Moderated Steel structures cannot globally collapse due to gravity alone

[bill smith]

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

Very interesting.

 

[Dave Rogers]

[1] Limit being the keyword
[2] Limit being he keyword

Exactly. As long as the deformation is within the elastic limit, the column is capable of absorbing and storing energy in the form of elastic strain. There is no lower limit of strain below which the column doesn't store any energy, which is what you implied was the case. In short, you're wrong.

[3] Deliberate misquote.

Please feel free to correct it. Would it be more accurate to say that your claim is that a steel box column is incapable of storing elastic strain energy? That's what I would infer from your suggestion that it would buckle before it had deformed elastically enough to store any potential energy. Either you're claiming at least that, or you're not claiming anything and your entire line of argument can be discarded as groundless.

Verdict; disingenuous

Verdict: projection.

Dave

 

[GlennB]

.....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.

So you'll happily contradict yourself in the space of a few sentences? Brilliant work.

 

[bill smith]

Exactly. As long as the deformation is within the elastic limit, the column is capable of absorbing and storing energy in the form of elastic strain. There is no lower limit of strain below which the column doesn't store any energy, which is what you implied was the case. In short, you're wrong.



Please feel free to correct it. Would it be more accurate to say that your claim is that a steel box column is incapable of storing elastic strain energy? That's what I would infer from your suggestion that it would buckle before it had deformed elastically enough to store any potential energy. Either you're claiming at least that, or you're not claiming anything and your entire line of argument can be discarded as groundless.



Verdict: projection.

Dave

Your correction improves your previous misrepresentation ofwhat I said sufficiently. Yes, Iam sayng hat 1/4'' steel box columns cannot be flexed enough to store sufficient potential energy to throw themselves even 200 feet away from the building let alone three four or five hundred feet away . Thy will knuckle long long before that point. If you feel that this statement is incorrect please feel free to clarify

If you cannot then we can assume that 'springing out' played little or no part in the powerful ejection of columns at up to 70mph. Unless you are an afficionado of the 'tiddley-wink' theory you are running out of credible explanations for the ejection of the columns . Then maybe we vcan examine other possible reasons. Remember what SherlockHolmes said.....'if you rule out all the possibilities then then....'

 

[Christopher7]

Well some progress, you've at least dropped the absurd 90 degrees notion.

No. Do you know the difference between vertical and horizontal?
[expressed in degrees]

Any angle between 0 and 90 will produce some lateral component.

The exterior walls were vertical. The force was vertical.

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.

According to the Bazant theory, the entire force was applied evenly and the mass was compacted to the wax.
i.e. Things were NOT being thrown in all directions.

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.

Really? How does that work?

First you must explain how those 4 ton sections were torn loose from the surrounding sections and determine their rate of fall.

Then explain how a falling 4 ton object changes the direction of another falling object and accelerates it to 70mph laterally.

Please calculate the amount of explosives needed to throw a 4 ton chunk 500 feet laterally.

Only an expert could do that. Have you actually thought about what that would entail?

You are just trying to evade the point which is:

NIST did NOT explain how the Trade Towers collapsed.

Bazant has NOT explained how the Trade towers collapsed.

 

[e^n]

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

Yeah I think I am finished here. You are not actually listening to anything I am saying and are simply doing exactly as Gravy said. Putting your fingers in your ears and shouting about how he didn't do what you think he should have done is irrelevant.

The BLBG paper clearly examines a wide range of criteria for mass ejected and energy used. Your criticism is incorrect in its entirety.

If you cannot tell me how my ejection situation worked, how do you expect me to explain it to you when it is a large scale building collapsing?

I look forward to you contacting the journal which published BLBG with your criticisms, please copy them to us here when you send them.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Your correction improves your previous misrepresentation ofwhat I said sufficiently. Yes, Iam sayng hat 1/4'' steel box columns cannot be flexed enough to store sufficient potential energy to throw themselves even 200 feet away from the building let alone three four or five hundred feet away . Thy will knuckle long long before that point. If you feel that this statement is incorrect please feel free to clarify

Your perception of misrepresentation comes from the fact that I'm trying, and failing, to comprehend the level of ignorance from which you're operating. Trying to paraphrase a nonsensical statement is a tricky business.

Your statement is pure guesswork, and irrelevant. Let's count the ways.

(1) What is the maximum amount of elastic deformation energy that can be stored in a 1/4" steel box column?
(2) What is the kinetic energy required to expel a 1/4" box column so that it lands 500 feet from the building?

Since you haven't worked out either of these numbers, what's your basis for concluding that one is greater than the other? Since you haven't specified the length or breadth of the column, how do you propose to work them out?

(3) What was the actual construction of the perimeter columns we're talking about? I think you may find that the 1/4" box columns were in the core, rendering your entire line of argument utterly irrelevant.
(4) Who exactly said that the elasticity of the columns was necessarily the mechanism by which they were expelled? Leverage and oblique impact have been repeatedly suggested, and don't rely on elasticity.

My main aim in discussing elasticity with you is to highlight your lack of comprehension of the issues you're discussing.

If you cannot then we can assume that 'springing out' played little or no part in the powerful ejection of columns at up to 70mph. Unless you are an afficionado of the 'tiddley-wink' theory you are running out of credible explanations for the ejection of the columns . Then maybe we vcan examine other possible reasons. Remember what SherlockHolmes said.....'if you rule out all the possibilities then then....'

If you choose to rule out reasonable explanations based on the known laws of physics (as you are seeking to do) then it's hardly surprising that you have to come up with impossibly complex explanations that violate the laws of physics (as you have in fact done). It's rather ironic that the Holmes quote is about ruling out impossibilities, but you've misquoted it rather appropriately to your own personal approach. If you rule out all the possibilities, then you're left with impossible explanations. That's where you seem to have got to.

Dave

 

[T.A.M.]

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.

Yah I am with you, I just didn't want to be the first one, where he seems so new. You are right though, different poster, same junk.

Ignore for bill.

TAM

 

[Furcifer]

No. Do you know the difference between vertical and horizontal?
[expressed in degrees][/quote]

Way to regress. Do you realize there is something in between vertical and horizontal?

The exterior walls were vertical. The force was vertical.

Nevermind I guess you don't.

First, the exterior walls of the upper section WERE NOT VERTICAL!!!! This is very clear to everyone that doens't have their head up their...
Second, the exterior walls of the lower section didn't remain vertical for very long. Your delusional.

According to the Bazant theory, the entire force was applied evenly and the mass was compacted to the wax.
i.e. Things were NOT being thrown in all directions.

What are you talking about? You're totally clueless.

Really? How does that work?

First you must explain how those 4 ton sections were torn loose from the surrounding sections and determine their rate of fall.

Then explain how a falling 4 ton object changes the direction of another falling object and accelerates it to 70mph laterally.

What? I have to explain to you how 4 ton chunks of exterior were torn free while being slammed by other 4 ton chunks? Are you serious? That's insane. A 3 year old with a baseball bat understands this concept.

Who says the 4 ton chunk of your obsession was already falling when it was impacted by another piece of the upper section travelling at a much faster rate? More than likely a large section thrown that far would be pretty much fixed to the lower section and snapped off.

Only an expert could do that. Have you actually thought about what that would entail?

It wasn't my idea.

 

[twinstead]

A question for bill smith:

Why in your opinion do the world's engineering organizations not support you? You obviously think the method of collapse that is commonly accepted is TOTALLY impossible. One would think if that were the case, you would be able to convince real experts and get these indictments and trials started. Easily.

But, quite the contrary, building codes are literally being changed around the world due to the study of the collapse. Again, one would think if you were right the only thing they would be studying is how to prevent pre-wiring of buildings for explosives to keep them from falling if there ever is a plane crashed into them.

What is your explanation for your lack of progress?

 

[T.A.M.]

A question for bill smith:

Why in your opinion do the world's engineering organizations not support you? You obviously think the method of collapse that is commonly accepted is TOTALLY impossible. One would think if that were the case, you would be able to convince real experts and get these indictments and trials started. Easily.

But, quite the contrary, building codes are literally being changed around the world due to the study of the collapse. Again, one would think if you were right the only thing they would be studying is how to prevent pre-wiring of buildings for explosives to keep them from falling if there ever is a plane crashed into them.

What is your explanation for your lack of progress?

afraid to lose their jobs or of public embarrassment. I mean you know these are both more important to engineers then the deaths of 3000 of their fellow americans, right???

you know before you even ask.

TAM

 

[bill smith]

Your perception of misrepresentation comes from the fact that I'm trying, and failing, to comprehend the level of ignorance from which you're operating. Trying to paraphrase a nonsensical statement is a tricky business.

Your statement is pure guesswork, and irrelevant. Let's count the ways.

(1) What is the maximum amount of elastic deformation energy that can be stored in a 1/4" steel box column?
(2) What is the kinetic energy required to expel a 1/4" box column so that it lands 500 feet from the building?

Since you haven't worked out either of these numbers, what's your basis for concluding that one is greater than the other? Since you haven't specified the length or breadth of the column, how do you propose to work them out?

(3) What was the actual construction of the perimeter columns we're talking about? I think you may find that the 1/4" box columns were in the core, rendering your entire line of argument utterly irrelevant.
(4) Who exactly said that the elasticity of the columns was necessarily the mechanism by which they were expelled? Leverage and oblique impact have been repeatedly suggested, and don't rely on elasticity.

My main aim in discussing elasticity with you is to highlight your lack of comprehension of the issues you're discussing.



If you choose to rule out reasonable explanations based on the known laws of physics (as you are seeking to do) then it's hardly surprising that you have to come up with impossibly complex explanations that violate the laws of physics (as you have in fact done). It's rather ironic that the Holmes quote is about ruling out impossibilities, but you've misquoted it rather appropriately to your own personal approach. If you rule out all the possibilities, then you're left with impossible explanations. That's where you seem to have got to.

Dave

I asked first. Deny the atatement below, motivated and oclearly or we will draw the inevitable conclusion. I repeat;-

''Yes, Iam sayng hat 1/4'' steel box columns cannot be flexed enough to store sufficient potential energy to throw themselves even 200 feet away from the building let alone three four or five hundred feet away . They will knuckle long long before that point. If you feel that this statement is incorrect please feel free to clarify''

 

[tfk]

bill,

You are embarrassing yourself with your lack of knowledge in front of people who know what they are talking about.
You don't even possess sufficient knowledge to KNOW that you are embarrassing yourself.
___

1.

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.

[1] Limit being the keyword

Actually, "limit" is neither a keyword, nor a limiting factor to the issue being discussed.

This will, of course, go over your head. You don't possess the basics knowledge (or, more important, the desire) to understand this. But when you bend something up to its the elastic limit, it will store a certain amount of energy. And then return it to you in "spring back" when you suddenly release its constraints. When you bend it beyond that point, it will store (& return) MORE energy (up to its "ultimate" limit). The only difference being that the part will now be left with a permanent deformation.

The important point here is that, even if you deform the part beyond its elastic limit, you will always get back the elastic portion of the stored energy. Short of kinking the column, of course.

In other words, the elastic limit is not a limit at all.
___

2.

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.

[2] Limit being the keyword

ditto, above.
___

3.

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 ...

[3] Deliberate misquote.

No, bill. It's not a "misquote" in the slightest. Dave just stated, in engineering terms, EXACTLY what you are proposing. You're just not knowledgeable enough to understand the equivalence between what he said & what you've been saying.
___

4.

Verdict; disingenuous

No, bill. Dave's not being "disingenuous". He's being "accurate".

And the one thing that you can be counted on to do with self-humiliating consistency: Lose the argument. Utterly lose the argument. Utterly lose the argument without understanding the core concepts that form the foundation of the argument.

And then dance around like the class clown declaring your "F" to REALLY be an "A+". And yourself to be the "victor".

Sic semper moroni.
___

... even though that's not the mechanism for ejection that's been explained to you repeatedly.

Dave, I've got to agree with you. Although I believe this effect plays a role in parts that were thrown a small distance, it seems to me that the ones at the extreme distance limits must have been tossed simply due to collisions.

Be warned, tho. These folks don't believe in statistical variation. On another board site, where this same argument has been going on interminably, unless you can provide with certainty EXACTLY which beam, desk or file cabinet collided with the beam to send it shooting outward, well, then CLEARLY you know nothing about what really happened, you're just indulging in fancy-schmancy engineering double-talk, and a controlled demolition by Bush/Cheney & Minions is an equally viable alternative...

tk

 

[bill smith]

afraid to lose their jobs or of public embarrassment. I mean you know these are both more important to engineers then the deaths of 3000 of their fellow americans, right???

you know before you even ask.

TAM

Well I thiink that most of the World's engineers took the official story of 9/11 at face value just as most of the general populaton did. Then here is a proportion who WERE puzzled and know hat something is wrong but tey are fearful of being abelled 'cnsiracy theorists' and do not explore further. Then there are the enginerrs who do noot WANT to know that 9/11 was an inside job and actively resist knowing. This category is widely reflected in the general population. And lastlly there are those engineers and architects who have the courage of their convictions such as the membrs of ae911truth.org of whom our own Heiwa is a distinguised member.

Ae91truth.org now has 610 gigned up professionals who are demanding an independent investigation. Can you name a similar body of professionals who support the official story ? You guys use a figure of 0.0001% of the world's engineers, but how may of those have actualy been individually asked what they think in a structured way involving lists of names ? Z-E-R-O.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I asked first. Deny the atatement below, motivated and oclearly or we will draw the inevitable conclusion. I repeat;-

''Yes, Iam sayng hat 1/4'' steel box columns cannot be flexed enough to store sufficient potential energy to throw themselves even 200 feet away from the building let alone three four or five hundred feet away . They will knuckle long long before that point. If you feel that this statement is incorrect please feel free to clarify''

I can't confirm or deny it - it's not even possible to characterise it as right or wrong - because the statement is completely meaningless, since you haven't specified the length or the cross-sectional dimensions of the columns. It's also unsupported by calculations and utterly irrelevant. Quite simply, you're talking rubbish.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Ae91truth.org now has 610 gigned up professionals who are demanding an independent investigation. Can you name a similar body of professionals who support the official story ?

NIST?

Dave

 

[bill smith]

bill,

You are embarrassing yourself with your lack of knowledge in front of people who know what they are talking about.
You don't even possess sufficient knowledge to KNOW that you are embarrassing yourself.
___

1.






Actually, "limit" is neither a keyword, nor a limiting factor to the issue being discussed.

This will, of course, go over your head. You don't possess the basics knowledge (or, more important, the desire) to understand this. But when you bend something up to its the elastic limit, it will store a certain amount of energy. And then return it to you in "spring back" when you suddenly release its constraints. When you bend it beyond that point, it will store (& return) MORE energy (up to its "ultimate" limit). The only difference being that the part will now be left with a permanent deformation.

The important point here is that, even if you deform the part beyond its elastic limit, you will always get back the elastic portion of the stored energy. Short of kinking the column, of course.

In other words, the elastic limit is not a limit at all.
___

2.







ditto, above.
___

3.




No, bill. It's not a "misquote" in the slightest. Dave just stated, in engineering terms, EXACTLY what you are proposing. You're just not knowledgeable enough to understand the equivalence between what he said & what you've been saying.
___

4.


No, bill. Dave's not being "disingenuous". He's being "accurate".

And the one thing that you can be counted on to do with self-humiliating consistency: Lose the argument. Utterly lose the argument. Utterly lose the argument without understanding the core concepts that form the foundation of the argument.

And then dance around like the class clown declaring your "F" to REALLY be an "A+". And yourself to be the "victor".

Sic semper moroni.
___



Dave, I've got to agree with you. Although I believe this effect plays a role in parts that were thrown a small distance, it seems to me that the ones at the extreme distance limits must have been tossed simply due to collisions.

Be warned, tho. These folks don't believe in statistical variation. On another board site, where this same argument has been going on interminably, unless you can provide with certainty EXACTLY which beam, desk or file cabinet collided with the beam to send it shooting outward, well, then CLEARLY you know nothing about what really happened, you're just indulging in fancy-schmancy engineering double-talk, and a controlled demolition by Bush/Cheney & Minions is an equally viable alternative...

tk

It wouldn't be fair if I didn't give you a crack at the same question as Dave Teddy.

I asked first. Deny the atatement below, motivated and oclearly or we will draw the inevitable conclusion. I repeat;-

''Yes, Iam sayng hat 1/4'' steel box columns cannot be flexed enough to store sufficient potential energy to throw themselves even 200 feet away from the building let alone three four or five hundred feet away . They will knuckle long long before that point. If you feel that this statement is incorrect please feel free to clarify''

 

[bill smith]

NIST?

Dave

What about FEMA ?

Is Purdue independent like NIST and FEMA ? lol

 

[bill smith]

I can't confirm or deny it - it's not even possible to characterise it as right or wrong - because the statement is completely meaningless, since you haven't specified the length or the cross-sectional dimensions of the columns. It's also unsupported by calculations and utterly irrelevant. Quite simply, you're talking rubbish.

Dave

Well I think everybody knows what you are really saying here Dave. This feels good.
For Teddy's elucidation the box columns were 1/4'' thick steel and 14'' square. He knows the lengths already.

 

[tfk]

bill,

Your correction improves your previous misrepresentation ofwhat I said sufficiently. Yes, Iam sayng hat 1/4'' steel box columns cannot be flexed enough to store sufficient potential energy to throw themselves even 200 feet away from the building let alone three four or five hundred feet away . Thy will knuckle long long before that point. If you feel that this statement is incorrect please feel free to clarify

In other words, you lack the ability to do the calculations required. And are therefore simply pulling 200', 400' & 500' out of your butt. And hoping someone else will come along & do the calculations for you. And should those calculations prove you wrong, you'll simply move along to some OTHER inane bit of arcana.

But, based on extensive evidence in your history, you'll bring up the same refuted argument 3, 6, 9, 12 ... months from now, claiming that the debunked argument supports your conclusions.

Did you bring up the word "disingenuous" recently? How about "dishonest".

If you cannot then we can assume that 'springing out' played little or no part in the powerful ejection of columns at up to 70mph.

"... up to 70 mph ..." That single boundary limit includes 1 mph, 10 mph, 20 mph, 50 mph, etc. At EXACTLY what speed have you decided that "you can assume that springing out played little or no part" in the ejections.

It is both ironic and typical, bill, that your phraseology is getting better. While your understanding remains "stuck on stupid". Of course, it is people like the folks here, who know what they are talking about, who provide you with the correct phrasing. So that you can go off & impress the folks that possess - as hard as it is to imagine - even less understanding that you have.

Unless you are an afficionado of the 'tiddley-wink' theory you are running out of credible explanations for the ejection of the columns . Then maybe we vcan examine other possible reasons.

Rather than offering a baseless attempt at condescension, would you care to attempt to explain how tiddly-winks are actually shot? You might actually learn something relevant.

If you do so, you'll find out that it is actually a variant of the mechanism that Dave has already suggested: levers.

Remember what Sherlock Holmes said.....'if you rule out all the possibilities then then....'

Sherlock was smart enough to NOT base his conclusions on the uninformed opinions of rank amateurs.

tk