WTC 1 & 2. What happened after collapse initiation?

[PhantomWolf]

Hmmm, yeah it looks like Heiwa are right, the top part of the building did just blow up before doing any damage to the lower part....

 

[PhantomWolf]

why not show some plans from the core?

Pop quiz for you DC.

1) Was the majority of the mass of the buildings in the hollow cores or in and on the floor sections?

2) Did the majority of the upper section fall on top of the floor pans or onto the top of the relatively thin core columns?

 

[Newtons Bit]

Hmmm, yeah it looks like Heiwa are right, the top part of the building did just blow up before doing any damage to the lower part....

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/1557948ab3c973f95a.jpg[/qimg]

I would like to point out that the above is sarcasm.

 

[scissorhands]

Ive never seen the collapse from that view before, is that a clockwise horizontal twist of the upper block?

 

[DC]

Pop quiz for you DC.

1) Was the majority of the mass of the buildings in the hollow cores or in and on the floor sections?

2) Did the majority of the upper section fall on top of the floor pans or onto the top of the relatively thin core columns?

1. the core was not hollow and the majority of the mass of the buildings was the steel.....

2. another strawman?

 

[scissorhands]

the core was not hollow

Interesting.
How did they manage to fit all those elevators in a solid core?

 

[PhantomWolf]

1. the core was not hollow

If it wasn't hollow exactly how did the lifts manage to work?

and the majority of the mass of the buildings was the steel.....

It was? 1,462,000 tons of debries was removed from the WTC site, 285,000^* tons of that was steel. In what maths is 285,000 the majority of 1,462,000?

2. another strawman?

No a question. Did the majority of the mass fall on the floor pans or on the columns? You ask why I didn't post a picture of the core plan, the answer to the above question is the answer to yours.


*Edited to change the mass of steel, rechecking the source the 165,000 figure was just what went through one landfill.

 

[dtugg]

It was? 1,462,000 tons of debries was removed from the WTC site, 285,000^* tons of that was steel. In what maths is 285,000 the majority of 1,462,000?

Most of the steel was turned to dust via a directed energy weapon beam. Duh!

 

[pomeroo]

What am i missing here,

You are, as always, missing everything, LastChild.

the upper block was literally blown to bits,

A very stupid lie.

and a very good portion of it blown outside the footprint of the PERFECTLY INTACT lower structure of the building.

There was a velvet foot, at best, to stomp on the lower structure of the building.

Yes, we should believe your preposterous fabrications and not those silly videos.

Anybody who looks at that upper section being blown to bits,

You've been caught lying again. No explosives were used anywhere in the WTC complex on the day of the jihadist attacks. Absolutely no evidence exists for your false and thoroughly debunked claim--AS YOU KNOW.

and thinks whats left of it would cause the rest of the building to dissapear should sue the docor who performed they're lobotomy.

I honestly dont see how somebody can defend that story with a straight face.

The rationalists here don't see how an agenda-driven ignoramus can attempt to peddle his infantile falsehoods to people who know vastly more and are much smarter than he.

 

[cmcaulif]

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.

note that bazant does not claim the upper block is indestructable, it merely may be treated as rigid because the the elastic strain in it is so small compared to that in the lower block once floors start piling up

Blocks C and A are, of course, not rigid. Yet, contrary to discussers claim, they may be treated in
calculations as rigid because their elastic deformations are about 1000-times smaller than the defor-
mations at the crushing front.

again, if you want pictures of stacked floors, see the book entitled Aftermath by Joel Meyerowitz.

I already showed why there is less force in the upper block in post 776. If you still don't get it, read up on d'Alembert's principle and inertial reference frames.

Anyway, lets look at the equation that determines the force in the upper block(reference post 776 if you forget what all this means):

Fc' = Fc - M(g -a)
or
Fc' = Fc - DeltaF

as Bazant explains:

When
the compacted zone B hits the ground, vB suddenly drops to zero, the force difference deltaF
disappears, and then the crush-up phase can begin.

 

[pomeroo]

1. the core was not hollow and the majority of the mass of the buildings was the steel.....

Wrong, as usual.

2. another strawman?

Will any of you liars ever look up the term "strawman"?

 

[pomeroo]

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.

Please provide a reference. A hopeless incompetent like yourself has no business attempting to write for a serious journal. We don't believe you published anything of merit.

 

[Toke]

As the bodies have masses, they are attracted to each other by gravity according Newton.

Could this be the core of your problem with gravity driven collapse?

 

[pomeroo]

ok ill answer that stupid question.
it will brake....

The question is far from stupid. It exposes the stupidity and incompetence of the fraud Heiwa.

Your illiteracy lends a certain ambiguity to your response. Do you mean that the lower part gets completely destroyed, as everyone sane understands although your colleague Heiwa does not, or do you mean that magic forces literally "brake" the impact of the top third?

Do you agree that Heiwa's discussion of this thought experiment goes beyond obtuseness and incompetence?

 

[DC]

If it wasn't hollow exactly how did the lifts manage to work?



It was? 1,462,000 tons of debries was removed from the WTC site, 285,000^* tons of that was steel. In what maths is 285,000 the majority of 1,462,000?



No a question. Did the majority of the mass fall on the floor pans or on the columns? You ask why I didn't post a picture of the core plan, the answer to the above question is the answer to yours.


*Edited to change the mass of steel, rechecking the source the 165,000 figure was just what went through one landfill.

ok its not the majority, around 100 000 tons per tower and one tower weighed around 300 000 tons.

not really hollow, isnt it?

 

[scissorhands]

Im not sure that Heiwa has any understanding of gravity at all.

In more than one sense of the word.

Analysis of boat collisions dont work in this scenario.

 

[pomeroo]

I dont know the reason, i just know it was blown to bits, my eyesight is quite good,

Your eyesight may be good, but your ability to reason is extremely poor and your knowledge of demolition is nonexistent. What you profess to "know" is, in fact, completely false. There isn't a shred of evidence for your explosives fantasy. No demolition expert swallows the snake oil peddled by your evil, brain-dead movement.

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.

I'm afraid that rational, intelligent people require much more than your uninformed falsehoods. In reality, we can't debate the reason the Towers were blown to bits because, manifestly, they were NOT blown to bits. They collapsed from the impacts of the planes and the resultant fires.

Your lies have been exposed.

 

[PhantomWolf]

ok its not the majority, around 100 000 tons per tower and one tower weighed around 300 000 tons.
[qimg]http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/sixty-state-street/wtc-core.gif[/qimg]
not really hollow, isnt it?

Looks pretty hollow to me, or are you going to try and convince everyone that it was solid?

 

[scissorhands]

ok its not the majority, around 100 000 tons per tower and one tower weighed around 300 000 tons.
[qimg]http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/sixty-state-street/wtc-core.gif[/qimg]
not really hollow, isnt it?

Not when you show a 2D top down representation of stairwells.
They look really solid dont they?
What happens when you look at them side on?
Do you think they are built as a solid block?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Im not sure that Heiwa has any understanding of gravity at all.

In more than one sense of the word.

Analysis of boat collisions dont work in this scenario.

Well if I follow along what seems to be Heiwa's train of though, if I tip the table I'm sitting at, the gravity and friction between the table top and my conputer should prevent the computer from slidding off and hitting the floor.