drop outside the structure below. The structure below will then not act as a spring. The structure below - its strong structural parts, the columns - will then simply start to slice the upper section weak floors apart. And the upper section columns will likewise slice the lower structure floors apart.

After a while this destruction runs out of energy and stops. Reason is friction between failing floors.

At what velocity does this take place? Well it starts a 0 and then reaches a certain velocity and then the velocity is reduced to 0. All due to friction and wasted energy.

It seems I am repeating myself. Nobody seems to quote any incorrect lines in my articles. I will from now on only respond to comments about them.

Pls quote what I say there and point out what is wrong (if you can). Do not invent quotes, etc. Have fun!

 

[Heiwa]

It's also why Heiwa doesn't dare submit any of his crapola to a real engineering journal.

Any engineering journal is free to publish my articles. They are available on the Internet with a much wider audience and are more powerful there.

And it is nothing new in my articles. Just simple basic structural analysis explained in laymen's terms pointing out the errors in the NIST, Bazant and Seffen reports.

Nothing to be afraid of, if you are honest.

 

[DavidJames]

Heiwa - just so we're clear. You are not fooling anyone who has the ability to think rationally.

 

[tsig]

So what do I expect once the structure was no longer able to bear the weight of the upper section?
Well, I have written two long articles about it and the answer is there. But I repeat.

The structure you refer to is the 230+ remaining columns in the initiation/fire zone. They are assumed to simultaneosuly fail/deform/buckle due to heat. Not seen of course and has never happened before but OK. Let's assume it.
In my famous model test with only four columns it is shown that no deformation takes place at 500°C. But you can heat further and then deformation takes place and the upper structure displaces downwards. It takes time. It is a gradual effect. No free fall.

But to satisfy my readers, I assume free fall at 9.82 m/s². Not like a feather, even if a feather in vacuum also falls at 9.82 m/s² like a block of lead. If that takes place at perfect alignment, the upper section just bounces on the lower structure! The lower structure acts as a spring!

More realistically is of course that there is no perfect alignment and that the upper section also displaces sideways. It would take place, if the 230+ failures were not simultaneous.

Misalignment means that two walls of the upper section drop outside the structure below. The structure below will then not act as a spring. The structure below - its strong structural parts, the columns - will then simply start to slice the upper section weak floors apart. And the upper section columns will likewise slice the lower structure floors apart.

After a while this destruction runs out of energy and stops. Reason is friction between failing floors.

At what velocity does this take place? Well it starts a 0 and then reaches a certain velocity and then the velocity is reduced to 0. All due to friction and wasted energy.

It seems I am repeating myself. Nobody seems to quote any incorrect lines in my articles. I will from now on only respond to comments about them.

Pls quote what I say there and point out what is wrong (if you can). Do not invent quotes, etc. Have fun!

Friction generates heat. If you take all the energy from the falling stories and convert it to heat via friction the heat will flash-melt the columns.

 

[WildCat]

Any engineering journal is free to publish my articles.

Have you submitted any?

They are available on the Internet with a much wider audience and are more powerful there.

And the number of engineers who support your pathetic excuse of a paper is...?

And it is nothing new in my articles. Just simple basic structural analysis explained in laymen's terms pointing out the errors in the NIST, Bazant and Seffen reports pseudo-scientific explanations meant for the ignorant masses since my papers are a joke in the engineerring community.

Fixed that for you Heiwa.

Nothing to be afraid of, if you are honest.

No one is afraid of your papers, they're a joke.

 

[pomeroo]

Wrong again! They may break into rather big pieces but not shatter or get pulverized like WTC1/2. And what about my suggestion, alternative 5?

I haven't been wrong yet. You have been staggeringly wrong throughout this thread, but you cannot correct your blunders. Perhaps it is time for you to get help..

Your alternative 5 is, of course, silly.

But it is good that you now understand that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Wrong as usual. I, like most of us, learned this as a teenager.

NIST and Bazant have not understood that (lack of comprehension?). Consider also friction, another unknown phenomenon of NIST and Bazant, and you will get a clearer picture of the world around you that does not fit what the sects teach.

The combined knowledge of a thousand serious researchers dwarfs the confusion and incomprehension of a lone incompetent. NIST regards your fantasies as nonsense.

 

[AZCat]

It's also why Heiwa doesn't dare submit any of his crapola to a real engineering journal.

I wonder how well his accusations of "sect" membership would be received.

 

[pomeroo]

Although it would be presumptuous for me to try to tell other posters to ignore a particular fantasist, we are seeing here a phenomenon that goes beyond Ace-Baker ineducability and enters "Malcolm-Kirkman" territory. Ace would listen to an argument, attempt to spin it, get corrected, move off on a tangent, get pulled back to the subject at hand, and eventually vanish, only to return shortly and restate the same debunked nonsense.

This guy Heiwa never takes a backward step. He insists that he is incapable of making errors and totally ignores everything that runs counter to his mistaken notions. He makes the most absurd, flauntingly ridiculous claims and calmly repeats them over and over. He can't be corrected, refuted, or even mocked. His is truly invincible ignorance. We have seen people with extensive technical knowledge highlight specific errors, only to be dismissed with an uncomprehending wave.

There is no conceivable purpose in continuing this thread.

 

[R.Mackey]

Friction generates heat. If you take all the energy from the falling stories and convert it to heat via friction the heat will flash-melt the columns.

Actually, it won't. The gravitational energy contained in a Tower is equal to about 100 tons of TNT. I worked out once that the energy to actually melt the iron structure is in the tens of kilotons range. You might see some local melting, especially of bolts, but not the whole thing.

However, the "friction" that Heiwa is relying upon would also manifest as a downward force on the lower structure. And it is this force that is irresistible, as proven repeatedly by Dr. Bazant and others. There has never been a challenge to these papers excluding only Cherepanov, who is wrong, and whose calculation says the collapse was even easier to induce.

By separating "friction" from the impact, Heiwa is double-counting. Or he would be if he was counting at all. No numbers.

Out of his thousands of posts, there has never been a single one with any value. He needs help. This is why I don't pay him any attention at all.

 

[Dave_46]

I'm sorry, but I'm a bit late in noticing this stupidity.

From Heiwa's website
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist1.htm#6

8.1 Let's do a Model Test!

<snip>

Put table on firm ground, e.g. cement floor.

<snip>

Cost of model is not too much: 7 m² of 5 mm steel plate (280 kgs) - say $400:- Pipes $20:-, Skirt $80:- welding rods, paint and misc. $100:- . Labour $ 0:-, if you ask daddy to assemble it.

Now the fun starts! We are going to put this model of WTC1 on fire! Or at least the initiation zone.

Put a tray of one gallon diesel oil on the cement floor between the legs of the model and fill the rest of the initiation zone with paper, rugs and similar.

Now put the diesel oil on fire! See how the initiation zone heats up, air is drawn in and smoke escapes through the holes. Very soon the temperature is 500°C uniformly inside the initiation zone and the table legs are heated up to same temperature. The plywood will burn very slowly.

<snip>

Snipped to avoid Rule 4 violation.
(and to avoid giving details of an experiment it would be dangerous to perform without proper precautions)

This sort of experiment is what I used to do before I retired. I worked as an experimental technician for the Fire Research Station of the Building Research Establishment in the UK.

Before being permitted to carry out an experiment like this I would first have had to prepare, and get authorised, an Experiment Risk Assessment, and Method Statement. These ducuments would detail among other things the safety provisions in the experiment. This would include, but not be limited to, such things as bunding around the fuel tray to contain spillage or overflow from boiling fuel*, and explicitly state the dimensions of safety zones around the experiment. These are not covered in your "method statement" on your website.

(*When you make no provision for keeping the fuel tray cool it is likely to boil the fuel at some stage.)

Additionally, it would include protection of the concrete floor that the fuel tray was standing on. I note that your instruction is

Put table on firm ground, e.g. cement floor.

Do you have any idea what a tray of burning diesel fuel can do to a concrete surface?

I also note you say

if you ask daddy to assemble it.

You are advocating CHILDREN do this experiment.

You have NO concept of safety in fire experiments.

YOU ARE INSANE.

ETA I am interested in how you would ignite the diesel fuel, please enlighten me.

That should be easy information to provide, you have done this experiment, haven't you?

 

[Mangoose]

So what do I expect once the structure was no longer able to bear the weight of the upper section? Well, I have written two long articles about it and the answer is there. But I repeat.

The structure you refer to is the 230+ remaining columns in the initiation/fire zone. They are assumed to simultaneosuly fail/deform/buckle due to heat.

The columns in the collapse initiation floors (236 perimeter columns, 59 on each face) do not fail "simultaneously". Nor do they all fail due to heat. See, for instance, the video frame grabs of the South Tower collapse I posted a few months ago. You can clearly see an asymmetric, non-simultaneous failure of the perimeter columns, starting on the East Face and then as the top block begins the lean, the columns start to buckle on the North Face westward -- reaching the West Face about 1-2 seconds into the collapse and several floors higher than the collapse initiation floors. The failure of these columns is also visibly due to the fact that the kinetic tipping of the top block involved the West Face columns as a "hinge" that finally snapped (at which point these were the only perimeter columns supporting the weight of the upper block, assuming that the progression of failure on the South Face was comparable to that seen on the North Face). In some frames you can see columns along the North Face twisting under stress before they snapped. Their failure was not accompanied with explosive or incendiary events.