WTC 1 & 2. What happened after collapse initiation?

[Heiwa]

You could do a much simpler and fun experiment with the kids.

Suspend a heavy book halfway down a string.
Pull down fast and see the string break below the book.
Pull slowly and see it break above the book.

It is an excelent demonstration of inertia, and the first thing I throught off when I saw the towers break up in the damaged section and not from the bottom where the weightload was greater.

Is it? To me it is a good demonstration of controlled demolition. Pull down (fast) as Silverstein said (and let inertia do the rest).

But my articles and the proposed test is not about CD. I just show that the upper block could never drop due to local failures due to heat, but assuming the failures occured and there was a displacement downwards and further local failures due to repositioned loads on the structure (this assumption is necessary to explain what happens then i.e.), the latter would be arrested by friction after a while.

You know, there are many events after initiation and before, e.g. global collapse.

Assuming initiation means local failures due heat we must first establish what happens then!

The first thing is some sort of displacement;

(i) free fall vertical drop of complete upper block due to simultaneous sudden failures, (ii) tilting of upper block due failures (sudden or slow) on one side only and downward displacement of one side only as a result, rotation of upper block ... and intact walls on the other side, (iii) gradual displacement downwards of upper block or something else. Take your pick!

Thus, the first thing that happens after initiation does not cause any damage to the structure below.

It is hard to believe that no structure below is damaged just after initiation, but such is life. Full of surprises/

What happens next?

Contact! The upper block contacts the structure below! Again many possibilites.

(A) sudden impact due (i) of all upper columns against all lower columns, (B) sudden impact due (i) of all upper columns and top floor of structure below and air outside the structure below, i.e. you miss the columns, (C) sudden impact due (ii) of upper columns on one side and the top floor of lower structure, (D) upper columns come in contact with top floor of lower structure due to (iii), etc, etc.

Note that the structure below is still undamaged!!

So what happened after collapse initiation? (It is the topic we discuss!)

First there was downward displacement and no damages of structure below. What kind of downward displacement? (i), (ii) or (iii) or something else? Just look at the videos! Can you see any downward displacement? It would take at least 0.8 seconds! I can't.

Then there is contact and no damages of structure below. What kind of contact? (A), (B), (C) or (D) or something else? Just look at the videos. Can you see the contact? I cant'.

Actually, what I see is the upper block being destroyed before any downward displacement and contact (and damages of structure below).

So what happened after collapse initiation? It is a clever question as it assumes collapse initiation actually took place.

My answer is thus that the upper block was destroyed first ... and it could evidently not be done by gravity. It was pulled.

And then the structure below seems to be pulled.

 

[Heiwa]

According to this, you recommend standing close to an inferno of burning rags, paper + diesel - running at some 500°C - wielding "a thermometer" at arm's length ???

Heiwa, have you ever performed the experiment yourself?
Yes or no.

The skirt of plywood would shield the burning inferno of rags, etc. inside like a stove. It is thus quite safe. The thermometer evidently has its read-out positioned outside the skirt.
You are assumed not to witness the test from inside the skirt and below the tank for obvious reasons.
Good luck with the test. Pls send photos, etc.

 

[Heiwa]

And Heiwa, while you are at it, how about answering my previous questions:



and

Plenty of people use my observations at talks and in papers. Just attend the talks or read the papers!

Re people assisting me they are also plenty (all via e-mail) but it is private info.

Don't worry about all that. Focus on what I say about collapse arrest and why NIST and Bazant are wrong!

 

[GlennB]

The skirt of plywood would shield the burning inferno of rags, etc. inside like a stove. It is thus quite safe. The thermometer evidently has its read-out positioned outside the skirt.
You are assumed not to witness the test from inside the skirt and below the tank for obvious reasons.
Good luck with the test. Pls send photos, etc.

Nice to see that you have amended your website to incorporate safety recommendations made here. You are even suggesting inviting the local fire brigade! Naturally they would demand that you stop such insanity and would quite probably take legal action against you.

Heiwa - have you ever performed this experiment yourself?

 

[JihadJane]

@ van_dutch

Thanks for tips.

My HTML is off and unresponsive. I'll explore it all later.

Only dial-up where I am! Can't watch videos.

 

[Panoply_Prefect]

Plenty of people use my observations at talks and in papers. Just attend the talks or read the papers!

Re people assisting me they are also plenty (all via e-mail) but it is private info.

Don't worry about all that. Focus on what I say about collapse arrest and why NIST and Bazant are wrong!

Feel free to point me toward these papers that actually use your observations.

Secondly, if professional engineers have in any way contributed with your papers, I see no reason as to why you wouldn't let us know who they were. Im not asking you to divulge private correspondance, but both these quotes from you were made to increase the credibility of your paper, thus it is only fair you provide sources.

Respectfully,

PP.

 

[Toke]

If I drop the top thirty floors on the bottom eighty from a height of two miles, THEY ESTABLISH A "NEW EQUILIBRIUM," RIGHT??????

I just got to post 166#
Sorry about the inertia experiment Heiwa, you are confused enough as it is.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

A. They are steel structures where the primary loads are carried by primary members.

• Construction methods are applied totally different however. How the structural members carry loads and what they are designed to resist are some of the biggest differences in how the two are built.
  
  Ships are not built the same as buildings, and especially dissimilar to the twin towers as show by a generic diagram of typical hull construction.
  
  Your definition of similarity between ships and buildings is very general and insufficient to justify comparing the two as apples vs apples.

B. Momentum and energy are transmitted. Upper blocks are driven by gravity, ships are driven by thrust of a propeller.

• Momentum is defined by multiplying the mass of the object or assembly times the velocity at which the said object is traveling. Gravity offers acceleration to the mass meaning that the velocity is dynamic and increases with time.
  
• Your ships may be moving at a constant velocity, but the question is how fast is it accelerating? I can drive my car at 60 meters per second and have a net velocity of zero. The momentum in such a case neither increases nor decrease as momentum remains constant. What happens when ships collide when they have a net acceleration of zero?

C. Correct - but the acceleration took place prior to the collision. We are looking at what happens afterwards. And we start with the instance of contact where only mass and velocity count.

• Quite simply then it comes down to whether or not the floor as a whole can withstand the dynamic loads applied to it. Some acceleration and velocity is lost with the impact of each floor, but if the floor offers little resistance then the mass plus the added floor accelerates further introducing a net gain.

After arrest evidently all the load from above pass through the locally failed parts (floors) and contact points of entangled floors (the arrest zone) and will be transmitted to the intact columns below as before initiation. Evidently there will be lateral forces applied on the columns in the arrest zone, but these columns are not subject to compression any more. I assume the lateral forces will be resisted by the spandrels.

• I'm still not sure why you continue with this claim. This assumes just as well that the boundaries defining the damage zones would not fail before the building follows your model. I'm happy you've now begun to consider the other factors but it doesn't seem that the vertical loads played any role in whether or not lateral shear could cause connection failures.
  
  The planes certainly penetrated the exterior columns with no trouble despite bearing a full building load above.

A complete structural damage analysis will confirm this.[/b]

• NIST NCSTAR 1-3c has already performed the required failure analysis for recovered columns both within, above, and below the impact region. If you have any objections to their analysis please feel free to address them here.

G. As shown in my article there is no pancaking structure. Only partially failed floors in the arrest zone; the floors are damaged by the columns, but still held at one edge like a hinge. Air jets are not possible. Actually, the local failures I expect would not produce any rubble at all.

• The following supports a pancake progression collapse: Link 1 -- Link 2 -- Link 3
  
• Did the towers undergo a pancake initiation? Not according the NIST. Collapse progression is an entirely different story and is supported by videos and footage taken that day.
  
• The floors in the initiation zone are loaded with the weight of between 29 (south tower) and 12 (north tower) all at once. They are not simply being 'cut' by the columns in the upper & lower section. The connections would not act as 'hinges', these floors were applied directly to the core. If they rotated at these connection points (vertically as your model posits), the connections would break regardless.
  
• air jets were observed during collapse, That is unless you would prefer to go back to my earlier question:
  
  "unless you plan on arguing that the explosives were not only to weak to cause the exterior structure to 'explode outward', and so strong that they were capable of it later in the collapse..."
  
  It would seem to be a paradox...
  
• Your rubble claim is immediately falsified by the very fact that the planes impacted the structure incurring severe impact damage to floor slabs and trusses alike. Concrete is also subject to spalling in fire induced heat. This is infact what you see in the earliest stages of collapse initiation.

 

[pomeroo]

Thanks for your concern and info about your lack of welding knowledge, etc. Yes, the design, incl. cross bracing, is slendered down to minimum but you need not worry about wind, etc. And there are no sloping surfaces. The first test is actually when you fill upp the tank with water to compress the table legs (columns), but it is a strength and pressure test of the structure and the tank. Nothing to laugh about. Without it, you cannot proceed. Try it!

PS The thermometer was incl. in misc. in the budget.

Re the NIST report and the Bazant paper it seems we can condemn those to obloquy! Everyone agrees?

Regarding the Bazant paper and the NIST Report, you are a spectacular incompetent who hasn't learned a thing after being repeatedly corrected by people who know vastly more than you do.

 

[pomeroo]

Plenty of people use my observations at talks and in papers. Just attend the talks or read the papers!

Re people assisting me they are also plenty (all via e-mail) but it is private info.

Don't worry about all that. Focus on what I say about collapse arrest and why NIST and Bazant are wrong!

By all means tell us who agreed with your insane blunder about the top third of a building falling two miles on top of the bottom two-thirds without destroying the whole structure. Please give us a name!

 

[funk de fino]

Is it? To me it is a good demonstration of controlled demolition. Pull down (fast) as Silverstein said (and let inertia do the rest).

Not only are you incompetant you are a particularly vile little liar. I hope this is not passed onto your grandchildren. You should be ashamed.

 

[pomeroo]

• Construction methods are applied totally different however. How the structural members carry loads and what they are designed to resist are some of the biggest differences in how the two are built.
  
  Ships are not built the same as buildings, and especially dissimilar to the twin towers as show by a generic diagram of typical hull construction.
  
  Your definition of similarity between ships and buildings is very general and insufficient to justify comparing the two as apples vs apples.

• Momentum is defined by multiplying the mass of the object or assembly times the velocity at which the said object is traveling. Gravity offers acceleration to the mass meaning that the velocity is dynamic and increases with time.
  
• Your ships may be moving at a constant velocity, but the question is how fast is it accelerating? I can drive my car at 60 meters per second and have a net velocity of zero. The momentum in such a case neither increases nor decrease as momentum remains constant. What happens when ships collide when they have a net acceleration of zero?

• Quite simply then it comes down to whether or not the floor as a whole can withstand the dynamic loads applied to it. Some acceleration and velocity is lost with the impact of each floor, but if the floor offers little resistance then the mass plus the added floor accelerates further introducing a net gain.

• I'm still not sure why you continue with this claim. This assumes just as well that the boundaries defining the damage zones would not fail before the building follows your model. I'm happy you've now begun to consider the other factors but it doesn't seem that the vertical loads played any role in whether or not lateral shear could cause connection failures.
  
  The planes certainly penetrated the exterior columns with no trouble despite bearing a full building load above.

• NIST NCSTAR 1-3c has already performed the required failure analysis for recovered columns both within, above, and below the impact region. If you have any objections to their analysis please feel free to address them here.

• The following supports a pancake progression collapse: Link 1 -- Link 2 -- Link 3
  
• Did the towers undergo a pancake initiation? Not according the NIST. Collapse progression is an entirely different story and is supported by videos and footage taken that day.
  
• The floors in the initiation zone are loaded with the weight of between 29 (south tower) and 12 (north tower) all at once. They are not simply being 'cut' by the columns in the upper & lower section. The connections would not act as 'hinges', these floors were applied directly to the core. If they rotated at these connection points (vertically as your model posits), the connections would break regardless.
  
• air jets were observed during collapse, That is unless you would prefer to go back to my earlier question:
  
  "unless you plan on arguing that the explosives were not only to weak to cause the exterior structure to 'explode outward', and so strong that they were capable of it later in the collapse..."
  
  It would seem to be a paradox...
  
• Your rubble claim is immediately falsified by the very fact that the planes impacted the structure incurring severe impact damage to floor slabs and trusses alike. Concrete is also subject to spalling in fire induced heat. This is infact what you see in the earliest stages of collapse initiation.

Happy Birthday, Grizzly Bear!

 

[pomeroo]

Is it? To me it is a good demonstration of controlled demolition. Pull down (fast) as Silverstein said (and let inertia do the rest).

But my articles and the proposed test is not about CD. I just show that the upper block could never drop due to local failures due to heat, but assuming the failures occured and there was a displacement downwards and further local failures due to repositioned loads on the structure (this assumption is necessary to explain what happens then i.e.), the latter would be arrested by friction after a while.

You know, there are many events after initiation and before, e.g. global collapse.

Assuming initiation means local failures due heat we must first establish what happens then!

The first thing is some sort of displacement;

(i) free fall vertical drop of complete upper block due to simultaneous sudden failures, (ii) tilting of upper block due failures (sudden or slow) on one side only and downward displacement of one side only as a result, rotation of upper block ... and intact walls on the other side, (iii) gradual displacement downwards of upper block or something else. Take your pick!

Thus, the first thing that happens after initiation does not cause any damage to the structure below.

It is hard to believe that no structure below is damaged just after initiation, but such is life. Full of surprises/

What happens next?

Contact! The upper block contacts the structure below! Again many possibilites.

(A) sudden impact due (i) of all upper columns against all lower columns, (B) sudden impact due (i) of all upper columns and top floor of structure below and air outside the structure below, i.e. you miss the columns, (C) sudden impact due (ii) of upper columns on one side and the top floor of lower structure, (D) upper columns come in contact with top floor of lower structure due to (iii), etc, etc.

Note that the structure below is still undamaged!!

So what happened after collapse initiation? (It is the topic we discuss!)

First there was downward displacement and no damages of structure below. What kind of downward displacement? (i), (ii) or (iii) or something else? Just look at the videos! Can you see any downward displacement? It would take at least 0.8 seconds! I can't.

Then there is contact and no damages of structure below. What kind of contact? (A), (B), (C) or (D) or something else? Just look at the videos. Can you see the contact? I cant'.

Actually, what I see is the upper block being destroyed before any downward displacement and contact (and damages of structure below).

So what happened after collapse initiation? It is a clever question as it assumes collapse initiation actually took place.

My answer is thus that the upper block was destroyed first ... and it could evidently not be done by gravity. It was pulled.

And then the structure below seems to be pulled.

You have been caught lying again. According to every demolition company I've contacted (over two dozen), "pulled" DOES NOT mean "blown up with explosives." In addition to being incompetent and ineducable, you are dishonest.

UPDATE: I see that Funk beat me to it.

 

[Dr Adequate]

My answer is thus that the upper block was destroyed first ... and it could evidently not be done by gravity. It was pulled.

And then the structure below seems to be pulled.

Where were the cables attached?

 

[Heiwa]

Nice to see that you have amended your website to incorporate safety recommendations made here. You are even suggesting inviting the local fire brigade! Naturally they would demand that you stop such insanity and would quite probably take legal action against you.

Why would they do that? It is no more energy released than a friendly BBQ. And nothing really happens. That's the whole objective of the test. Very safe. The NYFB knew that on 9/11. No real risk that the WTCs would collapse due to fires/heat. Just local failures. Small ones.

 

[pomeroo]

Why would they do that? It is no more energy released than a friendly BBQ. And nothing really happens. That's the whole objective of the test. Very safe. The NYFB knew that on 9/11. No real risk that the WTCs would collapse due to fires/heat. Just local failures. Small ones.

Ah, so the FDNY was in on it! Your fellow liars are often reluctant to commit themselves on this necessary component to their fantasy.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Happy Birthday, Grizzly Bear!

Thank you. I'm finally legal age to drink
If you excuse me I need to get myself drunk now

Where were the cables attached?

Local controlled demolitions to pulling, to implosions which are contradicted by the outward spread of debris... it never gets old

 

[WildCat]

Re the NIST report and the Bazant paper it seems we can condemn those to obloquy! Everyone agrees?

See Heiwa refuse to submit his crapola to a engineering journal! Watch him claim the web is better than journals!

 

[JihadJane]

First: the "girders" didn't go in all directions, they spanned between the columns in the two principal orthogonal axes.

Second: The "girders" were obliterated by the collapsing tower. The core remaining columns were all but unbraced, hence elastic buckling.

1) There were also diagonal members.

2) Is this observed fact or speculation?

 

[Newtons Bit]

1) There were also diagonal members.

Only below the 7th floor (if I recall correctly) in the vertical plane, not diagonal between columns.

2) Is this observed fact or speculation?

Observed, duh.