Moderated Steel structures cannot globally collapse due to gravity alone

[beachnut]

How is this possible by gravity? Your calculations please?

You are jesting; it is common knowledge for those who dare take physics.

E=mgh, for a WTC tower this is more than 130 TONS of TNT energy to use as you will. DONE!

NEXT -
If only 911Truth listened in physics class this part of the movement would never exist.

Steel structures hit by aircraft at high speeds with lots of fuel can help buildings collapse due to gravity. The OP is foolish and the delusion shared by 911Truth and only 0.001 percent of all engineers.

At least 0.001 percent of engineers share your delusions on 911 issues; mostly due to their bias on some political issues.

Once again, the energy of the collapsing WTC towers were over 130 TONS of TNT each, this is more than enough energy to spew junk as seen on 911; just gravity. Failing to understand this is the problem you and 911Truth share.

 

[bill smith]

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.

Well Gravy- that's a pity. You seem to know your stuff. I don't mind being years behind 'the kooks' actually. See yu around.

 

[Christopher7]

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

The "discussion" was the usual denial, diversion and insults.

Bottom line is:

NIST has admitted that WTC 7 fell at free fall for 105 feet.

Their computer model does not do this.

They have NOT explained how WTC 7 collapsed.

They have NOT explained how the Trade Towers collapsed.

Bazant has NOT explained how the Trade towers collapsed.

 

[bill smith]

You are jesting; it is common knowledge for those who dare take physics.

E=mgh, for a WTC tower this is more than 130 TONS of TNT energy to use as you will. DONE!

NEXT -
If only 911Truth listened in physics class this part of the movement would never exist.

Steel structures hit by aircraft at high speeds with lots of fuel can help buildings collapse due to gravity. The OP is foolish and the delusion shared by 911Truth and only 0.001 percent of all engineers.

At least 0.001 percent of engineers share your delusions on 911 issues; mostly due to their bias on some political issues.

Once again, the energy of the collapsing WTC towers were over 130 TONS of TNT each, this is more than enough energy to spew junk as seen on 911; just gravity. Failing to understand this is the problem you and 911Truth share.

There may have been enough total energy in the collapses to be the equivalent of 130 tons of TNT but you would have to show how that energy was redirected and focussed to throw 4 ton chunks up to 500 feet. Until things like that are explained everything else goes on hold. I have no political axe to grind by the way.

 

[Christopher7]

Actually, we are talking about exterior frame sections that did not bounce off of anything. They were ejected laterally at 50+mph.

Why is this NOT possible (by gravity)? Did I miss your calculations?

How is this possible by gravity? Your calculations please?

You are jesting; it is common knowledge for those who dare take physics.

E=mgh, for a WTC tower this is more than 130 TONS of TNT energy to use as you will. DONE!
<snip>
Once again, the energy of the collapsing WTC towers were over 130 TONS of TNT each, this is more than enough energy to spew junk as seen on 911; just gravity. Failing to understand this is the problem you and 911Truth share.

Your contention that you can use the stored energy as you will is incorrect.

It is necessary to explain HOW a great deal of that energy was redirected 90 degrees.

No one has done so. Not you, not NIST, not Bazant.

 

[Furcifer]

I don't mind being years behind 'the kooks' actually.

Actually you're not years behind the kooks, you have signs of denialism developed over decades

It's your material that's old.

This is a terrible place to ask rhetorical questions if that is your intent. It can be rather enlightening place otherwise.

That being said, I don't personally think a box column "sprang" outwards 600 feet. Without getting into a technical discussion, they were too busy getting out of the way of the falling upper section. Much like the wake off the bow of a boat.

That is of course unless you want to get more technical.

 

[Furcifer]

It is necessary to explain HOW a great deal of that energy was redirected 90 degrees.

Here's your problem. There's no reason that anything has to be redirected at 90 degrees let alone a great deal.

I suspect you need a class on resolving vectors.

 

[beachnut]

There may have been enough total energy in the collapses to be the equivalent of 130 tons of TNT but you would have to show how that energy was redirected and focussed to throw 4 ton chunks up to 500 feet. Until things like that are explained everything else goes on hold. I have no political axe to grind by the way.

Go to engineering school you will learn the hard way. After 7 years you could have had a masters degree in engineer, but you instead support the failed ideas of 911Truth whose 7-year mission has been to fool those who lack knowledge on 911 and sell books and DVDs to make money from those not capable of understanding what is science, and what is hearsay, lies and delusions.

The CD ideas of 911Truth are pure hokum. And you can't support that claptrap with evidence, rational ideas, or science.

130 TONS of TNT is enough to do what we have on 911 at the WTC complex, and the Chief Structural Engineer who designed the structure agrees with me. You can ask him. You could look it up if you took the time to be knowledgeable instead of just repeating failed ideas.

 

[Furcifer]

There may have been enough total energy in the collapses to be the equivalent of 130 tons of TNT but you would have to show how that energy was redirected and focussed to throw 4 ton chunks up to 500 feet. Until things like that are explained everything else goes on hold. I have no political axe to grind by the way.

If your question is "How do you throw a 4 ton chunk 500 feet?" the answer is "Hit it at an angle of 10 degrees at a height of 1000 feet with a 10 story building accelerating at nearly "g" straight down"

You can play with the angle of impact, height and speed to get a rather nice conical shaped debris pile.

I'm sure you've seen the pictures.

 

[Christopher7]

You are ignoring the point which is:
Bazant does NOT explain what ejected the large steel pieces or how much energy it took.

I have already given you an answer for both,

No, you have not

Bazant says large steel pieces were ejected at velocity z˙.

He does NOT say what ejected them.

The question being "Did BLBG specify how much energy ejection of steel sections took?"

The answer is yes. What you should have noticed, immediately under the formula I reproduced for you in the BLBG paper is this section:

Originally Posted by BLBG
The computation results shown in figures have been run for κe[total mass ejected] = 0.2 [20%]; however, a broad range of κe has been considered in computations, as discussed later.

He is talking about the total mass ejected. Nowhere does he specify how much of that was "large steel pieces".

I now quote from that further discussion:

He talks about how varying amounts of debris being ejected changes the length of time of the collapse.

Again, he does NOT say how the 4 ton frame sections were ejected or how much energy was used to eject them.

 

[A W Smith]

Explosive forces move Air Chris. And theres no way around it. Any explosive thats going to eject a column tree most certainly will move Air Chris. We don't need to be explosive experts. When you move air with explosive force you vibrate molecules. that creates sound. There is absolutely no physical way possible to silence the sound of such an event. It just ain't happening Chris. You silence the explosion your column tree doesn't move because the expanding gas cease to expand. It is basic physics. Theirs no way to silence CD detonations. Show us the technology Chris. It is your burden of proof. It doesn't exist. You can dream all you like about fantasy technology that "might" exist in your dreams. But this ain't fantasy land Chris. You failed to convince any sane person.

 

[Christopher7]

Here's your problem. There's no reason that anything has to be redirected at 90 degrees let alone a great deal.

Really?
You say the 4 ton framing sections were pushed out of the way "like wake off the bow of a boat". That is redirected energy.

or

"Hit it at an angle of 10 degrees at a height of 1000 feet with a 10 story building accelerating at nearly "g" straight down"
That is also redirected energy. Furthermore, you are applying the kinetic energy of the entire upper structure to one section.

Bazant did not mention either of these or any other mechanism to explain the redirection of sufficient energy to hurl numerous 4 ton sections up to 500 feet.

There is NO valid explanation for the 4 ton sections being hurled up to 500 feet laterally by the redirected kinetic energy of gravity. Just a lot of half baked armchair proposals by anonymous posters.

 

[Christopher7]

Explosive forces move Air Chris. And theres no way around it. Any explosive thats going to eject a column tree most certainly will move Air Chris. We don't need to be explosive experts. When you move air with explosive force you vibrate molecules. that creates sound. There is absolutely no physical way possible to silence the sound of such an event. It just ain't happening Chris. You silence the explosion your column tree doesn't move because the expanding gas cease to expand. It is basic physics. Theirs no way to silence CD detonations. Show us the technology Chris. It is your burden of proof. It doesn't exist. You can dream all you like about fantasy technology that "might" exist in your dreams. But this ain't fantasy land Chris. You failed to convince any sane person.

You retreat to the "Not loud enough" denial tactic because you cannot deny or deal with the FACT that there is no mechanism to redirect the gravitational energy necessary to hurl 4 ton frame sections up to 500 feet. This is just denial of the witnesses who heard explosions and the indisputable results.

The only possible explanation for the 4 ton frame sections being hurled up to 500 feet is explosives.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Would you describe a box-column made of 1/4'' steel plates as an 'elastic solid' ? And I would LIKE an answer to this question to establish whether you are being disingenuous or not.

No, I would describe it as a box column made of 1/4" plates formed from steel, which behaves as an elastic solid up to about a strain of 0.125%. As long as the strain of every single element of the column is within this limit, the column as a whole will deform elastically. The amount of energy stored within it can be calculated using Hooke's law, which I think you should start investigoogling. You might find that you're tragically and embarrassingly wrong on everything you've ever said on this forum.

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.

Again, look up Hooke's law. The higher the spring constant (i.e. the stiffer the assembly, related to the elasticity of the material from which it's formed), the higher the energy stored for a given deformation within the elastic limit.

What I find most laughable about your line of argument here, though, is the juxtaposition. You're arguing that column trees couldn't have been ejected because it's impossible for steel to absorb energy through elastic deformation, even though that's not the mechanism for ejection that's been explained to you repeatedly. And yet, at the same time, other truthers are claiming the towers shouldn't have collapsed because the structure had the capacity to absorb the entire potential energy released by the initial fall of the upper block. In fact, I expect you to be regugitating this argument yourself, as soon as you've memorised enough of the words to give yourself the misapprehension that you've understood it and found out where to cut-and-paste the appropriate mathematical errors. The result will be that the elastic constant of steel is both too high and too low for the events of 9/11 to have happened, in a classic truther two-way argument.

By the way, have you pointed out that the collapses were vertical, straight down and into the buildings' own footprints, as well as ejecting over 80% of the debris outside the footprint? According to the usual schedule, you're overdue.

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.

If they were capable of understanding the process by which a hammer drives in a nail, most of them wouldn't be conspiradroids in the first place.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

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

Oops, missed that one. Tell me, bill smith, do you think the collapse of WTC7 was suspicious because it fell near-vertically into its own footprint, whereas the collapses of WTC1 and WTC2 were suspicious because they didn't fall near-vertically into their own footprints? If so, you're right back on schedule.

Dave

 

[GlennB]

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

The building had been burning unfought for several hours. Never seen that in a CD before.
It was also leaning and creaking well before final collapse. That would be a CD first.
Oh, and no lengthy series of deafening blasts and blinding flashes that you get with CD of a large building.

All in all .... nope. Didn't resemble a CD whatsoever.

 

[bill smith]

No, Would you describe a box-column made of 1/4'' steel plates as an 'elastic solid' ? And I would LIKE an answer to this question to establish whether you are being disingenuous or not.
No, I would describe it as a box column made of 1/4" plates formed from steel, which behaves as an elastic solid up to about a strain of 0.125%. As long as the strain of every single element of the column [1] is within this limit, the column as a whole will deform elastically. The amount of energy stored within it can be calculated using Hooke's law, which I think you should start investigoogling. You might find that you're tragically and embarrassingly wrong on everything you've ever said on this forum.

Originally Posted by bill smith
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.
Again, look up Hooke's law. The higher the spring constant (i.e. the stiffer the assembly, related to the elasticity of the material from which it's formed), the higher the energy stored for a given deformation [2] within the elastic limit.

What I find most laughable about your line of argument here, though, is the juxtaposition. [3] You're arguing that column trees couldn't have been ejected because it's impossible for steel to absorb energy through elastic deformation, even though that's not the mechanism for ejection that's been explained to you repeatedly. And yet, at the same time, other truthers are claiming the towers shouldn't have collapsed because the structure had the capacity to absorb the entire potential energy released by the initial fall of the upper block. In fact, I expect you to be regugitating this argument yourself, as soon as you've memorised enough of the words to give yourself the misapprehension that you've understood it and found out where to cut-and-paste the appropriate mathematical errors. The result will be that the elastic constant of steel is both too high and too low for the events of 9/11 to have happened, in a classic truther two-way argument.

[4] By the way, have you pointed out that the collapses were vertical, straight down and into the buildings' own footprints, as well as ejecting over 80% of the debris outside the footprint? According to the usual schedule, you're overdue.

Dave

[1] Limit being the keyword
[2] Limit being he keyword
[3] Deliberate misquote.
Verdict; disingenuous

 

[Furcifer]

Really?
You say the 4 ton framing sections were pushed out of the way "like wake off the bow of a boat". That is redirected energy.

or

"Hit it at an angle of 10 degrees at a height of 1000 feet with a 10 story building accelerating at nearly "g" straight down"
That is also redirected energy. Furthermore, you are applying the kinetic energy of the entire upper structure to one section.

Bazant did not mention either of these or any other mechanism to explain the redirection of sufficient energy to hurl numerous 4 ton sections up to 500 feet.

There is NO valid explanation for the 4 ton sections being hurled up to 500 feet laterally by the redirected kinetic energy of gravity. Just a lot of half baked armchair proposals by anonymous posters.

Well some progress, you've at least dropped the absurd 90 degrees notion. Any angle between 0 and 90 will produce some lateral component.

Then you go on to fail miserably. What are going on about mechanisms? There is no mechanism, there are collisions. Lots and lot of them. At different angles and different heights throwing debris in all directions. There no mechanism, just the obvious collisions between the upper section and the lower section.

I never applied the total kinetic energy of the upper section to the collision causing a 4 ton chunk to land 500 feet away. Why would I do that? All I need is the kinetic energy of 1 4 ton chunk of the upper section colliding with 1 4 ton chunk of the lower section. I've still got enough energy to collapse a building, and the kinetic energy is still increasing!

I've taken the time to explain something quite obvious to anyone with just the slightest notion of how things work. I'm not always the sharpest knife in the drawer, and I make mistakes. I get stuborn and it takes a good thrashing to get me back on track. That's why I've extended some lattitude here. BUT COME ON, THIS IS OBVIOUS!

You've become fixated on finding proof of explosives so your whole manner of thinking is blurred by this. It's obvious you "believe" there was something applying a force at 90 degrees to the exterior columns. As long as you believe this there no real reasoning with you.

Come on, admit it.

edit: I see you admitted it. Well done.

Please calculate the amount of explosives needed to throw a 4 ton chunk 500 feet laterally. While numerous people have suggested it, none have ever actually calculated it. It's like the "Truther's Last Theorum"

 

[bill smith]

Oops, missed that one. Tell me, bill smith, do you think the collapse of WTC7 was suspicious because it fell near-vertically into its own footprint, whereas the collapses of WTC1 and WTC2 were suspicious because they didn't fall near-vertically into their own footprints? If so, you're right back on schedule.

Dave

Nah....WTC7 was an obvious cintroled demolition because the outside face (which mirrored what was going on inside the building) did not deform in any way (apart from one momentary crack) as it glided into the ground. If the collapse of the suporting structure hadbeen sequential the outside face would have mirored that. What the outside face actually showed was that there was no resistance to the fall of the shell.Therefore the supporting structure had been removed simultaneously throughout the buillding. Controlled demolition and nothing else could do this.

Th falling of the penthouse was most likely because of the preliminary removal or weakening of column 79.

 

[beachnut]

There may have been enough total energy in the collapses to be the equivalent of 130 tons of TNT but you would have to show how that energy was redirected and focussed to throw 4 ton chunks up to 500 feet. Until things like that are explained everything else goes on hold. I have no political axe to grind by the way.

Well golly gee Bill,

130 tons of TNT energy in the WTC collapse of one tower is equal to 839,452 pieces of 4-ton chunks moving horizontally 500 feet from the WTC. (Based on 62 feet per second for 8 seconds)

800,000 pieces? At 4 tons a whack? How many pieces traveled 500 feet? Please count them. You could use calculus if you had math to do a simple model and see a gravity collapse is exactly what the WTC was. I also can cheat and ask the Chief Structural Engineer what he thinks, and he said the WTC tower collapse was how they should collapse after aircraft impacts 7 to 11 times bigger than he designed for and out of control fires! Darn, you could skip all the woo and ask him again, he still agrees with me; no CD! I have the best expert on the WTC on my side, you lost this one, maybe you can beat me on Bigfoot or chemtrails.

Say after me; “horizontal component”. Now repeat; “levers”.

Gee whiz Bill, I know you must have had physics in your long career at Fetzer’s 911Truth dumb idea posting school for anti-intellectual experts on topics they failed to research past hearsay, lies and fantasy? Fetzer schooled me and he says anything he says is true, but I recommend instead that you use physics before you fall for the idiotic ideas from 911Truth.

Golly Gee Willakers Bill, we have 110 floors of junk competing for the same one acre of area at the bottom and some junk is going to push the competition outward. I have dropped things before and they all do not line up in a neat pile in some delusional footprint idiotic 911Truth “paradigm”. I expect 110 floors of stuff in two 1300-foot tall towers might litter 20 acres of area with junk since there are over 220 acres of floors to go around.

Have you heard of levers Bill?

Gee whiz, what do you think of my simple engineering analysis. Do you think an object that only has a horizontal energy of 0.3 pounds of TNT (0.000155 tons of TNT) can be spewed out of an event with over 130 TONS of TNT being released? (you could discuss this and talk about energy, but you will not; you will spew some more junk ideas and claim victory and fail to get that Pulitzer Prize for this delusion of CD you insist happened based on 911Truth junk)

Would like to use joules instead? 648,000 joules sounds bigger, but it is only 0.3 pounds of TNT equivalent. Why is 911Truth so physics challenged?

I find the WTC gravity collapse had ample energy to propel objects hundreds of feet from where they once were.

I see levers; I see them everywhere... Why is 911Truth free of evidence?
Bottom line: the ejected mass was not a significant energy drain on the available energy from the gravity collapse, no explosives required, heard, or used on 911 to eject the junk over 19 acres. Does not require a masters degree in engineering to figure this out; just some knowledge, sound judgment and the ability to draw logical conclusions; Three things foreign to 911Truth