DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
I'd say he's trying to gain an insurmountable lead in the 2009 Stundie awards.
Is there any structure on earth which could survive the conditions in WTC 1 & 2?
- Thread starter Troy wins
- Start date
According NIST the Potential Energy, PE, released, when some parts of WTC1/2 buckled, exceeded the Strain Energy, SE, that the remainder of the structure could absorb, thus PE>SE ... and global collapse ensued. NIST's law!
Haven't you read the 10 000's pages NIST report?
Don't look for any values of PE or SE in the NIST report, though! NIST could not calculate them, you see. SE of upper part of WTC1/2 is however infinite, due upper part being rigid (so no need to calculate that). Thus no PE can destroy the upper part except when it collides with ground. Actually a moving structure with infinite SE would produce a big hole but NIST does not consider holes!
Heiwa's law is quite similar, thus PE<SE ! You see the small difference? The difference is that no global collapse will ensue! Values of PE and SE are given in my paper, link given above. My paper is only 10 pages! Children love it.
The upper part of WTC1/2 just bounces! It's like jumping in a bed! Have you tried that?
1337m4n
Alphanumeric Anonymous Stick Man
- Joined
- May 10, 2007
- Messages
- 3,510
You're missing two key words in the OP:
No structure on Earth is perfectly rigid by your definition.
Why not ask NIST those questions? Or their superiors ordering the report! In my view NIST is crazy and pulling your legs.
MarkCorrigan
Героям слава!
What, in your opinion, is a rigid structure?
That is, name one, then explain why it is rigid.
Last edited:
1. A rigid structure cannot be changed.
2. No rigid structures exist.
So why does NIST & Co suggest in their reports and papers that the upper structures of WTC1/2 and particularly the bottom floors of these structures are (assumed to be) rigid?
Answer is that otherwise the upper structures cannot possibly cause any major failures to the structures below or global collapses to ensue.
Quite basic, actually. See how easy it is to debunk NIST & Co. Read http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm for more info.
Last edited:
Are you saying jesuit priests are like cockroaches?
JoeyDonuts
Frequencies Not Known To Normals
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2008
- Messages
- 10,536
I'm not saying Ignatius Loyola was an arthropod, but I'm not ruling it out either.
Can you name a single indestructible object, or thing? Titanic? Are you saying the WTC1 and WTC2 were indestructible and could not fall?
Where is the vacuum weapon for this, and are the kids still jumping on the bed?
by definition? Very good
MarkCorrigan
Героям слава!
If your use of the word rigid, which by the way is incorrect according to...well the English language, is an impossible state, what, for the love of all that exists, is the point of using it?
I could say that a Bajhuga structure can't be damaged or altered in any way. That doesn't mean my definition of Bajhuga actually means anything.
You're either joking or a joke. Either way, I can't be bothered with you anymore.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Well they don't! This is only your interpretation to try to fool those who don't know better. Go back to your Estonia fraud your much better with boats (although no one believes you with that one either).
Last edited:
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
To answer this, I think we need to consider what the various elements leading to the collapse were. First off, recall that even the Twin Towers survived the impacts themselves, so the answer to the first part is yes. The Twin Towers themselves, and presumably a decent number of skyscrapers built to at least the same codes that existed at the time of the WTC construction, could presumably survive the actual impacts of the jets, although it's a legitimate question whether the upper part of the buildings would have to be taken down, or could be repaired as standing. That question is simply far beyond me, and is the province of engineers familiar with tall buildings.
As far as the fires: This is the important part. Recall that the dominant narrative is impact damage plus fires plus vulnerable steel due to fire protection being dislodged by the impact. But also recall that there's a competing narrative saying the fires would've caused the collapse even if the protection was intact. So the answer to this part actually depends on which narrative you accept, NIST's or U of Edinburgh's/Arup's/Quintiere's/etc. Recall that, according to NIST, one of the critical elements leading to the collapse was the susceptibility of the structures in the impact zone to fire due to the dislodging of the fire protectant covering, and the inability of responders to fight the fires due to the severing of water supply pipes to the upper stories. Take away both, and presumably the towers would either have stood longer, or wouldn't have collapsed at all (I leave it to the engineers in this forum to elaborate further on that point). So if you home in on the steel/fire protection issues, consider buildings with different construction, such as ones built primarily from masonry like the Empire State Building, or the Chrysler Building in New York. The steel in those buildings are protected not by dislodgeable SFRM like the Twin Towers were, but by stone-type masonry. From what I understand, that sort of construction would be more robust against fire than the foam-protected steel type construction that was used in the Twin Towers, and might not have lent itself to the types of failures that are attributed to the WTC main towers collapses.
Of course, the devil is in the details; specific damage and fire scenarios lead to different conclusions. But my point is that if you consider that NIST identified the dislodging of the SRFM as an important element, it's logical to presume that a building with different sorts of steel protection would behave far differently, and in some cases might not have collapsed at all. I would be curious to see structural and fire engineers discuss how the Empire State and the Chrysler Buildings would have behaved if hit by the 9/11 flights and have suffered similar fires. I would guess that their performance would be far different, and would even go so far as to say that they probably wouldn't have collapsed at all due to the higher prevalence of masonry and heavier construction overall. But again, I leave that to engineers to pass final judgement on.
But now, if you reject NIST and favor Edinburgh's/Arup's stand, then the question gets messier. Recall that those two groups have said that the thermal distortions leading to structural failure would have happened even with the fireproofing in place. So the obvious question is, what level of steel protection is necessary to prevent such distortion from taking place at all? Answer that, then go look for buildings that meet the description you built from the answer, and you'll know which buildings would have survived such an event from Arup's/Edinburgh's point of view. Would the Empire State and Chrysler Buildings have survived? Under these presumptions, I don't know. Someone else has to tell me how their construction stacks up as far as protecting the steel, and being susceptible to failure modes seen in the Twin Towers collapse. But the point is that looking at things from that point of view changes the answer somewhat.
People have sarcastically noted that the Pyramids would be the only building obviously able to withstand such a collapse, but I've not seen all that much serious discussion on this point. The ultimate question is, which buildings are so overengineered that you can suddenly remove a floor, have the top quarter or so fall on the bottom, and have that bottom portion of the structure survive? I really, honestly have no clue which buildings can withstand that sort of stress. From other responses here, it looks like no skyscraper or even moderately tall office or residential structure can, but honestly, I have no idea how to even begin analyzing which buildings could and which could not survive such a force.
Hm, they do! PE>SE, remember. The PE is supposed to be a rigid mass (e.g. WTC1 upper part) being released and allowed to move due to gravity that destroys everything in its way below ... without being destroyed itself. It is not my interpretation! It is the basic (faulty) assumption of NIST & Co. Without that crazy assumption the upper rigid part cannot produce any global collapse. In the real world the upper part would just bounce up on the top of the structure below!
But let's face it - it was not the loose upper part of WTC1 that produced the destruction seen on 9/11. Do you see any loose, rigid upper part on any videos? I don't.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Still living in la-la land I see. Still trying to destroy matter huh? The mass (PE/KE) remains whether you like it or not. NIST (and the rest of the world) understands this why are you trying to sell it to people that don't (although I know you understand).
Last edited:
Furcifer
Guest
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2007
- Messages
- 13,797
No, never, not now, not then, not in a dream, not for fun, not in approximation,not exactly, not kinda, not with thermite, not without.
No,no,no,no.
Homeland Insurgency
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2008
- Messages
- 1,705
Nothing could have survived. In fact its good thing for the Japanese we were nice and didn't use planes.
Last edited:
It is the structure of the mass representing PE that matters. Examples:
1. Pour 30 000 tons of water (plenty of PE) on WTC1 and WTC1 deflects the water and the PE ends up in the gutters of NYC. Agree? Water is not very rigid!
2. Drop an ice block of 30 000 tons (same amount of PE) on WTC1 and the steel columns of WTC1 will break the ice and the PE ends up as small ice blocks in the streets of NYC. Agree? Ice is slightly more solid than water but not rigid! Don't you break ice and put it in your G&T at 5 pm?
3. Drop the top part of 30 000 tons of WTC1 on the WTC1 structure below and the top part breaks up and pieces of it falls down on the plaza below while some remain up top - actually bounces on the structure below. Reason? Top part was not rigid. No collapse will ensue due to PE>SE.
4. Drop anything A on anything B and see Newton's third law at work. A cannot free fall through B (even if NIST suggest that that is the case with WTC7).
Physics is not difficult. But structure of material matters. It seems you are stuck in la-la land wherever it is.