Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

[ozeco41]

Join The Heiwa Challenge and produce any structure that can one-way crush down itself.
So far NIST, NASA, FEMA, FBI, CIA, NSA, Bazant & Co have failed. If is easy, prove it. Do not just talk! Like them!

You would have to specify what you mean by "Crush" OR preferably change it to Collapse.

The ambiguity and vagueness you rely on includes:

• The inference that crush includes crush the columns in axial compression. If You make it explicit that you do NOT mean "crush" in that sense I could be interested. But changing the word to "collapse" removes the ambiguity; AND
• Recognise the "time frame" ambiguity. The top block in WTC AND in some aspects of your model does not trade "one floor for one floor" in synchronisation. You are wrong on that for WTC. We could discuss how it is part right and part wrong in your model.

Whilst I do not engage in the personal attacks which are so routinely deployed by others the number who take that line suggests that your illogical and mendacious approach to "discussion" may be something you are not prepared to give up.

And my main goal on posting is not to convert the "I won't be converted brigade" rather to assist others to see through the errors and misleading which they may not see through without assistance.

O a seven point scale of "misleading <> not misleading I have you tentatively ranked as 3 - slightly misleading but easy to see through for those with relevant expertise.

Cheers.

 

[beachnut]

The plane was one half of one tenth of one percent of the buildings weight. The fires wre small. The two quarter-nile high half-million ton buildings both collapsed straight down at close to freefall speed within an hour of being struck.
And you ask me to believe Robertson ?

The buildings were design to resist an impact from a 187 pounds of TNT event in the shape of a 707. On 911 the impacts that did extensive damage to the Towers were 1300 to 2093 pounds of TNT kinetic energy impacts. This is just under and over an order of magnitude difference as noted by Roberson who thinks your ideas are crap.

The fires were small is a lie and you are now a liar. Good for you repeating the lies of 911Truth as your own failed opinions now.

No the towers did not collapse at free fall speed they collapsed exactly at a speed that can be checked by momentum transfer. Your lack of physics is showing and you have no real knowledge in engineering.

Robertson understand the impacts were 7 to 11 times greater then his design would withstand. The impacts damage the towers extensively and destroyed the fire systems and insulation. Fires destroy the strength of steel and the towers fell. Roberson built the towers and understand the collapse. You can't even figure out the impact energies or the collapse energy, or the momentum transfer. If you did you would see Heiwa's ideas are pure stupid; like your ideas on 911.

 

[Slayhamlet]

I suppose that video has been doctored then, and all the explosive 'flashes' and 'booms' edited out?

Much as with the collapse of the twin towers and WTC 7, no 'flashes' and 'booms' needed to be edited out of the Balzac demolition since, you know, they never occurred in the first place.

Think before you post.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

@AI- No one has claimed that the collapse acclerated at 1g. There was a negative acceleration due to restistence. This point has been made again and again yet some such as yourself remain willfully ignorant of it. Either show how the deceleration should have been greater than was observed or move on. There isn't one single person here that believes the collapse accelerated at 1g, making analogies to show how this isn't possible is quite boring and useless.

The North Tower measurements show the upper block fell at approximately 0.7g and it never decelerated. How can you claim it did?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

The buildings were design to resist an impact from a 187 pounds of TNT event in the shape of a 707. On 911 the impacts that did extensive damage to the Towers were 1300 to 2093 pounds of TNT kinetic energy impacts. This is just under and over an order of magnitude difference as noted by Roberson who thinks your ideas are crap.

The fires were small is a lie and you are now a liar. Good for you repeating the lies of 911Truth as your own failed opinions now.

No the towers did not collapse at free fall speed they collapsed exactly at a speed that can be checked by momentum transfer. Your lack of physics is showing and you have no real knowledge in engineering.

Robertson understand the impacts were 7 to 11 times greater then his design would withstand. The impacts damage the towers extensively and destroyed the fire systems and insulation. Fires destroy the strength of steel and the towers fell. Roberson built the towers and understand the collapse. You can't even figure out the impact energies or the collapse energy, or the momentum transfer. If you did you would see Heiwa's ideas are pure stupid; like your ideas on 911.

The wings never made it to the core. NIST analyses even show that, and a 16.5 foot diameter hole from the fuselage all the way through the tower would not have made a difference. That is why they had to say it was fire and then only due to fireproofing being stripped away. So your 1300 to 2093 tons of TNT didn't matter, unless you want to try to show how it could removed fireproofing from the opposite side of the building and above the impacts in the case of the North Tower. NIST just said it did but didn't quite explain how. Maybe you should give it a try there Beachy.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Anyone who expects the top of the building to fall and then come to rest nestled in the arms of the rest of the building is experiencing a complete disconnect from reality.

C'mon you can do better than this can't you?

Tell us how the upper block could cause the lower structure to collapse if there was no deceleration of the upper block.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Apples and Oranges Tony. You are not seriously comparing the collapse of the twin towers to building 7? are you? Top down VS bottom up. The initiating event in building 7 began approximately at floor 13. While in the towers it was in the high nineties north tower And between 80-82 south tower.

It isn't apples and oranges at all. The point is that momentum transfer and deceleration, a jolt, is needed to continue a collapse naturally.

WTC 7 was a classic controlled demolition. 8 stories or about 100 feet were removed from floors 7 to 14 to get the 33 story upper block to build up enough of a head of steam to crush the lower six stories and itself.

There was a jolt after the 8 story drop because that was all that was needed to demolish it and no more floors needed to be removed by demolition devices as the momentum of the upper block was then sufficient to do the job. Which it then did by momentum transfer with an initial large impulse and successive impulses as each floor at the bottom of the upper block gave way.

The big problem for the official story is that you need a jolt to take out the lower structure if it isn't being done by demolition devices. They don't have a jolt for over nine measureable stories of fall of the North tower upper block. The only other answer is that demolition devices were removing the columns?

Why does it even make a difference if the demolition was started up higher in the Twin Towers? You can take out multiple floors just as easily and let it start to fall. You can even do a demolition by continuously removing the columns and not even depend on momentum transfer, which is what appears to have been done in the Twin Towers. What you can't do is get a natural collapse of the lower structure without transfer of momentum and deceleration of the upper part of the building.

Sorry AW, no jolt no natural collapse is possible. It really is that simple.

I think I am done for a while here. I just thought I would pop in and say hello. Good Luck to those of you who support the official story and are thinking of taking Heiwa's challenge. I think you are going to need it.

 

[beachnut]

The wings never made it to the core. NIST analyses even show that, and a 16.5 foot diameter hole from the fuselage all the way through the tower would not have made a difference. That is why they had to say it was fire and then only due to fireproofing being stripped away. So your 1300 to 2093 tons of TNT didn't matter, unless you want to try to show how it could removed fireproofing from the opposite side of the building and above the impacts in the case of the North Tower. NIST just said it did but didn't quite explain how. Maybe you should give it a try there Beachy.

Pounds; can't you do the calculations.

The impacts were significant since Roberson planned on a 187 pounds of TNT kinetic energy impact that would almost fall off the building. But at 1300 and 2093 pounds of TNT the kinetic energy impacts damage the cores and destroyed the insulation and the fire fighting systems. Facts you have to ignore and add dirt dumb stupid explosives or sprayed on delusional super thermite. What a dumb idea you have and you call yourself an engineer but instead you are a hearsay, lie and fantasy expert spewing junk science in the name of 911Truth. How ironic as 911 proves this OP junk science to the n^thdegree.

The impacts destroyed the insulation; see! Open your eyes or learn what 2093 pounds of TNT kinetic energy can do when in the form of a 767 at 590 mph. What school trained you as an engineer to be the expert in stupid ideas on 911 due to lack of knowledge and applications of what you should haver learned in engineering school; sound judgment?

With the fireproofing mainly wallboard (like your walls in the your house where you can put a fist through at anytime, just miss the studs) and spray on under the floors, the towers were doomed with the 66,000 pounds of fuel and stripped off insulation. Sorry, the truth elude your great engineering skills, your school must of held back the real education in your case.

Think some insulation was removed?

Note: The impacts were equal in energy to 1,726,094 and 2,662,478 shotgun blasts. Do you think you can remove a lot of WALLBOARD with over a million blasts? Gee the insulation under the floors would fall off if you touched it! I think several shotgun blasts would finish off most the floor.

What does fire do to steel?

An office fire that the FD left due to possible collapse. Oh noes; the truth is fire cause steel to fail to hold the design load. Oh noes for you.

Darn, fire destroys steel; The truth that 911Truth ignores so they can sell dumb ideas on DVD to people who lack knowledge. What is your status, a fraud selling ideas or a sucker buying them?

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/onemeridiansag.jpg
One of your fellow lack of knowledge 911Truth terrorist apologist said the fires were small! Guess that is why people on fire were jumping. What do you think of your delusions after 7 years of failure?

Small fires for you and your fellow delusion seekers.

So you support the ideas of Heiwa; why am I not surprised by the dumb ideas you support on 911? The OP is false and is the anti-intellectual part of 911Truth; pure stupid.

 

[ozeco41]

The North Tower measurements show the upper block fell at approximately 0.7g and it never decelerated. How can you claim it did?

C'mon you can do better than this can't you?

Tell us how the upper block could cause the lower structure to collapse if there was no deceleration of the upper block.

So we agree on approx 0.7 G

However your use of "no deceleration" is somewhat ambiguous. Do you mean no net reduction in acceleration OR what? So can you clarify what you mean by "never decelerated"?

The fall was resisted sufficient to limit the acceleration by 0.3G to the agreed 0.7G (approximately and "average" I presume in both cases).

So something was resisting and the next questions will be "How did that global collapse occur?" and "what caused the resistance?"

 

[Tony Szamboti]

So we agree on approx 0.7 G

However your use of "no deceleration" is somewhat ambiguous. Do you mean no net reduction in acceleration OR what? So can you clarify what you mean by "never decelerated"?

The fall was resisted sufficient to limit the acceleration by 0.3G to the agreed 0.7G (approximately and "average" I presume in both cases).

So something was resisting and the next questions will be "How did that global collapse occur?" and "what caused the resistance?"

I mean there was no negative change in velocity which is deceleration. I don't mean just less acceleration as velocity is still increasing there.

In order to get an amplification of the load it must decelerate at a rate greater than 1 g. If it decelerates at 96.6 ft/sec/sec then you would have a 3g amplification and the force applied by the upper block on the lower structure would be 3 times it's static weight.

This is all explained in the Missing Jolt paper which is at the Journal of 911 Studies if you are interested.

Okay Ozeco, you are my last post as I really do have to run.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

The big problem for the official story is that you need a jolt to take out the lower structure if it isn't being done by demolition devices. They don't have a jolt for over nine measureable stories of fall of the North tower upper block. The only other answer is that demolition devices were removing the columns?

As far as I'm concerned structural failure is structural failure... if the design has vulnerabilities to certain failure mechanisms such as a progressive collapse I see no reason to believe any controlled demolition would be necessary. I don't see any similarities between those collapses and any CD other than the fact that the building collapsed. Unless people have more than simple spurious similarities to speak of it's grasping at straws, and totally unnecessary.

Why does it even make a difference if the demolition was started up higher in the Twin Towers?

I'd have an easier time believing in such speculation if they weren't clearly in a position where they would be in the direct path of vehicles that were effectively used as human-filled missiles. That aside you lose every element of "controlled" the moment you haphazardly fill specific floors allowing virtually every building within the trade center complex to be crushed under the weight of the collapsing structure. If I had even the slightest inclination to argue that bombs were used to take down the structure for any reason, the controlled demolition wouldn't be my signature term.

Sorry AW, no jolt no natural collapse is possible. It really is that simple.

The jolt was the entire 15 to 30 stories that came down on the lower section with a dynamic force that far exceeded the static weight of those sections. The result being a cascade of failures which propagated to the base of the buildings. Given their design such a failure of that magnitude was entirely understandable... If the object being impacted doesn't have nearly enough strength to sustain that force, then I doubt there's going to be much appreciable visibility of any "jolt," the mass will just slam right through it

I think I am done for awhile here. I just thought I would pop in and say hello. Good Luck to those of you who support the official story and are thinking of taking Heiwa's challenge. You are going to need it.

Well sorry to hear that if you see some legitimacy to Heiwa's comparison's... Comparing ship collisions, pizza boxes, and lemons to two full sized skyscrapers simply burns my eye balls... Those aren't case studies... Making a challenge based on such bizarre comparisons is... unique... l8r....

 

[Furcifer]

The North Tower measurements show the upper block fell at approximately 0.7g and it never decelerated. How can you claim it did?

AI was heading towards the free fall claim. 0.3g is missing, where did it go?

 

[beachnut]

... This is all explained in the Missing Jolt paper which is at the Journal of 911 Studies if you are interested.
...

Sampling theory is your downfall. You need a video at a frame rate of 96.35 frames per second to catch a rough jolt on 911 (192.7 fps for high fidelity). Did you try to do the math, or use some engineering stink on this? Your work looks like you made it all up to fool idiots. Why can't you do simple physics?

Why is the OP so dumb? Explain and support the OP with your voodoo engineering; it will be so entertaining.

 

[ozeco41]

....What does fire do to steel?....

One of the more dramatic examples I have visited is Coventry Cathedral.

The original timber roof structure had become weakened through deterioration and had been reinforced with steel.

At least one body of opinion has it that the collapse of Nov 1940 (?) resulted from the weight of steel reinforcing which lost its own structural strength in the fire and actually was the overload to trigger the collapse.

I cannot quickly locate any pictures but this was the post collapse scene:

http://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/results.asp?image=10464569&wwwflag=3&imagepos=9

 

[ozeco41]

I mean there was no negative change in velocity which is deceleration. I don't mean just less acceleration as velocity is still increasing there.

OK

... In order to get an amplification of the load it must decelerate at a rate greater than 1 g. If it decelerates at 96.6 ft/sec/sec then you would have a 3g amplification and the force applied.....

Right - so that disposes of the basic physics near enough for us to take the next step.

.... by the upper block on the lower structure would be 3 times it's static weight.

...this is where the fundamental misclose between your starting point premises and what actually happened at WTC on 9/11 intrudes into your logic.

The upper block impacted only on parts of the lower structure. To first order approximation (leaving some loose ends aside for simplicity of explanation ONLY) the upper block missed the outer columns AND landed on the first floor below it. So it is the total wight of the upper block plus its dynamic impacts landing on ONE floor which therefore overwhelmingly lands on and shears the floor joist to column connections.

There are only two aspects to include into that oversimplification:

1. The effect of the seriously weakened core which (a)could not support the outer floors via the overhead hanging from the hat truss AND (b) would mostly miss landing with any effective upper core to lower core transfer of axial loading into columns leaving far weaker other means of transfer OR total miss for probably most columns at the first floor of downward impact.
2. Some friction with the outer columns which remained standing for a variable but brief interval after the collapse wave passed inside the tube.

.... This is all explained in the Missing Jolt paper which is at the Journal of 911 Studies if you are interested.....

I read the paper on the second or so day after it was published. It builds on a false premise of how the contact between the falling block and the lower tower actually occurred. So qualitatively my explanation as posted so far is correct. Quantitatively will need to come later.

My premise is correct. The premise of your paper is not and therefore the conclusions are incorrect. And you unfortunately do not have the benefit of having the right answer come out of a wrong method (Which is the piece of generally unrecognised luck that some of the energy calculation based positions against demolition benefit from. )

 

[Tony Szamboti]

OK Right - so that disposes of the basic physics near enough for us to take the next step. ...this is where the fundamental misclose between your starting point premises and what actually happened at WTC on 9/11 intrudes into your logic.

The upper block impacted only on parts of the lower structure. To first order approximation (leaving some loose ends aside for simplicity of explanation ONLY) the upper block missed the outer columns AND landed on the first floor below it. So it is the total wight of the upper block plus its dynamic impacts landing on ONE floor which therefore overwhelmingly lands on and shears the floor joist to column connections.

There are only two aspects to include into that oversimplification:

1. The effect of the seriously weakened core which (a)could not support the outer floors via the overhead hanging from the hat truss AND (b) would mostly miss landing with any effective upper core to lower core transfer of axial loading into columns leaving far weaker other means of transfer OR total miss for probably most columns at the first floor of downward impact.
2. Some friction with the outer columns which remained standing for a variable but brief interval after the collapse wave passed inside the tube.

I read the paper on the second or so day after it was published. It builds on a false premise of how the contact between the falling block and the lower tower actually occurred. So qualitatively my explanation as posted so far is correct. Quantitatively will need to come later.

My premise is correct. The premise of your paper is not and therefore the conclusions are incorrect. And you unfortunately do not have the benefit of having the right answer come out of a wrong method (Which is the piece of generally unrecognised luck that some of the energy calculation based positions against demolition benefit from. )

I have to answer you here. You are making a huge completely unsupported assumption in saying that connected columns would miss their lower portion when they buckle.

I say they would not miss.

On top of that there is no jolt for the 114 feet over which the fall of the upper block was measureable. How do you account for that in light of every other collapse having a jolt if it is dependent on transfer of momentum to cause it.

What you are saying is unsupportable but if you believe it write it up and try to get it published.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Sampling theory is your downfall. You need a video at a frame rate of 96.35 frames per second to catch a rough jolt on 911 (192.7 fps for high fidelity). Did you try to do the math, or use some engineering stink on this? Your work looks like you made it all up to fool idiots. Why can't you do simple physics?

Why is the OP so dumb? Explain and support the OP with your voodoo engineering; it will be so entertaining.

I already explained that you don't need to see the jolt to measure it's effect. I'll tell you one more time. The velocity loss would cause a time lag for the upper block to get back to pre-impact velocity. That is where one can discern whether or not a velocity loss occurred. There was no velocity loss and therefore no amplified load and no mechanism for a natural collapse.

Why can't you seem to comprehend this. Do you have a mental block of some sort?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

AI was heading towards the free fall claim. 0.3g is missing, where did it go?

Imagine you have a 100 lb. metal weight being supported with 30 legs which together can support 300 lbs. This means 10 legs can just support the 100 lb. weight.

Now remove 27 of the legs and what happens? The 100 lb. weight falls at 0.7g.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

The jolt was the entire 15 to 30 stories that came down on the lower section with a dynamic force that far exceeded the static weight of those sections. The result being a cascade of failures which propagated to the base of the buildings. Given their design such a failure of that magnitude was entirely understandable... If the object being impacted doesn't have nearly enough strength to sustain that force, then I doubt there's going to be much appreciable visibility of any "jolt," the mass will just slam right through it

Sorry Grizzly, but it doesn't work like that. Even if the momentum transfer was sufficient to cause the upper block to slam right through the lower structure it would still need to decelerate to apply the necessary force.

You sound like you are arguing from incredulity.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Sorry Grizzly, but it doesn't work like that. Even if the momentum transfer was sufficient to cause the upper block to slam right through the lower structure it would still need to decelerate to apply the necessary force.

I don't doubt that... however if the force substantially overwhelms an object's capability to carry the weight that change in acceleration is reflected accordingly, in the case of the towers such deceleration in a visual context is indiscernible. I'm certain one of the more experienced engineers here will clarify this in better detail...

You sound like you are arguing from incredulity.

Somehow I doubt that...