WTC 1 & 2. What happened after collapse initiation?

TheRedWorm said:
Ron asked what would happen to the lower 2/3rds of the building after being struck by the upper 1/3rd of said building being dropped from a height of 2 miles. Care to answer that?
Click to expand...

ok ill answer that stupid question.
it will brake....
 
The entire structure? Yes, it would. And I do realize that it is a stupid question, as of course it would be destroyed. Now Heiwa seems to think that an equilibrium would be established, and the lower 2/3rds would...hell, I don't know, just suddenly stop all downward movement of the upper 1/3rd without much damage. Do you see the intellectual dishonesty, and outright absurd statements that promoters of the truth are reduced to?
 
Last edited:
phunk said:
You actually think those truss seats would hold up to being used as hinges?
Click to expand...

Yes. A truss has two seats, one at each end. If you damage one seat, the truss hinges down around the other seat. If you cut the truss in the middle, it hinges down around both seats. It is not possible that both seats fail ... simultaneously. In my popular articles about structural damage analysis, i.e. what happens after initiation, I recommend to analyse all possibilites in a step-by-step logical fashion. My conclusion is that the destruction would be arrested soon after initiation ... due to friction between locally failed parts, mostly floors rubbing against one another due to gravity.
 
Last edited:
Heiwa, you keep going on and on about this friction. Please show a calculation for how large the friction force is including all of your assumptions. Then, please show how much energy that dissipated and how much energy the falling debris had. If these calculations are already contained in the paper, please just copy the relevant sections of text and paste them into a post. You keep going back to how friction would arrest the collapse and I would like to know how you are getting this. Thanks in advance.
 
Jonnyclueless said:
Blown to bits? You mean by the thermite?
Click to expand...


I dont know the reason, i just know it was blown to bits, my eyesight is quite good, and fortunately that is all thats required to come to the conclusion i did.

We can debate the reason it was blown to bits, but not the fact it was.
 
roundhead said:
I dont know the reason, i just know it was blown to bits, my eyesight is quite good, and fortunately that is all thats required to come to the conclusion i did.

We can debate the reason it was blown to bits, but not the fact it was.
Click to expand...

*giggle*
 
Heiwa said:
Yes. A truss has two seats, one at each end. If you damage one seat, the truss hinges down around the other seat. If you cut the truss in the middle, it hinges down around both hinges. It is not possible that both seats fail ... simultaneously. In my popular articles about structural damage analysis, i.e. what happens after initiation, I recommend to analyse all possibilites in a step-by-step logical fashion. My conclusion is that the destruction would be arrested soon after initiation ... due to friction between locally failed parts, mostly floors rubbing against one another due to gravity.
Click to expand...

I think your experience with friction is limited to your hand rubbing another body part.
 
TheRedWorm said:
The entire structure? Yes, it would. And I do realize that it is a stupid question, as of course it would be destroyed. Now Heiwa seems to think that an equilibrium would be established, and the lower 2/3rds would...hell, I don't know, just suddenly stop all downward movement of the upper 1/3rd without much damage. Do you see the intellectual dishonesty, and outright absurd statements that promoters of the truth are reduced to?
Click to expand...

Seems? Evidently when two bodies (structures) A and B come in contact, the force F of body A on the other body B, produces an opposite reaction force, Fo of body B on body A. Google on Isaac Newton for more info. F = Fo = equilibrium.
Depending on the properties of A and B, F may damage or deform B or Fo may damage or deform A. There are plenty of possibilities but quite easy to analyse what happens after this initiation contact.

After each damage or deformation of A or B you have to redo the analysis, step by step, to see what happens then with the forces involved. Luckily there is always equilibrium to simplify the analysis. Normally some of the new forces that develop after initiation contact produce friction forces, so you have to include those in a complete analysis.

NIST and Bazant suggest without any evidence that A destroys B. NIST suggests that B lacks strain energy to absorb the energy transmitted by A to B without any calculations to back up the suggestion. Bazant suggests that A crushes down B, while A remain intact. Neither has heard about friction!

It seems neither NIST nor Bazant has any knowledge of structural damage analysis (like many participants on this thread). Reason is that very few universities teach the subject. Bazant has written 400+ scientific papers but none about structural damage analysis. He has still a lot to learn.

I on the other hand that have investigated and analysed 100's of steel structural damages due to contacts (ship collisions - also groundings and ships colliding with quays and fixed objects) have some experience. Structural damages occur every day so it is not a new phenomenom! On the contrary.

Some 13 (?) years ago some Japanese made a complete damage analysis of a serious contact A against B using Finite Element Models + plenty of computer capacity. The destructions followed the A+B contact would in reality take 5 seconds, but the analysis split this events in 5000+ sub-events (how the further damages developed and were arrested) and it took the computers three weeks to do the full analysis.

When the analysis was done they actually arranged a real A + B contact and found good agreement between theoretical analysis and the real thing.

Interesting stuff. I wrote a positive review about that project in a serious English engineering monthly journal published by the Royal Institute of Naval Architects in London.
 
Last edited:
Heiwa said:
giberish
Click to expand...

Says the guy that thinks you could drop 1/3 of the the WTC from a height of two miles on the other 2/3 without the whole thing being completely destroyed.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and are fooling nobody.
 
Dictator Cheney said:
what is dishonest about it? did i get the direction wrong? or will it not fall down?
Click to expand...


Your repeated misinterpretation of the question. Either it's deliberate, or you are having serious trouble comprehewnding the question (language issues)? Given your posting here in English, I'd rule out the latter.

Frankly, I don't much care whether you answer the question or not (you did, and kudos to you for that), as the question was originally directed at Heiwa, in order to demonstrate the absurdity of one of his claims.

But dancing around it while pretending to answer it is just pointless.
 
Heiwa said:
Seems? Evidently when two bodies (structures) A and B come in contact, the force F of body A on the other body B, produces an opposite reaction force, Fo of body B on body A.
Click to expand...
And where does gravity enter into this equation? :rolleyes:
 
Heiwa said:
Seems? Evidently when two bodies (structures) A and B come in contact, the force F of body A on the other body B, produces an opposite reaction force, Fo of body B on body A. Google on Isaac Newton for more info. F = Fo = equilibrium.
Depending on the properties of A and B, F may damage or deform B or Fo may damage or deform A. There are plenty of possibilities but quite easy to analyse what happens after this initiation contact.

After each damage or deformation of A or B you have to redo the analysis, step by step, to see what happens then with the forces involved. Luckily there is always equilibrium to simplify the analysis. Normally some of the new forces that develop after initiation contact produce friction forces, so you have to include those in a complete analysis.

NIST and Bazant suggest without any evidence that A destroys B. NIST suggests that B lacks strain energy to absorb the energy transmitted by A to B without any calculations to back up the suggestion. Bazant suggests that A crushes down B, while A remain intact. Neither has heard about friction!

It seems neither NIST nor Bazant has any knowledge of structural damage analysis (like many participants on this thread). Reason is that very few universities teach the subject. Bazant has written 400+ scientific papers but none about structural damage analysis. He has still a lot to learn.

I on the other hand that have investigated and analysed 100's of steel structural damages due to contacts (ship collisions - also groundings and ships colliding with quays and fixed objects) have some experience. Structural damages occur every day so it is not a new phenomenom! On the contrary.

Some 13 (?) years ago some Japanese made a complete damage analysis of a serious contact A against B using Finite Element Models + plenty of computer capacity. The destructions followed the A+B contact would in reality take 5 seconds, but the analysis split this events in 5000+ sub-events (how the further damages developed and were arrested) and it took the computers three weeks to do the full analysis.

When the analysis was done they actually arranged a real A + B contact and found good agreement between theoretical analysis and the real thing.

Interesting stuff. I wrote a positive review about that project in a serious English engineering monthly journal published by the Royal Institute of Naval Architects in London.
Click to expand...


And you can do calculations to back this...assertion up?
 
Heiwa said:
Seems? Evidently when two bodies (structures) A and B come in contact, the force F of body A on the other body B, produces an opposite reaction force, Fo of body B on body A. Google on Isaac Newton for more info. F = Fo = equilibrium.
Depending on the properties of A and B, F may damage or deform B or Fo may damage or deform A. There are plenty of possibilities but quite easy to analyse what happens after this initiation contact.

After each damage or deformation of A or B you have to redo the analysis, step by step, to see what happens then with the forces involved. Luckily there is always equilibrium to simplify the analysis. Normally some of the new forces that develop after initiation contact produce friction forces, so you have to include those in a complete analysis.

NIST and Bazant suggest without any evidence that A destroys B. NIST suggests that B lacks strain energy to absorb the energy transmitted by A to B without any calculations to back up the suggestion. Bazant suggests that A crushes down B, while A remain intact. Neither has heard about friction!

It seems neither NIST nor Bazant has any knowledge of structural damage analysis (like many participants on this thread). Reason is that very few universities teach the subject. Bazant has written 400+ scientific papers but none about structural damage analysis. He has still a lot to learn.

I on the other hand that have investigated and analysed 100's of steel structural damages due to contacts (ship collisions - also groundings and ships colliding with quays and fixed objects) have some experience. Structural damages occur every day so it is not a new phenomenom! On the contrary.

Some 13 (?) years ago some Japanese made a complete damage analysis of a serious contact A against B using Finite Element Models + plenty of computer capacity. The destructions followed the A+B contact would in reality take 5 seconds, but the analysis split this events in 5000+ sub-events (how the further damages developed and were arrested) and it took the computers three weeks to do the full analysis.

When the analysis was done they actually arranged a real A + B contact and found good agreement between theoretical analysis and the real thing.

Interesting stuff. I wrote a positive review about that project in a serious English engineering monthly journal published by the Royal Institute of Naval Architects in London.
Click to expand...

Buildings don't float. Do you deny this?
 
rwguinn said:
Lets see if he ignores the fact that If (M1*g)>(F(allowable),
F(total)=(M1+M2)*g-F(allowable)
Click to expand...

You know, I was thinking almost the exact same thing, though I'm not sure you need to add M2 in immediately.
 
WildCat said:
And where does gravity enter into this equation? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

As the bodies have masses, they are attracted to each other by gravity according Newton. But there are also other origins of forces!

So when the upper block of WTC1 displaces by gravity and contacts the lower structure other forces develop, e.g. friction. Not too difficult to understand but completely ignored by NIST and Bazant.

Bazant is a really comical figure with his indestructible upper block. According his theory the upper block should continue to the centre of the earth and, after crush down of the structure below, continue making a big hole in the ground, etc, etc.

Somebody should ask Bazant why his upper block suddenly stops at the soft ground at the surface of the earth.
 
Normal forces multiplied by friction coefficient.

Gravity is not necessary. I.E. Disc brakes.
 
Heiwa said:
gibberish
Click to expand...

Says the guy that thinks you could drop 1/3 of the the WTC from a height of two miles on the other 2/3 without the whole thing being completely destroyed.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and are fooling nobody.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom