WTC Collapse Simulator - DEMOLITION PROOF.....

[Heiwa]

Drop a pencil - inclined at some angle to the horizontal - onto the edge of your kitchen table. It will be "ejected sideways" with absolutely no energy being "applied horizontally" in any active sense.

A snowplough pushing snow off the road whilst driving straight along the road would be another example.

I think the concept is known as "vectors".

Maybe I misunderstood your dropping an inlined pencil on a kitchen table edge. I thought the pen was parallell to the edge (one pencil end hitting the edge and a little later the rest of the pen contacting the edge) but maybe you meant it was perpendicular to it = one piece of the pen being outside the edge, the other inside on top of the table?

Well - certainly that part on the outside does not contact anything when it drops by the edge.

But some part of the pen will contact the edge - and if the pen is soft and the edge is strong (and friction is great), the pen breaks into two - it fractures! The upper pen part drops on the table and the lower pen part continues straight down.

No sideways ejection as far as I can see.

OK, let's assume that the pen is not so soft that it fractures but is elastic and just deforms like a spring at contact. Evidently the spring is compressed at contact and a little later decrompressed and bounces. As the spring is inclined the compression is both horizontal and vertical and the horizontal decompression pushes the pen outwards. Has nothing to do with gravity, though.

Any more questions about gravity?

 

[Lennart Hyland]

Well in fantasy world three strong steel structures (office towers) suddenly collapsed due to gravity only after being initiated by fire, which has never happened before and will never happen again. Luckily. So welcome to the real world. Admission is free. Tough times are comig up fast though, so be prepared. Soon many office towers will be empty as companies cannot afford to rent offices there and there will be no power to run the elevators and nobody wants to scale 50 floors in a stair case to go to the office. So what to do? Just start a fire up top and the whole tower collapses? Sorry, it does not work. But you can always try.

Did you miss the plane?

And please dont start to compare different buildings with the WTC. NO other tower in the whole world was designed as WTC. NO other tower in the whole world has been struck by a Boeing 767 and exposed to extreme fire.

 

[rwguinn]

once again, the trolls reveal themselves to be one-trick ponies.
Goe awaie, lest the billy goats find thee!

 

[Thunder]

Well in fantasy world three strong steel structures (office towers) suddenly collapsed due to gravity only after being initiated by fire, which has never happened before and will never happen again. .

i have a question for you and i would like an honest answer. why did you fail to mention the impact and damage caused by the plane? was it just a forgetful moment or are you actually trying to make it appear that only fire caused the towers to come down?

cant you argue your views without ignoring such incredibly important facts?

 

[Toke]

In heiwas world it makes no difference if the upper part of the towers drop 3.7m or two miles before hitting.
In that context the damage from the planes is insignificant

 

[Thunder]

do any truthers understand that if the top 40 floors fell, all together, 2 floors, that the floor that was impacted by the above floors was not built to handle such a load?

it was built to handle a static load....not 40 floors moving downwards. but we all know this.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

In heiwas world it makes no difference if the upper part of the towers drop 3.7m or two miles before hitting.
In that context the damage from the planes is insignificant

Better yet if one floor could withstand the impact of 15-30 floors as Heiwa suggests, then how does Heiwa explain the planes plowing through them? Somehow Heiwa's claims remind me of the nutters that claim the planes should have bounced off the facade of the building on impact

 

[Thunder]

if one floor of the wtc can withstand the force of impact of 40 floors falling 2 levels...then i will become a no-planer. causes there is NO WAY the wtc would be hurt by a plane.

 

[Heiwa]

i have a question for you and i would like an honest answer. why did you fail to mention the impact and damage caused by the plane? was it just a forgetful moment or are you actually trying to make it appear that only fire caused the towers to come down?

cant you argue your views without ignoring such incredibly important facts?

Evidently the WTC1 structure was also locally damaged when the fire started an hour earlier, but the structure did not collapse due to that. Later you could see two persons waving from the big hole in the wall, etc. You can see cut off wall columns, etc. All that is mentioned in my first paper at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm . There were just local failures of some structural parts and due to redundancy they were not serious. Topic is what happened later.

We are then told that the fire (in severel locations up top) weakened the remaining columns and that suddenly they all failed, virtually simultaneously.

This we do not see on any videos, but if it happened, the upper part above would of course displace downwards and contact the lower structure.

What I see on all the videos is that the upper part is destroyed - it implodes - before anything happens to the lower structure. The upper part is 95% air, so there is plenty of empty space for the solid structure to implode into.

But assuming that the upper part did not implode but displaced downwards, the failed columns in the fire zone would act as an effective damper; they bend due to heat, then plastic hinges develop and finally fractures develop while the columns crumble in the fire zone. It is like when two cars (or ships) collide.

Of course potential energy is released (vertically - gravity you know) but in my view all that energy would be absorbed by the lower structure acting as a spring or mattress. The upper part would only bounce against the lower structure while the lower structure deforms like a mattress!! There would have been further local failures due to this bounce - weak parts would fail in both upper part and lower structure at the contact points - but the primary structure would not. So I would expect the upper part to remain up top after this short drop - if it took place. All due to gravity.

That the drop was going to initiate a global collapse of 95 floors below is actually nonsense. The Bazant paper proves it. Bazant assumes that the upper part is rigid, super solid, with a superstrong bottom floor that crushes the 95 floors below that are weak and flexible. The ground is also rigid, superstrong. But the upper part is neither rigid nor supersolid and it has no superstrong bottom. It is all fantasy. It was as weak and flexible as the lower structure. Like a bale of cotton, actually! And you do not collapse a bale of cotton by dropping another bale of cotton on it.

I have actually seen plenty structural damages due to more solid loads being dropped on or pushed into structures. Marble blocks dropping from cranes into ship holds, whole cranes dropping down, ships having collided, etc. No global collapses follow. Just local failures.

Of course ignorant people believe steel tower structures collapse when something is dropped on them, but luckily that is not the case. This is the message in my papers. An honest effort to clarify matters.

 

[Lennart Hyland]

Evidently the WTC1 structure was also locally damaged when the fire started an hour earlier, but the structure did not collapse due to that. Later you could see two persons waving from the big hole in the wall, etc. You can see cut off wall columns, etc. All that is mentioned in my first paper at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm . There were just local failures of some structural parts and due to redundancy they were not serious. Topic is what happened later.

We are then told that the fire (in severel locations up top) weakened the remaining columns and that suddenly they all failed, virtually simultaneously.

This we do not see on any videos, but if it happened, the upper part above would of course displace downwards and contact the lower structure.

What I see on all the videos is that the upper part is destroyed - it implodes - before anything happens to the lower structure. The upper part is 95% air, so there is plenty of empty space for the solid structure to implode into.

But assuming that the upper part did not implode but displaced downwards, the failed columns in the fire zone would act as an effective damper; they bend due to heat, then plastic hinges develop and finally fractures develop while the columns crumble in the fire zone. It is like when two cars (or ships) collide.

Of course potential energy is released (vertically - gravity you know) but in my view all that energy would be absorbed by the lower structure acting as a spring or mattress. The upper part would only bounce against the lower structure while the lower structure deforms like a mattress!! There would have been further local failures due to this bounce - weak parts would fail in both upper part and lower structure at the contact points - but the primary structure would not. So I would expect the upper part to remain up top after this short drop - if it took place. All due to gravity.

That the drop was going to initiate a global collapse of 95 floors below is actually nonsense. The Bazant paper proves it. Bazant assumes that the upper part is rigid, super solid, with a superstrong bottom floor that crushes the 95 floors below that are weak and flexible. The ground is also rigid, superstrong. But the upper part is neither rigid nor supersolid and it has no superstrong bottom. It is all fantasy. It was as weak and flexible as the lower structure. Like a bale of cotton, actually! And you do not collapse a bale of cotton by dropping another bale of cotton on it.

I have actually seen plenty structural damages due to more solid loads being dropped on or pushed into structures. Marble blocks dropping from cranes into ship holds, whole cranes dropping down, ships having collided, etc. No global collapses follow. Just local failures.

Of course ignorant people believe steel tower structures collapse when something is dropped on them, but luckily that is not the case. This is the message in my papers. An honest effort to clarify matters.

You cant compare ships to a building like the WTC. To bad you will never understand this.

As I understand (I'm no engineer) when structural parts such as columns gets destroyed their load that they were carrying gets transformed over to other columns. Sometimes that can get some nasty results as the new load to the other columns arent always even spread out.

I dont understand your point about all columns virtually simultaneously fail. Why cant some columns fail making it alot harder for the other columns to bear the weight (as I explained)? That doenst happen simultaneously.

Show me one single video where the upper block implodes and destroys itself.

Show me your calculations for that assumption and your energy calculations too.

You claiming to be an engineer but since day one on this forum you havent showed us, not a single one, evidence that support your ideas. Calculations, photos or well documented experiments isnt your thing right?

Your opponents on the other hand has done great in documenting their expriments, photos and calculations proving their theory. Its called the NIST report.

 

[tanabear]

I dont understand your point about all columns virtually simultaneously fail. Why cant some columns fail making it alot harder for the other columns to bear the weight (as I explained)? That doenst happen simultaneously.

If the columns don't almost all fail simultaneously, then how can you get a 3.7 meter free-fall or near free fall of the upper block onto the lower block?

Show me one single video where the upper block implodes and destroys itself.

Point to the upper block in this picture:

Your opponents on the other hand has done great in documenting their expriments, photos and calculations proving their theory. Its called the NIST report.

NIST really hasn't proved anything in regards to the dynamics of the collapse. Their report is primarily a pre-collapse analysis. Please, show me the experiment NIST did that proved Bazant's "crush-down/crush-up" hypothesis.

 

[Lennart Hyland]

If the columns don't almost all fail simultaneously, then how can you get a 3.7 meter free-fall or near free fall of the upper block onto the lower block?

No idea. Sorry I'm no engineer.

EDIT: Oh near free-fall I forgot about that. Well then probably did the columns fail almost simultaneously.

Point to the upper block in this picture:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_21186488fb64299d01.jpg[/qimg]

The point Heiwa makes is that the upper block destroys itself before making damage to the lower tower.

Which clearly isnt the case:
http://www.waarheid911.nl/wtc2collapse.jpg

NIST really hasn't proved anything in regards to the dynamics of the collapse. Their report is primarily a pre-collapse analysis. Please, show me the experiment NIST did that proved Bazant's "crush-down/crush-up" hypothesis.

Well you are certainly right on that. I just wanted to make clear that why the WTC collapses are well documented and proven in their report.

 

[Mangoose]

He takes no account of the concrete in the core.

What concrete core?

 

[Toke]

Heiwas model of physics have friction and opposing force arrest a drop wether it is one floor or two miles.
I find that somewhat suspect.

 

[beachnut]

Already done! Debunked Bazant & Greening 150%. But you remind me - time for lunch. No pizza today.

[truther math; caution-warning – using truther math can cause damage to equipment and personnel]
Debunked 150 percent. ???
[/truther math]

Got physics?

 

[Baylor]

If the columns don't almost all fail simultaneously, then how can you get a 3.7 meter free-fall or near free fall of the upper block onto the lower block?

This has already been explained to you.

 

[PixyMisa]

The resulting force vector was horizontal = no gravity. I (or something) applied the force.

What was the vector of the force you applied?

It is amazing that some 911-liers suggest that gravity force vector works horizontally and pushes the walls of WTC1 sideways outwards 100+ meters!!

A vertical force vector can result in horizontal movement. Every person on the planet sees this in action ever day.

Except you.

That only happens in fantasy world.

Try again.

What are the force vectors involved?

In the real world gravity acts only vertically.

The force of gravity is vertical. A vertical force can and very often does result in horizontal motion.

Even Bazant agrees with that, but his world is just 1-D - a line down - crush down - and up - crush up.

A lie.

Nothing is ejected sideways. Actually Bazant suggests that the upper part and the ground are suddenly rigid and that the WTC1 structure between is just squeeezed like an almond that does not slip away (not possible in 1-D) but is chrushed down.

A lie.

By gravity alone. And when this crush down is terminated, the rigid ground rubble heap crush up the rigid upper part - by gravity.

A lie.

We are back into fantasyland.

One of us is, yes.

Or did the WTC1 walls bounce on something - a slooping kitchen table?

Drop a pencil on a perfectly flat kitchen table. When it hits the table, it will move sideways. 100% of the time. It is not possible for you not to have observed this.

and was ejected sideways. Or was it another force pushing sideways?

You tell me. You're an engineer or something. What are the force vectors involved?

 

[PixyMisa]

Maybe I misunderstood your dropping an inlined pencil on a kitchen table edge. I thought the pen was parallell to the edge (one pencil end hitting the edge and a little later the rest of the pen contacting the edge) but maybe you meant it was perpendicular to it = one piece of the pen being outside the edge, the other inside on top of the table?

The latter is correct.

Well - certainly that part on the outside does not contact anything when it drops by the edge.

Correct.

But some part of the pen will contact the edge - and if the pen is soft and the edge is strong (and friction is great), the pen breaks into two - it fractures! The upper pen part drops on the table and the lower pen part continues straight down.

No, that won't happen.

No sideways ejection as far as I can see.

You haven't tried it, have you?

OK, let's assume that the pen is not so soft that it fractures but is elastic and just deforms like a spring at contact. Evidently the spring is compressed at contact and a little later decrompressed and bounces. As the spring is inclined the compression is both horizontal and vertical and the horizontal decompression pushes the pen outwards. Has nothing to do with gravity, though.

What are the force vectors involved, Heiwa?

Any more questions about gravity?

Yes. Is there any on the world where you live?

 

[Zipster]

Did Heiwa just claim that if you drop a pencil on the edge of a desk that it will instantly shear apart when it hits?? Is he using candy pencils?

Wow, and it thought the whole bathroom scale fiasco was stupid...

 

[Heiwa]

The force of gravity is vertical. A vertical force can and very often does result in horizontal motion.


Drop a pencil on a perfectly flat kitchen table. When it hits the table, it will move sideways. 100% of the time. It is not possible for you not to have observed this.


You tell me. You're an engineer or something. What are the force vectors involved?

I have just dropped a pencil on a perfectly flat kitchen table. The pencil, also horizontal, every time, bounces straight up. And it is not due to gravity! Gravity is a force acting vertically down - all the time.

A vertical force F down always produces vertical motion down. If the motion is in another direction, up or sideways, it is due to another force.

So if you think that big chunks of WTC1 walls are ejected horizontally out by gravity, you are simply wrong.