Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

[ozeco41]

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.

false accusation there Tony - My posts were explicit that the bold assertions are for simplicity of explanation with proof to possibly follow if justified.

I say they would not miss.

since I am the engineer I suspect that your reason in making that comment may for the benefit of the non-engineers who MAY see it as you legitimately putting doubt on my point.

Axial loading of columns (and lateral bracing) are the key aspects which enable a column to support its design load. The simple probability that an already misaligned top block would start its descent with columns aligned with sufficient accuracy to transfer designed strength axial loads is so small as to be almost disregardable. Even the tilt of the top section alone would compromise that alignment. For those columns already cut or even bent the chance of full design load axial transfer is remote and buckling or bending near certain.

...On top of that there is no jolt for the 114 feet over which the fall of the upper block was measurable......

a more accurate statement would be "On top of that there is no jolt that was measurable for the 114 feet over which the fall of the upper block was measurable"

With respect - whether you are right or I am - the mini jolts as floors were sheared would be too small to detect on the macro scale of the measurements you made. To legitimately criticise my explanation you have to look for measurements of the jolts my explanation uses. Trying to measure my explanation by the characteristics of yours is, well, just a little bit cheating.

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...

Lets clear up one issue that continues to derail your logic. I have never said no jolts. I have said they were "little" jolts and several other diminutives on my several forums and email lists.

Second issue is the false analogy not only "every other collapse having a jolt" but this one (these ones) also had "jolts". I don't have to account for all the others NOR for your false inferences that I have claimed no jolts at WTC and/or not explained them. Both those inferences are not true.

What you are saying is unsupportable...

hang on a minute. You denied me the right to open with a bold assertion with delayed support if needed. How about you apply the same standard to yourself.

... but if you believe it write it up and try to get it published.

Not my life objective. Never have been interested in the "Academic Status Game" of published papers - only did one or two (and both in HR management not technical)

My current and last few years focus relevant to this topic is assisting those who are genuine enquirers to understand the technical, security and logistic aspects of the question "demolition or not?" at WTC on 9/11. Happens to fit my career experience stream like a glove.

My primary focus is not on converting "believers" nor on "beating them in debate".

If you are not able to benefit from my input I am still reaching members of my intended audience who may benefit. And I get enough feedback from them to satisfy the small proportion of ego goals that is involved.

 

[beachnut]

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?

Are you always this bad at physics?

There were velocity losses and that is why the WTC collapsed slower than free-fall. But go ahead and spew dolt science for the dumb followers of 911Truth.

Go ahead make my day and specify exactly the time delay in seconds. I can tell you the first 31G jolt needed better than 100 fps to detect. But you can go ahead and make up lies and junk science. You will not be getting a Pulitzer Prize, you will be laughed at by real engineers.

Go ahead break the story of how you support Heiwa's failed OP and delusional engineering. Go ahead and publish more junk in the journal of woo started by Jones.

Got anything at all to save the OP; your paper failed when you used a slow frame rate video; failure is an exact art for 911Truth; you have perfected it. OP?

 

[Furcifer]

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.

I suppose this makes sense to you. You certainly have a unique way of thinking.

 

[alienentity]

my prediction? this thread will end up like all others. the truthers will get frustrated and resort to calling the debunkers: "government loyalists", "bush lovers", or even "traitors".

any bets?

It's now ok to be a bush lover again....

 

[GodisEnergy]

if the concrete is pulverised then where does the energy come from to crush the tower below. you cannot have it both ways.

 

[beachnut]

if the concrete is pulverised then where does the energy come from to crush the tower below. you cannot have it both ways.

So physics is not your bag; what is new. You will not be able to support the failed OP; will you?

Are you talking about the dust now? Sorry, but most the dust was not pulverized concrete. Do you have something to help Heiwa with? Got physics?

 

[ozeco41]

if the concrete is pulverised then where does the energy come from to crush the tower below. you cannot have it both ways.

Very little concrete was pulverised other than as a consequence of falling not a cause. And the tower was not crushed in any normal sense of meaning of that word. The floors were peeled off the columns and the rest fell over.

Don't know what you are claiming is "both ways".

Next question.

 

[Heiwa]

... the tower was not crushed in any normal sense of meaning of that word. The floors were peeled off the columns and the rest fell over.

You might be right! But can energy provided by gravity alone do that? That is topic of thread!

 

[ozeco41]

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti
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
....

Missed this earlier Grizzly Bear.

This part of your comment is 95% accurate - I would say "strength" not "static weight" for the extra 5%. The rest is spot on.
Tony's comment is a mendacious strawman argument. He says "no jolt no natural collapse is possible" which is sort of true in the context. But he implies that there was "no jolt" when the reality is that he means "no jolt big enough to support his false view of the events". And it follows that he only looked for jolts big enough to give the answer he wanted. The real jolts were much smaller - because the falling mass hit and fractured the weakest links. Tony and other truthers want you to think the strongest links failed because that needs a lot of energy and therefore supports "explosives".

Simple tactics if he gets away with it. Some of us understand the structures so we are not gullible. And you accurately describe what happened. Well done.

 

[Heiwa]

Missed this earlier Grizzly Bear.

This part of your comment is 95% accurate - I would say "strength" not "static weight" for the extra 5%. The rest is spot on.
Tony's comment is a mendacious strawman argument. He says "no jolt no natural collapse is possible" which is sort of true in the context. But he implies that there was "no jolt" when the reality is that he means "no jolt big enough to support his false view of the events". And it follows that he only looked for jolts big enough to give the answer he wanted. The real jolts were much smaller - because the falling mass hit and fractured the weakest links. Tony and other truthers want you to think the strongest links failed because that needs a lot of energy and therefore supports "explosives".

Simple tactics if he gets away with it. Some of us understand the structures so we are not gullible. And you accurately describe what happened. Well done.

I would say 100% inaccurate as explained in post #1! The energy available at first impact is very small and all of it should be absorbed as elastic compression of structure and ground = jolt + ARREST.
But maybe more energy was available or impact produced high local pressures somewhere and some element was broken first, probably in the upper part C, as it was the lightest and weakest part.
Regardless, there is always a jolt when something - part C - drops and impacts something static. If there is no jolt, there is no drop. Isaac Newton was one of the first to explain it.
By careful examinations of videos of part C roof line displacement for > 3 seconds no jolt is observed, just increasing velocity at abt 0.7 g suggesting that structural elements in both parts C and A are removed/destroyed NOT by part C dropping/crushing them, a phenomenon that is impossible for any structure. That part C roof line doesn't drop at 1 g is simply due to broken elements braking the displacement a little before being ejected in a fountain of debris as observed. Controlled demolition is the only way to demolish a structure like WTC 1 as one-way crush down of A by C is impossible. It is quite simple, actually.
Why do you make up fairy tales of floors dropping off, walls peeling off, core structure just falling apart ignoring all joints between these elements that require 1000X more energy to be broken than can be applied by gravity of a little part dropping on the top?

 

[alienentity]

Heiwa, just because you and Tony seem unable to comprehend things that many other competent and qualified engineers can, you seem to believe that makes you right.

It doesn't. It actually makes you wrong. Get over it and move on. You're flogging a dead horse already.

You can't seriously be expecting people to buy into the idea that explosives brought those buildings down. That possibility doesn't exist, based on the actual events. Perhaps in an alternative scenario - one that didn't happen - your ideas might have some validity, but in this case they don't.

The explosives needed to accomplish the things you guys are talking about would have left plenty of evidence, starting with large explosions of the type seen in actual controlled demolitions.
Since that didn't happen, you can't just invent another reality and expect it to be taken seriously.

For gawds sake, even the guy who designed the buildings, Leslie Robertson, who obviously has far better credentials and judgment than you guys, calculated that, once the upper blocks began to move, nothing could have stopped the collapse of the towers down to their foundations.

Maybe when you and Tony have designed 30 or 40 buildings you can claim some credentials. Until then you're just wasting everybody's time.

 

[ozeco41]

....Why do you make up fairy tales of floors dropping off, walls peeling off, core structure just falling apart ignoring all joints between these elements that require 1000X more energy to be broken than can be applied by gravity of a little part dropping on the top?

Please take care Heiwa - admit too much of the truth and your own model may "Globally Collapse"

The floors of WTC 1 & 2 two were sheared off the columns.

That is clearly shown by the sheets of outer walls falling freely AND UNBUCKLED to land outwards from the base of the towers.

The only question is "sheared of by falling weight" OR "cut off by explosives"?

The falling weight was at least ten times overload for any one floor plus dynamic impact. You do not need to be an engineer or do any calculations to work out what happens when 10 plus dynamic lands on 1 plus safety. You have about a 50 on 5 overload. And, to quote one other source "global collapse is inevitable". 50 beats 5 and I use the word overwhelming.

You persist all you want with your strawman - one of your multiple strawmen actually - of a little thing hitting a big thing. Utter nonsense.

10 floors in one case and 20 floors in the other, of total structure, landed on the single floor equivalent and a severely weakening contact with the core.

It is a no brainer. It is no little thing hitting a big thing. No it is a big thing hitting a little thing about 80 times in sequence. The big lump takes out the one floor, takes out, bends, deflects or misses a level of core and continues on to the next.

When it hits the next it has the extra weight of the last floor level failed join to and increase the falling weight.

 

[ozeco41]

Heiwa, just because you and Tony seem unable to comprehend things that many other competent and qualified engineers can, you seem to believe that makes you right.

It doesn't. It actually makes you wrong. Get over it and move on. You're flogging a dead horse already.

You can't seriously be expecting people to buy into the idea that explosives brought those buildings down. That possibility doesn't exist, based on the actual events. Perhaps in an alternative scenario - one that didn't happen - your ideas might have some validity, but in this case they don't.

The explosives needed to accomplish the things you guys are talking about would have left plenty of evidence, starting with large explosions of the type seen in actual controlled demolitions.
Since that didn't happen, you can't just invent another reality and expect it to be taken seriously.

For gawds sake, even the guy who designed the buildings, Leslie Robertson, who obviously has far better credentials and judgment than you guys, calculated that, once the upper blocks began to move, nothing could have stopped the collapse of the towers down to their foundations.

Well said alienentity. The big picture of the logistic and security impossibility of demolition is one the we let pass when doing these truthers the courtesy of attempting to explain. So we are acting as if one hand tied. Then they rarely accept evidence of structural reasoning let alone video. So Tony and Heiwa both adopt fantasy models of collapse which are not analogous to actual events of 9/11. And neither has the grace to back out when confronted by reality. So they are out there , in the public arena, all their faults exposed and only supported by their sycophant supporters. Not the place I would want to be. Then my ego needs are different.

...Maybe when you and Tony have designed 30 or 40 buildings you can claim some credentials. Until then you're just wasting everybody's time.

No need to wait for that goal. I could not satisfy it. The only need is to look at evidence and correctly interpret it. AND, if you make a big mistake, either run away and hide OR admit it and gain respect.

 

[alienentity]

'no jolt is observed' but even if there was a jolt 'The energy available at first impact is very small ' If by 'small' you mean 'Many times greater than the strength of the impacted points' sure, it was positively tiny.
To declare that there was no jolt is misleading. To claim that the impact was small is misleading.
Most normal, rational people can see that the structure began to fail, not as a result of a giant explosion immediately preceding the failure (as in CD).
And most normal, rational people are able to see the causality of a giant airplane impacting a building at 400+ mph and starting multiple giant fires leading to structural failure.

Your misuse of the concept of 'jolt' is like Steven Jones' 'nano'. They become nothing more than cheap rhetorical devices used to sell a bad theory.
Maybe you guys should switch to selling Hummers at the GM dealer. You'd probably have more success with that than you'll ever have with your current product line - with the bonus that Hummers, even if you hate 'em, are real.

 

[alienentity]

'The big picture of the logistic and security impossibility of demolition is one the we let pass when doing these truthers the courtesy of attempting to explain.' Well put.

That's an additional set of impossible challenges for them to surmount. I was just referring to the absence of the necessary explosions.

This seems to be a bad case of ASDES - Attention Seeking Dead Ender Syndrome

 

[bill smith]

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 you say that the 250 columns that still connected part C to part A after the plane crash would still strike their lower parts when the columns buckled. Do you mean that they buckled concertina-fashion ?- straight down ? How could that be ?

 

[ozeco41]

Tony you say that the 250 columns that still connected part C to part A after the plane crash would still strike their lower parts when the columns buckled. Do you mean that they buckled concertina-fashion ?- straight down ? How could that be ?

Spot on bill - that is the key point I have put to Tony only I used confusing and complicated engineering language.

And the "buckled concertina fashion" is the failure that Tony needs to make any sense out of his "Jolt Hypothesis" - it is not the only error but it is one of them and it is fatal to his case.

It is the most energy consuming failure. Think about it - you could easily break a thin stick by holding both ends and bending it over your knee. You could not hold the same stick in both hands and push it endwise so it crushed or concertinaed.

A stick has to be very weak and pliable before you can hand compress it endwise so it folds. And such a stick would have no strength against sideways bending.

In engineer talk "end on" is axial force and sideways is "bending" or "bending moment. There is another couple but those two will do for this topic at this stage.

 

[Heiwa]

Please take care Heiwa - admit too much of the truth and your own model may "Globally Collapse"

The floors of WTC 1 & 2 two were sheared off the columns.

That is clearly shown by the sheets of outer walls falling freely AND UNBUCKLED to land outwards from the base of the towers.

The only question is "sheared of by falling weight" OR "cut off by explosives"?

The falling weight was at least ten times overload for any one floor plus dynamic impact. You do not need to be an engineer or do any calculations to work out what happens when 10 plus dynamic lands on 1 plus safety. You have about a 50 on 5 overload. And, to quote one other source "global collapse is inevitable". 50 beats 5 and I use the word overwhelming.

You persist all you want with your strawman - one of your multiple strawmen actually - of a little thing hitting a big thing. Utter nonsense.

10 floors in one case and 20 floors in the other, of total structure, landed on the single floor equivalent and a severely weakening contact with the core.

It is a no brainer. It is no little thing hitting a big thing. No it is a big thing hitting a little thing about 80 times in sequence. The big lump takes out the one floor, takes out, bends, deflects or misses a level of core and continues on to the next.

When it hits the next it has the extra weight of the last floor level failed join to and increase the falling weight.

Thanks for observations. You 100% debunk Bazant & Co in their BLGB paper that explains the one-way crush down intact C crushing A and then the one-way crush up rubble B crushing C with some crazy differential equations and associated assumptions. So a Bazant one way crush down didn't take place!

Good!

So how did all the structural elements in the structure shear off at joints or inside the elements themselves? Falling elements? Why would elements connected to other elements fall? Some supports failed! They buckled! OK - some elements displaced downwards. But when did shearing off by falling elements start?
Falling elements must apply their energy/forces on other elements and then shear them off at joints or inside the element. It is not so easy. Just visit The Heiwa Challenge thread where you are invited to produce any structure that can do that. You see the other, static elements apply energy/forces on the falling elements, too.

The falling elements are assumed loose and the other elements are still connected to one another. One falling, loose element has no chance against several static elements still connected. The lonely one may contact one of the the many but will then be pushed aside; the energy of the falling element will simply not be applied to the many. And so one. So a falling object C cannot destroy an assembly A of similar objects C (A=10C) joined together. C may break loose one C of A but that's it. If you can provide evidence to the contrary, pls do.

Anyway, thanks for debunking Bazant & Co. That's the purpose of my article in post #1.

 

[bill smith]

Spot on bill - that is the key point I have put to Tony only I used confusing and complicated engineering language.

And the "buckled concertina fashion" is the failure that Tony needs to make any sense out of his "Jolt Hypothesis" - it is not the only error but it is one of them and it is fatal to his case.

It is the most energy consuming failure. Think about it - you could easily break a thin stick by holding both ends and bending it over your knee. You could not hold the same stick in both hands and push it endwise so it crushed or concertinaed.

A stick has to be very weak and pliable before you can hand compress it endwise so it folds. And such a stick would have no strength against sideways bending.

In engineer talk "end on" is axial force and sideways is "bending" or "bending moment. There is another couple but those two will do for this topic at this stage.

I see what Tony means though because at no point do we see the top block overlap the lower block which means that the walls were in perfect alignment. That would imply a straight-down collapse....column-on-column.
Oviously if 250 columns had knelt they would have knelt in one direction and that would have walked the top block visibly out of line with the lower block.
If you look at the attached video you will note there is no rotation of any kind of the roofline prior to collapse initiation. No rotation = no kneeling of 250 columns.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9-owhllM9k Antenna video

(Note; there are those who claim that although there is no rotation of the roofline in this relatively clear video that there actualy IS rotation in videos taken from other angles. Think that through)

 

[beachnut]

Many persons take for granted that steel structures of certain types, e.g. WTC Twin Towers, collapse from top down - one-way crush down - ...

On 911 the WTC fell down due to impact and fires. The gravity collapse is not understood by many due to lack of knowledge.
Heiwa's paper will be rejected and not be the source material for a Pulitzer Prize. His failure to convince any rational engineers (you can't count the idiot idea believers in 911Truth) in the world of his ideas is proof of failure. 7 years; no joy.

The WTC failed as seen on 911 without beam weapons, no thermite, no explosives, just fire after crippling impacts. Heiwa why are you stuck making up lies about 911; over 7 years after the event?