WTC 1 & 2. What happened after collapse initiation?

[Heiwa]

Have you ever tried this experiment yourself?

If so please provide your protocol and photos/witness statements.

Answer is given previous in this thread.

 

[X]

Mackey suggests that "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."

Actually, the friction is an upward force that absorbs the kinetic energy of the upper block and brakes the upper block that would come to rest = a new equilibrium is established.
Evidently friction is an important factor also after re-establishing equilibrium as it transmits the forces of the upper block on locally damaged parts to the intact structure below.
Friction is not irresistible. It depends on the contact surfaces represented by a frictional coefficient. But as all lower contact surfaces are rough concrete deformed floors you can be certain it is very high.
Try to push a heavy object on a rough concrete floor and you will understand what I mean.

One last try:

You push a brick along a table.
There is a frictional force exerted by the table on the brick, in a direction opposite to said brick's motion.
But there is also a frictional force exerted by the brick on the table. Which direction will that be in?

 

[GlennB]

Answer is given previous in this thread.

The best I can find is your post #464, which doesn't answer that question at all.

If I've missed a direct answer I'd be grateful if you could point it out.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

One last try:

You push a brick along a table.
There is a frictional force exerted by the table on the brick, in a direction opposite to said brick's motion.
But there is also a frictional force exerted by the brick on the table. Which direction will that be in?

I think Heiwa's distinguishing that part, but he assumes that the perimeter structure can 'contain' the entire upper section without giving way in any way, shape, or form, to enact the friction he's arguing should have arrested the collapse.

The answer I was given to explain it was that they have 'enormous redundancy'.

He also seems to believe indirectly that the core columns were invincible against lateral forces applied by the tilting of the upper block as it began to progress the collapse allowing for the columns to "cut" the floors to ribbons.

Neither of which works... Newton's Bit already provided calculations at one point for the loads that caused inward bowing of perimeter columns and the overall lateral shear didn't amount to much, particularly compared with the weight of the entire structure it was still supporting above the impact zones.

 

[Heiwa]

One last try:

You push a brick along a table.
There is a frictional force exerted by the table on the brick, in a direction opposite to said brick's motion.
But there is also a frictional force exerted by the brick on the table. Which direction will that be in?

You know - there is always equilibrium at the contact point - and we have to look around to see what happens elsewhere.
Subject is What happened after collapse initiation? and we all seem to agree that further local failures took place. Bazant however suggests in two papers that these failures only take place in the lower structure, while the upper block remains intact during his 'crush down', but we know better than that.
Also the upper block gets damaged.
All these local failures, deformations, buckling, ripping apart, etc, absorb energy released that would slow down the destruction.
Even more important is that failed parts come in contact with and rub against each other and that friction develops that absorbs big amounts of energy. The structure is volume wise 95% air so the failed parts can displace in various directions and will contact each other.
Bazant assumes some sort of uniform density of the structure; there are no sub-parts that can fail and shift location, etc.
Bazant has apparently never heard of friction and NIST strangely does not mention it either in its report. NIST only mentions strain energy absorbing energy when parts fail.
I suggest that friction absorbs 10-100 times more energy than strain energy and that the destruction would be arrested after a few floors have been locally damaged.
The friction between parts in contact evidently develop reaction forces elsewhere in the structure.
Evidently these reaction forces cannot damage the structure.
Take your example - the brick on a table. You push the brick and when the pushing force exceeds the friction force between brick and table, the brick moves at constant speed due to a certain force, let's call it F.
To push the brick distance s metres requires energy F times s.
Evidently force F cause an opposite reaction force of equal size in the table top, which is transmitted (as shear) to the legs of the table, and through the legs down to the bottom of the legs and, due to friction between legs and floor, to the floor!
If the friction between table legs and floor is smaller than between the brick and the table top, pushing the brick will evidently cause the table to move, etc, etc. If the legs are really weak they may shear off before that due to the lateral force applied on the brick. The table collapses!
Regardless - energy is wasted.
Your example is excellent. It shows what analysis you have to do, when applying a load on loose item on a table top. A very simple excersize!
NIST failed to do a similar analysis with the upper block in contact with the lower structure and just assumed the lower structure would collapse. They failed to analyse what local failures developed after initiation and energies lost then. NIST further failed to analyse what happened to the locally failed parts and what displacements occured and what forces developed between these parts and energy wasted due to friction then, etc, etc. The method to do the analysis is known but NIST didn't use it. Sloppy work.
It seems some participant on this thread has intimate contacts with NIST. Let's hear from NIST!

 

[pomeroo]

You know - there is always equilibrium at the contact point - and we have to look around to see what happens elsewhere.
Subject is What happened after collapse initiation? and we all seem to agree that further local failures took place. Bazant however suggests in two papers that these failures only take place in the lower structure, while the upper block remains intact during his 'crush down', but we know better than that.
Also the upper block gets damaged.
All these local failures, deformations, buckling, ripping apart, etc, absorb energy released that would slow down the destruction.
Even more important is that failed parts come in contact with and rub against each other and that friction develops that absorbs big amounts of energy. The structure is volume wise 95% air so the failed parts can displace in various directions and will contact each other.
Bazant assumes some sort of uniform density of the structure; there are no sub-parts that can fail and shift location, etc.
Bazant has apparently never heard of friction and NIST strangely does not mention it either in its report. NIST only mentions strain energy absorbing energy when parts fail.
I suggest that friction absorbs 10-100 times more energy than strain energy and that the destruction would be arrested after a few floors have been locally damaged.
The friction between parts in contact evidently develop reaction forces elsewhere in the structure.
Evidently these reaction forces cannot damage the structure.
Take your example - the brick on a table. You push the brick and when the pushing force exceeds the friction force between brick and table, the brick moves at constant speed due to a certain force, let's call it F.
To push the brick distance s metres requires energy F times s.
Evidently force F cause an opposite reaction force of equal size in the table top, which is transmitted (as shear) to the legs of the table, and through the legs down to the bottom of the legs and, due to friction between legs and floor, to the floor!
If the friction between table legs and floor is smaller than between the brick and the table top, pushing the brick will evidently cause the table to move, etc, etc. If the legs are really weak they may shear off before that due to the lateral force applied on the brick. The table collapses!
Regardless - energy is wasted.
Your example is excellent. It shows what analysis you have to do, when applying a load on loose item on a table top. A very simple excersize!
NIST failed to do a similar analysis with the upper block in contact with the lower structure and just assumed the lower structure would collapse. They failed to analyse what local failures developed after initiation and energies lost then. NIST further failed to analyse what happened to the locally failed parts and what displacements occured and what forces developed between these parts and energy wasted due to friction then, etc, etc. The method to do the analysis is known but NIST didn't use it. Sloppy work.
It seems some participant on this thread has intimate contacts with NIST. Let's hear from NIST!

You've heard from NIST. NIST recommended that you attempt to read an basic physics text.

 

[Heiwa]

You've heard from NIST. NIST recommended that you attempt to read an basic physics text.

Yes, that is correct even if I have never heard about this Mike Newman and irrelevant. Question is why NIST didn't do a complete structural damage analysis including friction?

 

[Mashuna]

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.

I don't know of any professional journals that scour the internet looking for articles to publish.

Why do you think your articles are more powerful on the internet than in a journal?

 

[rwguinn]

I don't know of any professional journals that scour the internet looking for articles to publish.

Why do you think your articles are more powerful on the internet than in a journal?

Because we all know that science is a popularity contest, and that the more Uninformed, gullible, ignorant, and outright stupid people you can reach and convince, the more likely it is that you are right!

 

[Heiwa]

I don't know of any professional journals that scour the internet looking for articles to publish.

Why do you think your articles are more powerful on the internet than in a journal?

Actually my articles are not written for an engineering journal but for the popular press and common people, incl. children (as I started with). There are no scientific news in my articles, just basic, well known principles of intact and damage structural analysis and how to apply them.

And there is nothing strange about the WTC destructions except that they should have been arrested after local failures up top. No global collapses should have ensued due to gravity. That is something NIST apparently has been forced to include in a few sentences that I quote (to be politically correct and morally corrupt and engineering wise dishonest). And that's why we discuss the matter here.

Internet is very good as I have >100 readers every day with peaks >1500 when some polpular source links to me. It more than most engineering journals.

If you read my recently updated article at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm you will see that the momentums and energies involved in the WTC destructions were small compared with what really takes place quite frequently at other places.

This Dr. Bazant character is highly suspect spreading info about enormous energies and velocities and impacts at WTC on 9/11, none of which occurred.

That many not very bright people believe that skyscrapers just collapse is a result of propaganda and disinformation. But I always wonder why these people with so little sense waste their time on, e.g. this forum to repeat the propaganda like parrots. Any ideas?

 

[GlennB]

Have you ever tried this experiment yourself?

If so please provide your protocol and photos/witness statements.

Bump for Heiwa.
I cannot find a direct answer to this question. Perhaps I missed it. If so please point it out.

 

[Mashuna]

Actually my articles are not written for an engineering journal but for the popular press and common people, incl. children (as I started with). There are no scientific news in my articles, just basic, well known principles of intact and damage structural analysis and how to apply them.

And there is nothing strange about the WTC destructions except that they should have been arrested after local failures up top. No global collapses should have ensued due to gravity. That is something NIST apparently has been forced to include in a few sentences that I quote (to be politically correct and morally corrupt and engineering wise dishonest). And that's why we discuss the matter here.

Internet is very good as I have >100 readers every day with peaks >1500 when some polpular source links to me. It more than most engineering journals.

If you read my recently updated article at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm you will see that the momentums and energies involved in the WTC destructions were small compared with what really takes place quite frequently at other places.

This Dr. Bazant character is highly suspect spreading info about enormous energies and velocities and impacts at WTC on 9/11, none of which occurred.

That many not very bright people believe that skyscrapers just collapse is a result of propaganda and disinformation. But I always wonder why these people with so little sense waste their time on, e.g. this forum to repeat the propaganda like parrots. Any ideas?

Ok, I've had a look at your website. I'm not an engineering person, so I guess I'm part of your target audience.

A few questions. If you're not going to get your assumptions verified, why would I, as a layman, place any reliance on a random website. I'm assuming from your sentence construction on the site that you're not a native english speaker. This isn't a comment on the accuracy of the website, just a comment on my initial view.

Also as a layman, I don't see the link you posit between a building collapse and a ship collision. I'm now being asked to read an unverified website from written by someone with non-relevant experience.

You then say that you base the entire article on the following premise:

Assuming in A) that the two parts act as springs (disregarding local failures), the upper block would just bounce.

At this point, again, as a layman, I've pretty much disregarded anything else you've got to say. This may or may not be fair (and I did read on), but if you're basing the rest of your article on this, I'm disinclined to give it credence.

So that's why I asked why you thought your articles were more valuable on the internet. I've seen people post articles on the internet showing why Einstien was wrong about relativity, and Cantor had no idea about infinity. They often eschew detailed equations and instead use metaphor and analogy, along with simple maths to prove their points. Without any independent verification, I've no reason to take them seriously when they tell me that all the experts are wrong.

And in terms of accuracy, I can't distinguish their websites from yours.

 

[Heiwa]

Have you ever tried this experiment yourself?

If so please provide your protocol and photos/witness statements.

Protocols, photos, witness statements of a little experiment for children (under parents' supervision)???

Knowing the general sectarian attitude of many participants on this thread I will just be accused of lying, faking, photoshopping, etc, etc. But you are a grown up, I assume. Prove the experiment wrong (with protocols, photos, witness statements, public notaries, etc) yourself, if you have any problems.

Evidently the model test proves what I say! Nothing really happens to four steel columns with slenderness ratio <35 compressed to 0.3 yield and heated to 500°C. Just a little bulging and downward displacement. No sudden collapse, no impact of the big mass almost 2 tons above.

Now I learn that the final, complete NIST report is still not ready. This is good news. I assume that NIST is doing proper collapse arrest calculations, incl. friction, and maybey the model test, too? Should not be so difficult for Shyam Sunder & Co. at NIST. I have told them exactly how to do it.

 

[Heiwa]

Ok, I've had a look at your website. I'm not an engineering person, so I guess I'm part of your target audience.

...

So that's why I asked why you thought your articles were more valuable on the internet. I've seen people post articles on the internet showing why Einstien was wrong about relativity, and Cantor had no idea about infinity. They often eschew detailed equations and instead use metaphor and analogy, along with simple maths to prove their points. Without any independent verification, I've no reason to take them seriously when they tell me that all the experts are wrong.

And in terms of accuracy, I can't distinguish their websites from yours.

You evidently simply have to trust me and my good intentions. I have a quite good reputation, you know, and no reason to mislead the public or children.
But as I always say, copy/paste any quotes by me in the articles and point out what you consider is wrong and I will clarify or even correct, if necessary.

Several kind persons have pointed out (minor) errors in my articles of various kind, which have been corrected. Continuous peer review, you know. But there are no serious technical errors! Reason - all what I say is based on basic, accepted engineering knowledge. No inventions, no NWO physics.

 

[Newtons Bit]

You evidently simply have to trust me and my good intentions. I have a quite good reputation, you know, and no reason to mislead the public or children.
But as I always say, copy/paste any quotes by me in the articles and point out what you consider is wrong and I will clarify or even correct, if necessary.

Several kind persons have pointed out (minor) errors in my articles of various kind, which have been corrected. Continuous peer review, you know. But there are no serious technical errors! Reason - all what I say is based on basic, accepted engineering knowledge. No inventions, no NWO physics.

So what you're saying is that because your target audience can't understand your arguments that they should just trust you because they should? I'm sorry, but I'd have to say that implicitly trusting should be reserved for liscensed practicing professional experts. Guys (and girls) that are members of ASCE, have Ph.D's in Civil Engineering, have PE's, SE's, etc. People like Dr. Bazant, or the team at NIST. Actual real experts. Not kooks that just think they are and have no qualifications.

It's sort of like being an expert witness at a trial. You need to actually be an expert for just your word to mean something.

 

[Heiwa]

You then say that you base the entire article on the following premise:
<snip>

Sorry - correct snip is:

Assuming in A) that the two parts act as springs (disregarding local failures), the upper block would just bounce as described in one of my other articles (http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm ). No global collapse would ensue! This article is a follow-up of this conclusion.
I am evidently not basing the entire (new) article on that premise - two parts act as springs (disregarding local failures). It was just an example in the first article how to look at things (and later discarded).
In the latest article the two parts suffer local failures immediately and do not act as springs.

It seems that you cannot copy/paste correctly!

Pls don't tell me what you think I say. Just copy/paste what I say.

 

[Heiwa]

So what you're saying is that because your target audience can't understand your arguments that they should just trust you because they should? I'm sorry, but I'd have to say that implicitly trusting should be reserved for liscensed practicing professional experts. Guys (and girls) that are members of ASCE, have Ph.D's in Civil Engineering, have PE's, SE's, etc. People like Dr. Bazant, or the team at NIST. Actual real experts. Not kooks that just think they are and have no qualifications.

It's sort of like being an expert witness at a trial. You need to actually be an expert for just your word to mean something.

Have you got your tilted square between the parallell lines yet?

And I do not say wht you suggest. Can't you read?

And pls - use proper language.

BTW - what's wrong with my qualifications? My university is rated pretty good in various rankings, etc, etc. Pls, do not invent things.

 

[Mashuna]

You evidently simply have to trust me and my good intentions. I have a quite good reputation, you know, and no reason to mislead the public or children.
But as I always say, copy/paste any quotes by me in the articles and point out what you consider is wrong and I will clarify or even correct, if necessary.

You're a random guy on the internet, with experience in a non-related field telling me that all the experts who've looked that WTC 1 and 2 are wrong. Your answer to this is that I should just trust you.

Several kind persons have pointed out (minor) errors in my articles of various kind, which have been corrected. Continuous peer review, you know. But there are no serious technical errors! Reason - all what I say is based on basic, accepted engineering knowledge. No inventions, no NWO physics.

If you submit an article to a journal, it receives formal peer review. People pointing out errors on a website is not peer review (well, depending who you want to count as your peers, that is). I can believe that you're using basic accepted engineering knowledge. What I don't know is if you're using it in an appropriate manner in the right situation.

 

[Mashuna]

Sorry - correct snip is:

Assuming in A) that the two parts act as springs (disregarding local failures), the upper block would just bounce as described in one of my other articles (http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm ). No global collapse would ensue! This article is a follow-up of this conclusion.
I am evidently not basing the entire (new) article on that premise - two parts act as springs (disregarding local failures). It was just an example in the first article how to look at things (and later discarded).
In the latest article the two parts suffer local failures immediately and do not act as springs.

It seems that you cannot copy/paste correctly!

Pls don't tell me what you think I say. Just copy/paste what I say.

Fair enough. I'll point out where my confusion came from then.

You start by saying that the upper part would bounce (as per your previous paper). You then say that no global collapse would ensue. I presumed that these two statements were linked - you're saying that there would be no global collapse because the two parts of the tower would act as springs. Then you say that 'this article is a follow-up of this conclusion.'

Can you see why I thought this article was based on your statement that the two parts would bounce?

 

[GlennB]

Protocols, photos, witness statements of a little experiment for children (under parents' supervision)???

So would it be fair to say that you have never actually conducted this experiment yourself? Physically, that is? In real life with real steel and real welding gear and real diesel ignited with real petrol?

Heiwa - I put it to you that you have never actually conducted this experiment. How do you plead?