Moderated Steel structures cannot globally collapse due to gravity alone

[HyJinX]

Two or three years from now all the world will know hat 9/11 was an inside job.

Why? Do you predict that there will actually be evidence to prove it? What evidence would that be?

Even if the more people believe what you claim...it will never make it true. That's kind of the way the world works.

You've had 7 years and so far...nothing. I'm very curious as to why you think the next 2 or 3 will be any different.

You do realize that outside of the confining walls of the internet, the 9/11 truth movement doesn't really exist. I live in one of the most liberal cities in the USA...Madison, WI...and I've never seen one truther. Not one. Madison is the "Berkley" of the North. Not one truther. Ever.

 

[DGM]

Yes. only my opinion but a reasonably informed one I hope. 2009 or 2019 makes no defference. This will never be over until it's sorted out. Two or three years from now all the world will know hat 9/11 was an inside job. If America is sticking to the Bin Laden-and-the-19-Muslims story it will make for good satire TV worldwide.

Keep hoping because so far you have failed miserably. You don't even understand high school level physics. How do you (you being all that's left of the "truth" movement) expect to convince anyone if you can't even compose a meaningful argument?

 

[bill smith]

Keep hoping because so far you have failed miserably. You don't even understand high school level physics. How do you (you being all that's left of the "truth" movement) expect to convince anyone if you can't even compose a meaningful argument?

Tell me this if you don't mind. Do you think WTC7 resembled a controlled demolition ?

 

[tfk]

bill,

Well now Teddy

For the rest of you, my name is Tom. As bill well knows.

Being capriciously annoying and insulting is one of his few talents.

-so you wan to come out of the closet ? I still uggest that you are talking about the properties of steel as opposed to cardboard while I was talking about the structure of the box column.

I know precisely what you were talking about, bill. You're playing in my sandbox.

Almost 30 years ago, I generated the fundamental equations by which my company at the time (an electronic connector manufacturer, a division of Teledyne) designed every one of it electronic connectors for several years. Until the era of PC FEA programs arrived.

This exercise is precisely an exercise in analyzing force, deflection, and energy storage in cantilever beams.

If you bend a box column of whatever stiff aterial it will kink very early in the bending. Less bend....less stored potential energy...no spring out 200 feet....uniformly throughout the building.

And your analysis here is uninformed and, by the worst insult possible in the engineering world, simply wrong.

You are confusing the amount of deflection for the amount of stored energy. These are two independent quantities.

If you were sufficiently astute & had paid attention when you read my last post, to which you are now responding, you would have noted that I pointed this out explicitly there. I gave you two examples of deflected beams. One of them had an enormous amount of deflection (the play-doh one) and the second had virtually none (the glass one), and yet both had exactly the same amount of stored energy - approximately zero.

This example shows that the two quantities (deflection and stored elastic energy) are independent of each other.

So your statement that "less bend ... less stored potential energy", just ain't necessarily so. And in the case of the 32' long box columns of the WTC tower beams, it just ain't true at all.

For your edification, there is a theorem - Castigliano's Theorem - that equates the external work done to any structure to the stored energy in that structure (or component). It will tell you that if F = the force applied to a beam and d = the deflection of that beam, then the potental energy stored in the beam (PE) is equal to PE = 0.5 * F * d. (As long as you stay below the elastic limit).

It is NOT the force that determines the stored energy. It is NOT the deflection. It is the product of the two numbers.

And here you can see that LARGE amounts of potential energy can be stored in very stiff beams by having the force (F) be a high number.

tk

 

[T.A.M.]

Tell me this if you don't mind. Do you think WTC7 resembled a controlled demolition ?

have you seen a skyscraper fall in a similar way from any other cause to do a comparison with?

See when your only reference for building collapse is CD, of course you are going to say it "looked" like a CD.

What it was missing were a series of timed detonations, which WOULD have been heard and seen by the hundreds of witnesses there that day...yet no one has come forward saying so.

TAM

 

[DGM]

Tell me this if you don't mind. Do you think WTC7 resembled a controlled demolition ?

Sure:
Why? You do realize that a CD is a structural failure gravity collapse? I've been involved with 3 CD's and frankly WTC7 was not very "controlled?

Do you have a point or are you one that thinks "if looks like one it has to be one"?

 

[twinstead]

I don't know, between this forum and a few engineering friends I have it appears that anybody who thinks that the commonly held opinion of how the WTC's collapse is impossible is just plain wrong. The thrashing they are getting on this very thread notwithstanding, the fact is that if Heiwa and company are right all hell would have broken loose in the world-wide engineering community. It did not, nor does it appear to be close to doing so.

So, pardon me again Heiwa, Chris, bill, et all, if I don't take your word as gospel concerning the collapses. I think I'll get a second opinion, if you don't mind.

 

[bill smith]

bill,



For the rest of you, my name is Tom. As bill well knows.

Being capriciously annoying and insulting is one of his few talents.



I know precisely what you were talking about, bill. You're playing in my sandbox.

Almost 30 years ago, I generated the fundamental equations by which my company at the time (an electronic connector manufacturer, a division of Teledyne) designed every one of it electronic connectors for several years. Until the era of PC FEA programs arrived.

This exercise is precisely an exercise in analyzing force, deflection, and energy storage in cantilever beams.



And your analysis here is uninformed and, by the worst insult possible in the engineering world, simply wrong.

You are confusing the amount of deflection for the amount of stored energy. These are two independent quantities.

If you were sufficiently astute & had paid attention when you read my last post, to which you are now responding, you would have noted that I pointed this out explicitly there. I gave you two examples of deflected beams. One of them had an enormous amount of deflection (the play-doh one) and the second had virtually none (the glass one), and yet both had exactly the same amount of stored energy - approximately zero.

This example shows that the two quantities (deflection and stored elastic energy) are independent of each other.

So your statement that "less bend ... less stored potential energy", just ain't necessarily so. And in the case of the 32' long box columns of the WTC tower beams, it just ain't true at all.

For your edification, there is a theorem - Castigliano's Theorem - that equates the external work done to any structure to the stored energy in that structure (or component). It will tell you that if F = the force applied to a beam and d = the deflection of that beam, then the potental energy stored in the beam (PE) is equal to PE = 0.5 * F * d. (As long as you stay below the elastic limit).

It is NOT the force that determines the stored energy. It is NOT the deflection. It is the product of the two numbers.

And here you can see that LARGE amounts of potential energy can be stored in very stiff beams by having the force (F) be a high number.

tk

Very intereting

Edited by Tricky: 

edited for civility

But are you categegorically saying that the perimeter box clumns in WTC1 could have sprung out 200 or more feet by using their stored potentential energy ? If so by what mechanism ? A box column still cannot be bowed.

Do use alternate names for members unless it is clear that it is in a friendly or mutually accepted fashion.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

 

[phunk]

Tell me this if you don't mind. Do you think WTC7 resembled a controlled demolition ?

No, never seen one with so much delay. There was 7 seconds between the start of the collapse and the north facade starting to fall, and no explosives either (and I was close enough to have heard them).

 

[DavidJames]

Tell me this if you don't mind. Do you think WTC7 resembled a controlled demolition ?

Grow up, stop playing childish games, we're adults here. It doesn't matter what the **** it looked looked like.

You get evidence CT boy, take it to a lawyer, a DA, the police, the media, insurance fraud investigators, anyone, in this country or another who can do something to achieve justice.

Will you do that? I'm betting you won't. Prove me wrong.

 

[DGM]

Very intereting Teddy.

But are you categegorically saying that the perimeter box clumns in WTC1 could have sprung out 200 or more feet by using their stored potentential energy ? If so by what mechanism ? A box column still cannot be bowed.

Thank you very much for saving me any more time waisted on you. You are hopeless.

Welcome to ignore!

(You should feel honored, you are one of only 5 "truthers" that I've done this to)

 

[Furcifer]

Two or three years from now all the world will know hat 9/11 was an inside job.

You're relatively new to this aren't you? I know because each generation makes the same claim and uses the same time frame.

If you're a betting type, almost anyone here will take this action at 100 to 1 odds.

 

[bill smith]

Thank you very much for saving me any more time waisted on you. You are hopeless.

Welcome to ignore!

(You should feel honored, you are one of only 5 "truthers" that I've done this to)

Au revoir...it's been nce knowing you

 

[bill smith]

No, never seen one with so much delay. There was 7 seconds between the start of the collapse and the north facade starting to fall, and no explosives either (and I was close enough to have heard them).

Have you seen Chandler's three videos where he demollshes the NIST report on WTC7 and forces them to officially admit freefall ?

If WTC7 was a controlled demoliton then we have every reason to believe that the Twin Towrs also were and by extension that all of 9/11 was an inside job.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0GHVEKrhng&eurl=http://www.ae911truth.org/flashmov13.htm Chandler i

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtKLtUiww80&feature=related Chandler 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vz43hcKYBm4&feature=related Chandler conclusions

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Have you seen Chandler's three videos where he demollshes the NIST report on WTC7 and forces them to officially admit freefall ?

If WTC7 was a controlled demoliton then we have every reason to believe that the Twin Towrs also were and by extension that all of 9/11 was an inside job.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0GHVEKrhng&eurl=http://www.ae911truth.org/flashmov13.htm Chandler i

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtKLtUiww80&feature=related Chandler 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vz43hcKYBm4&feature=related Chandler conclusions

And I believe there was a rather nice discussion about it some time back.

 

[tfk]

Very intereting Teddy.

But are you categegorically saying that the perimeter box clumns in WTC1 could have sprung out 200 or more feet by using their stored potentential energy ? If so by what mechanism ? A box column still cannot be bowed.

I don't know. I haven't done the calculation. Yet.

There is a reason to believe that flex & spring-back are not the principle mechanisms. That would be the lack of beam assemblies with permanent residual deformation. If this had been a principle mechanism, I'd expect to see several assemblies that had been over-bent, leaving a bunch of the assemblies with permanent

What I am absolutely, 100% certain of is the fact that, through this AND OTHER mechanisms, the external columns DID fly out a range of distances, from zero to approximately 600 feet. And it needed zero help from any energy source other than gravity.

How do I know this? I've seen it with my own eyes in videos taken on 9/11. And I know for certain that there were no other energy assists because any such devices would have given away their presence in half a dozen (or more) ways.

Unlike you, I don't feel the need to "improve upon" the reality that I see with my own eyes. And I do not believe that an extraordinary number of engineers & scientists are going to participate in a giant treasonous, murderous conspiracy.

tk

 

[Gravy]

bill smith, since like Heiwa and Christopher 7 you refuse to address the most basic questions about your absurd claims, it's off to ignore you go. Oh, and you're years behind the kooks with this stuff. Good luck with your troubles.

 

[LashL]

have you seen a skyscraper fall in a similar way from any other cause to do a comparison with?

See when your only reference for building collapse is CD, of course you are going to say it "looked" like a CD.

What it was missing were a series of timed detonations, which WOULD have been heard and seen by the hundreds of witnesses there that day...yet no one has come forward saying so.

TAM

It's the same old same old from the previous conspiradroids and the current (albeit far fewer) conspiradroids. When the only tool they have is a hammer, every problem looks to them like a nail. It's sad, really.

 

[beachnut]

The front of the collapse wave breaks the connection at the top of the column. The rubble is pressing outwards from inside as well and naturally forces the still bottom-attached column outwards and downwards The rubble in the rest of the collapse wave (which was already 0.9 m thick at the 96th floor according to Bazant) catches the now protuding column smothering or hindering any ejection.

Are you suggesting that the type of bolt-snapping we are discussing might have the potential to throw a 4-ton chunk 500 feet or so ? If not can you suggest a reasonable mehanic for how the unidirectional gravitational force cold partially convert into sideways energy that could spit columns weighing tons out at 70 mph and for long distances ?

You and physics must not be friends. What is E=mgh. For the WTC towers this is over the energy of 130 TONS of TNT! The energy of 130 2000-pound bombs, or 130 impacts of Flight 175. This is the energy from gravity alone available to chuck junk all over 19 acres. So we have 2 acres of buildings, 1300 feet tall trashing 19 acres with debris. And it was all done by gravity, the major force in all building collapses save the same buildings blown up with big bombs.

So to beat the energy of the fires and gravity collapses in the WTC tower complex, we would have to use a nuke.

You know the fires had more heat energy than the collapses?

The Chief Structural Engineer for the WTC towers, the guy who built these two strong towers, the guy responsible for their tremendous strength agrees they fell due to impact fire and failure; and the debris pattern is how it would happen. So unless you are a better structural engineer than the one who built the towers your hearsay, lies and fantasy fall short.

So what engineering school did you go to?

 

[Christopher7]

bill smith, since like Heiwa and Christopher 7 you refuse to address the most basic questions about your absurd claims, it's off to ignore you go. Oh, and you're years behind the kooks with this stuff. Good luck with your troubles.

Denial 101

Demand answers that only the perpetrators could know and use that as an excuse do ignore all the known evidence.