Moderated Steel structures cannot globally collapse due to gravity alone

bill smith said:
Gravy - I wasn't being evasive. And I AM looking for answers which requires asking questions. If I hear something that definately invalidates one of my notions then so be it. There is little point in not taking it on board if any progress is to be made. That dosn't mean accepting whatever I'm told though

Without necessarily accepting your premise I would expect the wall sections to be pushed outwards.

I don't think he wall sectons would travel very far in a gravity driven collapse.


Although there are a lot of indicatons against explosives for the reasons you mention, there seems to be a case for additionl energy coming from somewhere,somehow to eject- for instance he 4-ton chunk the 500 feet we were talking about earlier.
Click to expand...

Why? (bold)

We're not trying to be smart asses, we just want you to understand the (problems with) arguments you make. It's known as learning.
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
bill smith;

Have you changed your mind on the columns not "being able to store energy" (paraphrased}? You seem to be trying to shed that argument while trying to not miss a step (dodging). It's OK for adults to admit they were wrong.(I'm not sure why I felt the need to say that:rolleyes:)
Click to expand...

ftk was saying that the properties of a cardboad box column and the properties of a steel box column are not the same. But structurally they are he same and I am talking about the structure of course as regards bowing it. Can you bow a box column without gettng a kink in it ? Like a Robin Hood bow maybe ? What about the 10% arc of a coin....would it go that far ? How much spring energy would it store if it did ?
 
Christopher7 said:
Actually, we are talking about exterior frame sections that did not bounce off of anything. They were ejected laterally at 50+mph.
Click to expand...

Could they have been ejected laterally at any speed that would not be suspicious to you?
 
Why do some people fail to understand the simplest of concepts. If we call my fist A, and the floor B, and there is material between A and B, then ALL of said material is not going to go straight down if I slam A toward B, now is it? No, most of it will be ejected SIDEWAYS .

FOR THE LOVE AND HONOR OF GOD AND CHRIST!

TAM:)
 
bill smith said:
ftk was saying that the properties of a cardboad box column and the properties of a steel box column are not the same. But structurally they are he same and I am talking about the structure of course as regards bowing it. Can you bow a box column without gettng a kink in it ? Like a Robin Hood bow maybe ? What about the 10% arc of a coin....would it go that far ? How much spring energy would it store if it did ?
Click to expand...

Yes, (bold) You said "they couldn't store energy" (paraphrased). What does your other examples have to do with this statement?

This is very sad.
 
bill smith said:
.. there seems to be a case for additionl energy coming from somewhere,somehow to eject- for instance he 4-ton chunk the 500 feet we were talking about earlier.
Click to expand...

Even taking a CT/CD point of view, you'd be hard pressed to explain why "the perps" would place explosives close to the outer walls to create this "ejection" (i.e you could not). Especially given the remarkable silence of said explosives.
 
Christopher7 said:
Actually, we are talking about exterior frame sections that did not bounce off of anything. They were ejected laterally at 50+mph.
Click to expand...

How do you know they didn't bounce off anything? Is it not possible for two falling pieces (or one falling, one still attached) to collide?
 
GlennB said:
Even taking a CT/CD point of view, you'd be hard pressed to explain why "the perps" would place explosives close to the outer walls to create this "ejection" (i.e you could not). Especially given the remarkable silence of said explosives.
Click to expand...

There are explosons to be heard as the buildingcollapses in this video. This is a study of the firefighter testimony on 9/11 and he video is somewhere in the middle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ4dVo5QgYg Firemen's Testimony- Study
 
what? explosions as the 110 storey building was COLLAPSING? O MY GOD. Well this is it, I am now convinced 9/11 was an inside job.

you are nice enough bill, but your degree of paranoia leading you to so many, for you, unanswered questions is just too much.

TAM:)
 
ElMondoHummus said:
That's not really true, Chris. It's been pointed out to you that the BLBG paper specifically dealt with issues of mass shedding,
Click to expand...
Yes, I know.

He allowed 20% for ejected material.

He said compressed air ejected " a mass of dust and larger fragments"

He did not mention "bursting" or explain what ejected the 4 ton framework sections up to 500 feet.

He only said that large steel pieces were ejected at velocity z˙.

This "bursting" is a consequence of the columns - the primary load-bearing components of the system - failing.
Click to expand...
Source?

Bazant et. al. may not have directly addressed minute points about how the failures manifested
Click to expand...
This is not a "minute" point.
 
bill smith said:
There are explosons to be heard as the buildingcollapses in this video. This is a study of the firefighter testimony on 9/11 and he video is somewhere in the middle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ4dVo5QgYg Firemen's Testimony- Study
Click to expand...

A building collapsing is going to make a ****load of noise, some of which may or may not sound like or be described as explosions. This is in no way indicative of explosives, nor is it inconsistent with the prevailing explanation of what happened that day.
 
bill smith:

The point you fail to grasp is, any energy applied to the member (regardless of size) short of failure is stored within the member. In lay mens terms, "if it takes a crap load to bend it it will store just a little less than that crap load". I hope this helps.
 
bill smith said:
ftk was saying that the properties of a cardboad box column and the properties of a steel box column are not the same. But structurally they are he same and I am talking about the structure of course as regards bowing it. Can you bow a box column without gettng a kink in it ? Like a Robin Hood bow maybe ? What about the 10% arc of a coin....would it go that far ? How much spring energy would it store if it did ?
Click to expand...


No, bill.

This is a FINE example of how you do NOT read very carefully. Nor comprehend the concepts that we present to you. (Excuse the chippiness, guys. Bill & I have a long, contentious history.)

I said, exactly, "cardboard is a VERY poor model for steel". This addresses the difference in the INTRINSIC property of two material known as "elastic strain". This is a number that is very high for steel (meaning that it DOES act like a spring, and many springs are made from steel) and very low for cardboard (hence the extreme rarity of cardboard springs).

You focused on the EXTRINSIC properties of the two materials once they had been fashioned into box columns.

The fact of the matter is "what I said is true". A cardboard box column is a LOUSY model for a steel box column. ESPECIALLY with regard to the specific performance that we are currently discussing: elastic (as opposed to plastic) deformation.

The "amount" of deflection has little to do with the amount of stored ELASTIC energy. A box column made out of play-doh will give you an enormous amount of deflection and virtually zero stored energy. One made out of glass will give you ZERO deflection and zero stored energy.

A steel box column, especially one as big as the towers' supports, will elastically store and enormous amount of energy. It does NOT have to deflect a lot in order to do so. A cardboard box column, no matter what its size, will elastically store almost none.

tk

PS. bill, steel is VERY much an elastic solid. Cardboard is not.

PPS. Guys, it is rather pointless to suggest to bill that he read either NIST or 9-11 Commission Report. He not only has not read it. He WILL NOT read it.

You see, he refuses to contaminate his foregone (& YouTube validated) conclusions with the politically motivated swill of NIST or MIT or Purdue scientists & engineers. Since all of those folks are clearly government shills & lackeys. Even the independent ones, like me.
 
T.A.M. said:
what? explosions as the 110 storey building was COLLAPSING? O MY GOD. Well this is it, I am now convinced 9/11 was an inside job.

you are nice enough bill, but your degree of paranoia leading you to so many, for you, unanswered questions is just too much.

TAM:)
Click to expand...
You have an "unanswered question problem" too.

NIST did not explain how the Trade Towers collapsed completely.

Bazant did not explain how the south Tower collapsed.
[even if you believe he explained the collapse of the North Tower]
 
T.A.M. said:
Why do some people fail to understand the simplest of concepts. If we call my fist A, and the floor B, and there is material between A and B, then ALL of said material is not going to go straight down if I slam A toward B, now is it? No, most of it will be ejected SIDEWAYS .

FOR THE LOVE AND HONOR OF GOD AND CHRIST!

TAM:)
Click to expand...
I kinds liked Gallagher's "Sledge-O-Matic" myself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPrYulad8W4

tk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom