Moderated Steel structures cannot globally collapse due to gravity alone

[Heiwa]

Look here

where the following exchange takes place :

Yes - a new equilibrium develops - force of upper block on lower block is balanced by a reaction force of lower block on upper block as Newton suggested.

These forces will evidently affect both blocks - the upper one may bounce while the lower acts as a spring or both may get locally damaged in the contact area, for example. There are many possibilities.

And it demonstrates the error of Prof. Bazant & Co. They ignore the reaction force acting on the upper part C (or upper block) at contact. They do it because they assume that the upper part C is rigid and not affected by the reaction force so that part C remains intact, while the action force sheds the lower structure.

Upper part C is not really a solid block - it is mostly air with strong columns and thin floors. Very fragile if you drop it. And I am sure that two outer walls of the upper part C will miss the lower part A, if you drop.

The lower part A is also not a solid block but its vertical columns are really dangerous if you drop something on them, e.g. the lowest floor of part C.

The columns of part A will slice through the lowest floor of part C, for example.

But not according to Bazant. The lowest floor of part C - say floor 97 of WTC 1 - is rigid (!!!) and sheds the columns below into rubble.

Nonsense, of course.

 

[GlennB]

These forces will evidently affect both blocks - the upper one may bounce while the lower acts as a spring or both may get locally damaged in the contact area, for example. There are many possibilities.

One of these possibilities - applicable in pomeroo's extreme scenario - would be the utter destruction of both parts. Of course.

 

[bill smith]

Kneeling Columns

Hello folks. I'm new here and I am a generalist about 9/11.Nice to meet you all.
In the collapse of WTC1 The core clumns were not (all) severed. There was no horizontal force other than the aircraft to do that.So I think we can assume that most of the 47 were intact. So when the upper block 'fell' the 0.5 metres that Bazant proposes- the columns must have actually KNELT Right ? They were likely mostly not tremendously hot so the kneeling could surely not have been instant. So would the kneeliing of the columns not have walked the upper block C out of alignment with the lower 90%-odd of the building ?

 

[Heiwa]

One of these possibilities - applicable in pomeroo's extreme scenario - would be the utter destruction of both parts. Of course.

No - not really ... even after a two mile drop and a plenty of energy/forces at impact. As the upper part C is smaller (1/10th of A) and can absorb less strain energy than the lower, bigger part A on ground, the upper part C is destroyed completely before part A is totally destroyed. After part C is totally destroyed it does not apply any force on what still remains of part A.

You see, you cannot destroy a structure by dropping a piece of it on the whole.

But if part A had enough strain energy and was elastic enough to absorb all energy involved at the contact and that also part C could absorb that energy (or half of it! and no local failures develop), then part C would bounce - maybe a mile and 3/4 up. Big bounce.

 

[beachnut]

...
You see, you cannot destroy a structure by dropping a piece of it on the whole. ...

Why do you ignore gravity? Why has your great paper failed to garner a Pulitzer Prize?

No - not really ... even after a two mile drop and a plenty of energy/forces at impact. As the upper part C is smaller (1/10th of A) and can absorb less strain energy than the lower, bigger part A on ground, the upper part C is destroyed completely before part A is totally destroyed. After part C is totally destroyed it does not apply any force on what still remains of part A.

You see, you cannot destroy a structure by dropping a piece of it on the whole.

But if part A had enough strain energy and was elastic enough to absorb all energy involved at the contact and that also part C could absorb that energy (or half of it! and no local failures develop), then part C would bounce - maybe a mile and 3/4 up. Big bounce.

Because you like insane ideas and there is no Pulitzer Prize for delusions.

 

[Architect]

Hello folks. I'm new here and I am a generalist about 9/11.Nice to meet you all.
In the collapse of WTC1 The core clumns were not (all) severed. There was no horizontal force other than the aircraft to do that.So I think we can assume that most of the 47 were intact. So when the upper block 'fell' the 0.5 metres that Bazant proposes- the columns must have actually KNELT Right ? They were likely mostly not tremendously hot so the kneeling could surely not have been instant. So would the kneeliing of the columns not have walked the upper block C out of alignment with the lower 90%-odd of the building ?

Hello Bill, and welcome to the forum.

How familiar with the NIST initiation/collapse sequence?

 

[twinstead]

Heiwa I'm curious. Do you consider yourself the absolute last word on this subject, or is there anybody else on Earth who could tell you that you don't know what you are talking about and you'd actually listen and say, "hmmm. There's a chance I don't know what I'm talking about"?

 

[bill smith]

I've read some of the report. Not the dozens of volumes though. I am really curious about the kneelng columns hough as this has inplications for the contact made between the upper and lower parts of WTC1.

 

[bje]

Heiwa is the nice guy that participates on JREF with funny parables and analogies of pizza boxes, sponges, lemons and so on that are supposed to be crushed by gravity alone according NIST (PE > SE). So Heiwa apply the Bazant model to these easy to visulize objects ... and nothing is crushed by gravity. Why is that. He never gets any sensible answers.

Reason is that pizza boxes, sponges, lemons and so on are quite difficult to crush at all and that gravity alone cannot do it.

I see you are still having problems with scale, mass, and gravity, Heiwa.

Apparently, you still believe you can scale pizza boxes up to take the place of steel and concrete in building construction since gravity alone cannot crush them.

I guess you also believe that you can take an ant that routinely carries 50 times its own weight and scale it upward to the size of a human being without the necessity of changes to its skeleton and muscle mass. According to you, ants of human size should be able to routinely carry around 7,500 lbs, making it easy for one ant to carry your Ford Edsel and you around, no?

 

[Heiwa]

Why do you ignore gravity? Why has your great paper failed to garner a Pulitzer Prize?

Me, ignore gravity? I just maintan You see, you cannot destroy a structure by dropping a piece of it on the whole. Noone seems to be able to debunk it!

Dropping imply action by gravity. To say dropping, assisted by gravity, is a tautological error.

My paper won me the A&E911 truth Petitioner of the Month (of February 2009) appointment to Gravy's (Mark Roberts) big disappointment. He started another thread about it spilling his malignant venom there.

To Bill Smith! Pictures of really buckled/kneeled columns are in my paper. None found in the WTC rubble, of course. An assembly of kneeled columns cannot produce free fall of any load above and cannot therefore not initiate any crush down by any load above.

 

[bill smith]

Me, ignore gravity? I just maintan You see, you cannot destroy a structure by dropping a piece of it on the whole. Noone seems to be able to debunk it!

Dropping imply action by gravity. To say dropping, assisted by gravity, is a tautological error.

My paper won me the A&E911 truth Petitioner of the Month (of February 2009) appointment to Gravy's (Mark Roberts) big disappointment. He started another thread about it spilling his malignant venom there.

To Bill Smith! Pictures of really buckled/kneeled columns are in my paper. None found in the WTC rubble, of course. An assembly of kneeled columns cannot produce free fall of any load above and cannot therefore not initiate any crush down by any load above.

Heiwa. Thanks for the info. I looked at some of your paper already. If he kneeling of the columns walked at least two of the upper perimeter walls out of alignment with the corresponding lower walls would it not also mean hat he upper core columns would have slid down BETWEEN the lower core columns leaving the grounded upstanding lower core columns free to punch through the 4'' concrete floors and the lighter steel of the cross members and so on.A case of the upper block C impaling itself upon the spikes of the lower core columns ? Should it not also mean that the upper and lower blocks should have meshed together through friction stopping the collapse almost before it began ?

 

[twinstead]

Me, ignore gravity? I just maintan You see, you cannot destroy a structure by dropping a piece of it on the whole. Noone seems to be able to debunk it!

Sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "LA, LA, LA" whenever somebody explains to you that you are wrong, gives you real-world examples that contradict your theory, and provides calculations to back them up pretty much makes ANY theory un-debunkable, don't you agree.

 

[Sunstealer]

If a satellite travelling at 22,000mph gets hit by a nut/bolt or piece of debris, will that nut/bolt/debris do any damage Heiwa? If it does do damage why?

 

[Architect]

I've read some of the report. Not the dozens of volumes though. I am really curious about the kneelng columns hough as this has inplications for the contact made between the upper and lower parts of WTC1.

Bill,

I fear that you may misunderstand NIST's findings on the collapse initiation sequence.

The structure of both towers is composite in nature. i.e. it relies on 4 key elements working together for overall stability; outer loadbearing envelope, inner core, floors, and the hat trusses. Think of it as a big girder beam and you'll be in the right ball park.

Collapse occured when failure of the floor beams - which were themselves lightweight girder beams - led to deformation and failure of the outer envelope. The hat trusses redistributed some of the load to the core, which also failed.

One of the first things we have to be clear on is the very different, rapidly changing load paths within the tower during this sequence. Beams, trusses, and columns are being asked to do things they just weren't designed to do. Design loads were massively exceeded, and failure occured.

This was, of course, compounded by damage caused to the core structure by the aircraft impact. If you read through the main report - and there are several of us here who have - then you'll see that there are a range of internal damage assessments, all of which assume some compromising of interior structural elements.

This is one of the reasons that Heiwa is so far off the mark. He argues that the lower structure should have had sufficient capacity to arrest failure of the upper section, but at no time does he carry out any meaningful analysis of the very complex structural inter-relationships. So, for example, the hat trusses help stop sway and stabilise the structure. The floors help prevent deformation of the outer loadbearing envelope. if these are damaged, then what is the overall impact on stability.

For this reason vague structural metaphors and analogies just don't cut the mustard. Likewise the question of whether a collapsing column will punch through a floor slab.

If Heiwa wished to be taken seriously, remembering that the likes of Ove Arup have also looked at the collapse, then he'll have to produce a very compelling structural analysis. Alas, this has yet to happen.

 

[beachnut]

Me, ignore gravity? I just maintan You see, you cannot destroy a structure by dropping a piece of it on the whole. Noone seems to be able to debunk it!

No need to debunk your false statement. Your kids and grandchildren will see your failure and your failed paper is perfect for Gage delusion club.

It is sad to see any engineers fall for Gage’s idiotic ideas, but only 0.001 percent are fooled saving the rest of engineers like myself still proud to be in a profession where knowledge and sound judgment rule; save the 0.001 percent who believe in delusions like yours.

Failed OP and if you are an engineer, your university is cringing as they discover your insane statements plastered all over the Internet.

 

[Furcifer]

Me, ignore gravity? I just maintan You see, you cannot destroy a structure by dropping a piece of it on the whole. Noone seems to be able to debunk it!

Here, debunked, 100 years ago.

 

[BenBurch]

Heiwa, what do you think happens to that building if you push the wall elements out 3 feet on two sides? What holds up the floors then?

 

[Gravy]

I've read some of the report. Not the dozens of volumes though. I am really curious about the kneelng columns hough as this has inplications for the contact made between the upper and lower parts of WTC1.

Welcome to the forum, bill. The first part of the report is a summary of all the rest, so I recommend starting there. It's written for the layman.

You may also want to read this section of my website: Accounts of structural instability in the Twin Towers, Bowing of columns, Collapse expected

 

[MIKILLINI]

Yes - a new equilibrium develops - force of upper block on lower block is balanced by a reaction force of lower block on upper block as Newton suggested.

These forces will evidently affect both blocks - the upper one may bounce while the lower acts as a spring or both may get locally damaged in the contact area, for example. There are many possibilities.

And it demonstrates the error of Prof. Bazant & Co. They ignore the reaction force acting on the upper part C (or upper block) at contact. They do it because they assume that the upper part C is rigid and not affected by the reaction force so that part C remains intact, while the action force sheds the lower structure.

Upper part C is not really a solid block - it is mostly air with strong columns and thin floors. Very fragile if you drop it. And I am sure that two outer walls of the upper part C will miss the lower part A, if you drop.

The lower part A is also not a solid block but its vertical columns are really dangerous if you drop something on them, e.g. the lowest floor of part C.

The columns of part A will slice through the lowest floor of part C, for example.

But not according to Bazant. The lowest floor of part C - say floor 97 of WTC 1 - is rigid (!!!) and sheds the columns below into rubble.

Nonsense, of course.

Nonsense is claiming experiments using lemons, sponges, pizza boxes, and scale jumping as examples of collapse and then accepting the conclusion of controlled demolition taking down the towers.

 

[Heiwa]

Heiwa. Thanks for the info. I looked at some of your paper already. If he kneeling of the columns walked at least two of the upper perimeter walls out of alignment with the corresponding lower walls would it not also mean hat he upper core columns would have slid down BETWEEN the lower core columns leaving the grounded upstanding lower core columns free to punch through the 4'' concrete floors and the lighter steel of the cross members and so on.A case of the upper block C impaling itself upon the spikes of the lower core columns ? Should it not also mean that the upper and lower blocks should have meshed together through friction stopping the collapse almost before it began ?

Yes, this is my hypothesis when upper part C displaces downwards due 287kneeling columns and contacts the uppermost floor of part A - the lower structure. Asssuming that all columns then fracture some way, the free ends of the columns will punch through floors of both parts A and C due to local overload - high contact pressures/forces - except where the free column ends of two outer walls are located outside parts A and B.

In other words - upper part C columns may very well cause local damages to lower part A floors, but lower part A columns will then case local damages to upper part C floors.

My hypothesis evidently invalidates the NIST/Bazant/Seffen unproven assumption that part C - including its lowest floor - remains intact during complete crush down and has the capability to destroy part A columns and everything else of part A. As seen on all videos part C actually disappears very early - it explodes. Same happens to part A.

Architect argues that (Heiwa) 'argues that the lower structure should have had sufficient capacity to arrest failure of the upper section, but at no time does he carry out any meaningful analysis of the very complex structural inter-relationships. So, for example, the hat trusses help stop sway and stabilise the structure. The floors help prevent deformation of the outer loadbearing envelope. if these are damaged, then what is the overall impact on stability.'

This is standard misquoting. The argument is simply that locally damaged floors (by the columns) of both parts A and C get entangled into one another and that friction between the damaged floors will arrest further destruction.

NIST/Bazant/Seffen treat the crush down as a one-dimensional problem - pure compression, in steps, of part A, while part C remains intact and ignore e.g. friction between subparts (floors) of parts A and C. They - NIST/Bazant/Seffen - suggest that there is some magic 1-D crush front between parts A and C that can shed structure of part A only, etc, etc., but it is complete nonsense.

Anyone who has investigated collision damages between ship (and cars) knows that the stronger parts of both objects damage the weaker parts and that there is no crush front. And evidently the destruction is arrested when it runs out of energy. To suggest that gravity alone will drive the WTC 1 & 2 destructions is also nonsense. Too little potential energy available and 100 times more strain energy/strength in parts A and C.

I think I explain that quite clear in my articles.