Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

[T.A.M.]

reminds me of those long forms you have to sign at the bank that nobody reads...lol

something to be said, especially in cyberspace, for FREQUENT paragraphing.

TAM

 

[Heiwa]

And the NIST Brief stopped at the point where "global collapse was inevitable" - which every competent engineer who is aware of how it collapsed would agree.

So it really is a not so clever trick to pretend otherwise.

My focus (one of them) for 18 months has been on explaining how the global collapse occurred for genuinely interested lay persons. Not trying to convert the believers - most are beyond recovery with some mix of limited understanding/intellect OR political alliance ties and loyalties to "honour" if that is correct word for untruthfulness.

Actually NIST goes a little further and says re WTC 1:

"At 10.28 a.m., 102 min after the aircraft impact, WTC1 began to collapse. … The release of potential energy (PE) due to downward movement of the building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy (SE) that could be absorbed by the structure. Global collapse ensued."

Began to collapse? OK, it started to fall down starting at the top! Funny collapse. Why? Aha, the release of potential energy exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed!
Now, that sentence is absurd! A structure may collapse, if you apply forces on it, that displaces elements, and for that you require energy, but as soon as you apply a force on an element in a structure and the element fails due to lack of strength, the force slips off ... and that's it.
There is no established, scientific method to calculate how much energy is required to demolish a structure and it has nothing to do with the strain energy that the structure could absorb.
On the other hand it is quite easy to show that for a given structure A, you cannot destroy A by dropping a part C of A on it (C<1/10A).

The NIST conclusion "Global collapse ensued" due to potential energy exceeding capability to absorb strain energy is simply false.

 

[tsig]

Oh, don't worry, I've argued with Tony before, and I'm fairly resigned to the fact that I'll never be on his Christmas card list. I just find it incredible that anyone can believe the things he claims to believe and still be able to count to five.

Dave

Tony seems to have a real lively argument going with the laws of physics.

He fought the law but the law won.

 

[AndrewIlluminatus]

Because it's idiotic. You're trying to claim that the collapse time was something other than what it should have been, yet you end up proving that it's exactly what it should have been. The fact that the 9/11 Commission Report approximates the collapse time is irrelevant. If the towers fell in 12 seconds, they fell in 12 seconds.

Still, enjoy your ranting. Someone should.

Dave

But the "collapse" of the already explosively disassembled (and estimated 40% lighter top, through lateral ejection) proceeded "through" the lower floors of the tower in only 10 to 12 seconds. Those undamaged floors below the impact zone would and must have offered resistance that is thousands of times greater than air. Recall that those lower floors had successfully supported the static mass of the tower for 30 years with a huge margin of over engineering. The top of WTC2 tipped over and was explosively disassembled upwards within the first 2 seconds of the event. The distributed dynamic weight load of a fraction of the already disassembled top of the building falling like heavy rain on the intact tower below was much less than any dynamic coherent hammer blow imagined in the absurd official explanations.

In order for the towers to have collapsed "gravitationally", as we've been told over and over again, in the observed duration, one or more of the following zany-sounding conditions must have been met:

* The undamaged floors and columns below the impact zone offered zero resistance to the collapse and did not pause in space to be collided with
* The glass and concrete spontaneously disintegrated without any expenditure of energy with all steel-frame steelwork connections breaking spontaneously as well
* On 9/11, gravity was much stronger than gravity, perhaps because an invisible very heavy giant god was involved stomping on the buildings

"All this was inspired by the principle – which is quite true in itself – that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying." Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

"How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think" - Adolf Hitler

Ron Suskind, 2002 conversation with Bush aide: "The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an EMPIRE now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality - judiciously, as you will - we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors. . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

Anyway 3000 American, economically farmed, profane "Animal Farm" cattle, killed on 9/11 is really not that important anymore IMO, since over 1 million innocent people have died in the wars that the 9/11 pretext for war spawned. Which is probably why the world now prays for the destruction of the USA and thinks that the only good American is a dead American.

 

[beachnut]

...Aside from the above, at a bare minimum a 3g deceleration of the upper block would be necessary to overload the core columns. This deceleration or jolt just isn't there, and this proves something else was causing the lower structure columns to fail to support their load. The upper block simply could not overload them without a negative velocity change due to a high deceleration of at least 3g.

You couldn't be any more wrong about how you are stating this.

You need over 100 frame per second to capture a jolt. You failed. Got physics? no you have delusions

...
we still need to catch and bring to justice the real terrorists of 9/11.

They are dead; sorry you missed reality over 7 years ago, now your delusional post needs to be trimmed to your delusional conclusion; at least you have Tony spewing delusions about explosives with you; almost forgot Heiwa and his failed engineering matches Tony's but in a special way.

Actually NIST goes a little further and says re WTC 1:

"At 10.28 a.m., 102 min after the aircraft impact, WTC1 began to collapse. … The release of potential energy (PE) due to downward movement of the building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy (SE) that could be absorbed by the structure. Global collapse ensued."

Began to collapse? OK, it started to fall down starting at the top! Funny collapse. Why? Aha, the release of potential energy exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed!
Now, that sentence is absurd! ...

And you replace reality with your delusional junk engineering with your kids jumping on a bed to prove you have some far out ideas on 911. Is the super-nano-thermite full moon out? We have AI who can't to a lick of physics and matches Heiwa full blown failure to understand gravity. Can AI, Heiwa, and Tony come up with a single integrated ops plan for their evil plot? Three delusion believers and not one of them has the same story. Physics baffles them and poor Tony can't figure out the jolt is missing because he has no video at over 100 to 200 frames per second. Does he understand you have to sample at a rate to catch your event?

 

[twinstead]

But the "collapse" of the already explosively disassembled (and estimated 40% lighter top, through lateral ejection) proceeded "through" the lower floors of the tower in only 10 to 12 seconds. Those undamaged floors below the impact zone would and must have offered resistance that is thousands of times greater than air. Recall that those lower floors had successfully supported the static mass of the tower for 30 years with a huge margin of over engineering. The top of WTC2 tipped over and was explosively disassembled upwards within the first 2 seconds of the event. The distributed dynamic weight load of a fraction of the already disassembled top of the building falling like heavy rain on the intact tower below was much less than any dynamic coherent hammer blow imagined in the absurd official explanations.

In order for the towers to have collapsed "gravitationally", as we've been told over and over again, in the observed duration, one or more of the following zany-sounding conditions must have been met:

* The undamaged floors and columns below the impact zone offered zero resistance to the collapse and did not pause in space to be collided with
* The glass and concrete spontaneously disintegrated without any expenditure of energy with all steel-frame steelwork connections breaking spontaneously as well
* On 9/11, gravity was much stronger than gravity, perhaps because an invisible very heavy giant god was involved stomping on the buildings

"All this was inspired by the principle – which is quite true in itself – that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying." Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

"How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think" - Adolf Hitler

Ron Suskind, 2002 conversation with Bush aide: "The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an EMPIRE now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality - judiciously, as you will - we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors. . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

Anyway 3000 American, economically farmed, profane "Animal Farm" cattle, killed on 9/11 is really not that important anymore IMO, since over 1 million innocent people have died in the wars that the 9/11 pretext for war spawned. Which is probably why the world now prays for the destruction of the USA and thinks that the only good American is a dead American.

The politics forum is that way -------->

My mama always told me that ideologues are the world's WORST investigators and jurors. You are welcome to your political beliefs, but they cloud your judgment as far as 911 goes. You don't think so, but just like crazy people don't know they're crazy, irrational ideologues don't know they're...well...irrational.

So, I could care less what you think about 911. Your beliefs are irrelevant to reality. Go play in the politics forum. They'll love you.

 

[DavidJames]

The politics forum is that way -------->

My mama always told me that ideologues are the world's WORST investigators and jurors. You are welcome to your political beliefs, but they cloud your judgment as far as 911 goes. You don't think so, but just like crazy people don't know they're crazy, irrational ideologues don't know they're...well...irrational.

So, I could care less what you think about 911. Your beliefs are irrelevant to reality. Go play in the politics forum. They'll love you.

I agree and Andrew, not to worry, there are plenty of wacky conspiracy theorists there to entertain and be entertained by.

 

[Dave Rogers]

But the "collapse" of the already explosively disassembled (and estimated 40% lighter top, through lateral ejection) proceeded "through" the lower floors of the tower in only 10 to 12 seconds. Those undamaged floors below the impact zone would and must have offered resistance that is thousands of times greater than air.

I've done the maths. It gave the right answer. You haven't done the maths, so your handwaving is irrelevant. The Twin Towers fell in exactly the time a reasonable engineering analysis would predict they should have taken. I suggest you read Gregory Urich's paper on the subject, the one the Journal of 9/11 Studies refused to publish because, in their attempts to expose the atmosphere of secrecy and lies that they like to think surround the events of 9/11, they've decided to create secrecy and lies of their own. Some of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists are as bad as the imaginary conspiracists they like to fantasise about.

Dave

 

[Seymour Butz]

Aside from the above, at a bare minimum a 3g deceleration of the upper block would be necessary to overload the core columns. This deceleration or jolt just isn't there, and this proves something else was causing the lower structure columns to fail to support their load. The upper block simply could not overload them without a negative velocity change due to a high deceleration of at least 3g.

So why in your paper are you whining about the lack of a 31G jolt? If we see a 31G jolt, then arrest is expected - assuming those figures are correct. Doesn't the LACK of a 31G jolt therefore argue in favor of NO arrest?

Right here you acknowledge that only 3G is needed to overload the core columns below the initiation zone. And that's assuming that 3G = a FOS of 3, which I'm not sure is correct. It may be less. Anyone care to flesh this out?

Here's a question - what if a lower figure is correct, like .5G, and the frame rate of youtube videos is unable to discern it?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Right here you acknowledge that only 3G is needed to overload the core columns below the initiation zone. And that's assuming that 3G = a FOS of 3, which I'm not sure is correct. It may be less. Anyone care to flesh this out?

The whole idea of a jolt is absurd.

Let's look at a scenario. Suppose we have a mass supported by an array of 100 columns, on a 10x10 grid, each capable of carrying 3% of the total mass, for a FOS of 3. Now, remove enough load carrying capacity that the FOS falls below 1, by a combination of structural damage and thermal weakening. The columns will then fail, allowing the mass to fall. If the failure mode is such that there is an undamaged section of column below the failed section, then the mass will fall on to the undamaged section. Tony claims that the collision between the mass and the undamaged section causes the jolt.

Now, suppose that the mass rotates as it falls. This will result in one corner striking one column. The breaking strain of that column is 3% of the total mass, so there's a deceleration of 0.03g from the moment the column is struck to the moment it fails. (That's not strictly correct, but it's a good enough simplification.) Between the time of impact and the time of failure, the column is being compressed, in other words it's shortening. Then the next two columns, adjacent to the corner column, impact the lower block, and there's a deceleration of 0.06g from them. Then the next three strike, and there's a deceleration of 0.09g. Total deceleration is now 0.18g. But somewhere around this time, the first column fails, so the deceleration drops to 0.15g. Another few columns strike, a few more fail, and the total deceleration never gets anywhere near 3g; in fact, it averages out to something like the ultimate strength of the columns multiplied by the fraction of their length they can shorten before failing, which works out to about 0.3g. Since there's still a 1g downward acceleration due to gravity, the block falls at a resultant acceleration of 0.7g.

And that's why Tony doesn't see his jolt. It's smeared out by the fact that the upper block doesn't hit all the columns at the same time. It's ironic that he's aware that the acceleration is 0.7g, but doesn't realise that he should see either freefall with jolts or reduced acceleration; he expects to see both.

Dave

 

[bill smith]

In the light of Heiwa's new and illuminating pictures and what I've posted below do you not hink that the case for column-on-column contact between the upper and lower blocks is fully proven ? Shouldn't his have caused a big jolt ?

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 actually IS rotation in videos taken from other angles. Think that through)

 

[Seymour Butz]

The whole idea of a jolt is absurd.

Let's look at a scenario. Suppose we have a mass supported by an array of 100 columns, on a 10x10 grid, each capable of carrying 3% of the total mass, for a FOS of 3. Now, remove enough load carrying capacity that the FOS falls below 1, by a combination of structural damage and thermal weakening. The columns will then fail, allowing the mass to fall. If the failure mode is such that there is an undamaged section of column below the failed section, then the mass will fall on to the undamaged section. Tony claims that the collision between the mass and the undamaged section causes the jolt.

Now, suppose that the mass rotates as it falls. This will result in one corner striking one column. The breaking strain of that column is 3% of the total mass, so there's a deceleration of 0.03g from the moment the column is struck to the moment it fails. (That's not strictly correct, but it's a good enough simplification.) Between the time of impact and the time of failure, the column is being compressed, in other words it's shortening. Then the next two columns, adjacent to the corner column, impact the lower block, and there's a deceleration of 0.06g from them. Then the next three strike, and there's a deceleration of 0.09g. Total deceleration is now 0.18g. But somewhere around this time, the first column fails, so the deceleration drops to 0.15g. Another few columns strike, a few more fail, and the total deceleration never gets anywhere near 3g; in fact, it averages out to something like the ultimate strength of the columns multiplied by the fraction of their length they can shorten before failing, which works out to about 0.3g. Since there's still a 1g downward acceleration due to gravity, the block falls at a resultant acceleration of 0.7g.

And that's why Tony doesn't see his jolt. It's smeared out by the fact that the upper block doesn't hit all the columns at the same time. It's ironic that he's aware that the acceleration is 0.7g, but doesn't realise that he should see either freefall with jolts or reduced acceleration; he expects to see both.

Dave

That's about what i expected.

So the claim of a even a 3G jolt needs to be seen, given the simplified scenario that Bazant gives, is wrong?

I tried doing this before at ATS, using some of the numbers from Bazant's first paper and came up with a lower number than .3G, IIRC around .1G, but since I'm not an engineer, never felt real good about them.

So then assuming that my .1G is correct, the difference between .1G and .3G represent what exactly? Acceleration from gravity to the equilibrium point of energy absorption vs energy "addition" from gravity?

Thus giving an averaged .7G during the collapse?

 

[beachnut]

..
(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)

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16049...

Note: when 911Truth says the WTC was brought down by explosives or super thermite it is clear from the evidence there were no explosives just a gravity collapse. The release of energy greater than 576,000,000,000 joules in each tower is too big of a number for 911Truth to grasp with their constant delusion posting. The same energy used in real CD did the WTC in, gravity. Think that through when you show up without evidence just junk science.

 

[Seymour Butz]

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.

This flies in the face of all the questions that troofers have about why the top stopped rotating.

That is unless you want to limit your statement to PRIOR to the collapse initiation. The reason for this should be self evident. If it's not moving, collapse initiation hasn't begun, right?

But what happens in the moments AFTER collapse initiation? Rotation, right?

Heiwa even acknowledges this in his "entanglement" argument. There can be no "entanglement" unless the columns miss each other. Do you agree?

 

[Heiwa]

Off Topic a long way - 31 g during 0.028 s

We are Off Topic a long way, but one reason why a one-way Crush down is not possible is the high g-forces applied at contact.

Imagine a part C dropping on part A and that C bounces, as they usually do, when stiff objects collide. Soft objects, like ships, damage each other a little. One-way crush down never occurs.

Stiff C has dropped on A from 3.7 m and has thus velocity v (down) = 8.52m/s at impact with A. After say 0.05 seconds contact with stiff A, stiff C is bouncing up with say velocity v(up) = -0.7 v(down) = -5.97 m/s. The total change in velocity is thus 14.49 m/s during 0.05 s corresponding to a deceleration/acceleration of 290 m/s² or 29.5 g that stiff C was subject to.

Say that C does not bounce up after impact but comes to rest on part A. Only elastic compression/damping takes place. Thus C v(up)=0 after impact. The change in velocity is just 8.52 m/s. Say that it took 0.028 s. The deceleration is thus 304 m/s² or 31g.

Luckily, this high g-force deceleration only lasted 0.028 s, so no damages to A and C took place. On molecular contact level in C and A there was hard work going on that nobody noticed. Actually all energy applied by C at impact was absorbed and converted into heat!

It is why this thread is so hot!

 

[ozeco41]

THe obsession with a visible jolt is as bizarre as Psybillyhackrs' (can't get the spelling of his name right if my life depended on it) obsession with the mass of concrete and steel inside the building's...

psikeyhackr - he and I are old acquaintances from elsewhere where I use a slightly different version of my user name which is just as transparent.

The obsessions are structured similarly - an underlying belief system which shows in refusal to depart from a flawed premise.

 

[bill smith]

This flies in the face of all the questions that troofers have about why the top stopped rotating.

That is unless you want to limit your statement to PRIOR to the collapse initiation. The reason for this should be self evident. If it's not moving, collapse initiation hasn't begun, right?

But what happens in the moments AFTER collapse initiation? Rotation, right?

Heiwa even acknowledges this in his "entanglement" argument. There can be no "entanglement" unless the columns miss each other. Do you agree?

What I really want to know is whether the 250 remaining clumns hnelt or if they collapsed straight down on themselves. The evidence i have shown here points to the second scenario. .

 

[WildCat]

We are Off Topic a long way, but one reason why a one-way Crush down is not possible is the high g-forces applied at contact.

This was posted earlier but Heiwa seems to have missed it...

 

[Seymour Butz]

What I really want to know is whether the 250 remaining clumns hnelt or if they collapsed straight down on themselves. The evidence i have shown here points to the second scenario. .

And what I'm telling you is that the 2 are mutually exclusive.

If Tony wants to argue that they fell straight down, and the ends of the columns met, that is 1 scenario. Then the maths tell the truth. the maths are in dispute.

But Heiwa has argued that they DON'T meet, become entangled, and the fall is arrested due to entanglement/friction.

You can't have it both ways.

You need to pick a side here.

To argue both is illiogical.

 

[alienentity]

AndrewIlluminatus - I don't suppose you really care if your basic facts are accurate or not. But for the record, you wrote: 'The observed near free-fall times of the Twin Towers (and WTC7) were a dramatic signature of a controlled demolition.
[Except that your conclusion is based on incorrect data, as I'll show] US (war criminal) regime [??? NIST scientists are war crimininals? Please get back on your meds] measured times are around 10 to 12 seconds for WTC 1 & 2 and 6.6 seconds for the shorter WTC 7, which is close to calculated free-fall time in air, indicating the tower floors fell without much impediment.
[Let's get this straight: NIST et al are all government shill liars, but you're going to quote their figures anyway, without fact-checking. Here's a few facts for you:
1) Collapse times for both towers, based on seismic data plus video, are minimum 15 seconds each, not including the core sections up to 60 stories which stood even longer.
FACT: the towers didn't collapse close to freefall. That is a myth.
2) WTC7 took OVER 14 seconds to collapse, from the time the East Penthouse fell into the building until it disappeared from view on one CBS video.] (see my video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnW0rlectQ0

They essentially fell into air because the buildings had already lost all structural integrity. [False. See above]
The collapse of WTC 7 in 6.6 seconds is just 0.6 of a second longer than it would take an object dropped from the roof to hit the ground so where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum, one of the foundational laws of physics?'
[Your questions are answered by a simply examination of the facts. Case closed - no freefall speed overall, no CD. Plus, WTC towers were obviously NOTHING like classic CD, but even building 7 wasn't either -
1) It did NOT collapse from the bottom, as you claim. The initial failure was at least 7 floors up, above the giant trusses and Con Ed substation.
2) The initial failure was NOT simultaneous across the whole building, not even close. Again, NOT like CD
3) No explosive flashes, no shockwaves of any kind were recorded on audio/video, thus eliminating, a priori, controlled demolition thru explosives.
4) Don't even go there - the class 'explosives' includes superthermite or nanothermite. and regular thermite is of course eliminated as the cause of the 2.25 second period close to freefall for WTC7, since it COULD NOT remove structure simultaneously.

Your argument fails because it is not grounded in reality. CD theory fails for similar reasons.

Be very careful when accusing people of war crimes and mass murder. It is inflammatory and irresponsible to do this when you clearly lack the knowledge to judge.