Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, of course! But where do you put a column in a ship that floats in water?
Not really relevant to this thread....

And why don't ships sink -
Buoyancy

Good! Newton's third law! And Arkimedes.
Apparently you haven't seen what methane gas releases are capable of doing to a ship's buoyancy... can somebody remind me why I'm even talking about ships in this damn thread? :rolleyes:



When the truss is clearly shown connected to the corrugated steel sheet onto which the steel re-bar reinforced concrete floor slab is poured and the truss is anyway cross-braced in a grid pattern, why would it bend-down from a local, asymmetrical, debris impact in one spot?


Probably because in part these floor systems are not only long spanning, but also light weight, and not remotely designed to carry the building.

The truss system would remain firmly stuck to the underside of the floor. You have to shear off all the connections around the entire internal and external perimeter of the square donut floor pan...
Are you really treating the floor systems as monolithic entities like you people tend to do with the overall towers?

to get it to try to pancake and it would still experience friction and resistance around the internal/external edges as it slid down.
Once the floors are compromised they're no longer serving their purpose, which happened to be bracing the core and the perimeter columns together to provide their rigidity. You've entered Heiwa territory with that bizarre friction argument.
 
That is the key error that most make. Even some on the "no demolition side".

"They" presume either solid objects contacting OR a form of contact which has velocity impacts yet still manages to have each column contact its other half ANd transfer full strength in axial compression. Well nigh impossible for each column and even more improbable for all the columns.

So Tony Szamboti; Heiwa; David S Chandler all make that error, decline to correct it and avoid rational debate with the engineers who could show the false assumptions. But Greening also makes the same assumption and Bazant appears to.

Reality is the top blocks of WTC 1 & 2 fell inside the outer tube of columns. Missed most if not all of the core columns and landed on the floor. This crude drawing shows one floor joist to outer column and diagrammatically what happened. Whether an integral whole block or eventually broken into components the same weight of top block plus accumulating debris of severed floors landed on the floor joist to column connections.

[qimg]http://conleys.com.au/webjref/003.jpg[/qimg]

That connection designed for one floor and its loads asked to take ten floors or more of total structure. So 20 times overload even if statically applied. Add momentum and easily in the 50-100 times overload.

So even with say 5 times safety you still have at least 10 times overload and it takes no engineering degree to say that is "overwhelming" and the joint fails.(FEMA drawing, my add ons are the crude bits)

Here's a few pics to accompany your diagram. The evidence is fairly clear, at least to me. This constant bafflegab by Heiwa is just a red herring festival.





 
Here you can see profound distortion of the structure. No explosives at all. Zero.
bowed.jpg

And another view
sag.ht2.jpg

Beginning of collapse, no explosions cutting perimeter columns. Therefore that CD theory is falsified.
sag.ht3.jpg


Sagging floor truss viewable thru window openings. It's not a theory, it's a fact. That's hard evidence, not pseudoscientific, primitive math equations.

sag.ht1.jpg
 
That is strange as the structure below, part A, had statically carried the structure above for 30+ years with good resistance.

But now the structure above (which I call part C) was dropped on the structure below - part A! Fair enough. What happens? The structure above - part C - has a mass! OK. I agree. And when this mass, part C, drops it can apply energy (or force) on part A, when contact takes place. And this energy is tremendous! Is it?
When is the light going to penetrate the deep fog that keeps you from seeing that it was the COLUMNS, both core and perimeter, that supported all that weight all those years, and that the part that failed, the FLOORS supported nothing vertically besides furniture and people?

The columns, for the most part, did just fine outside of the impact zone.

The floors wimped out at BOO!

Without floors between them, the perimeter columns had no other option but to move away from the core columns.

Have I dumbed this down enough for you to grasp?
 
[. The truss system would remain firmly stuck to the underside of the floor. You have to shear off all the connections around the entire internal and external perimeter of the square donut floor pan to get it to try to pancake and it would still experience friction and resistance around the internal/external edges as it slid down.

No, the truss system would not remain firmly stuck to the floor. There's very little other than gravity holding the pans and slab to the floor (you do know the pans were very thin metal, basically used so the concrete wouldn't leak out before it was set).

Once the truss was bowed and detached from the connections is wasn't going to spring back and grab the walls again.

Please consider this, you don't know anything about construction. You couldn't tell 10M from 25M. This is obvious from your above statement. No one expects you to know, but try to listen. Grizzly pointed this out to you, now I'm pointing it out to you. I suspect as well as he does you have this over glorified idea of what construction components are capable of doing in both static and dynamic cases.
 

The reality is that if it was inside it could not be seen so this is not "reality" at all but a theory, a wild guess.

Pay more attention to the posts that other people make. We have pictures of floor slabs visible through the windows. They sagged.



When the truss is clearly shown connected to the corrugated steel sheet onto which the steel re-bar reinforced concrete floor slab is poured and the truss is anyway cross-braced in a grid pattern, why would it bend-down from a local, asymmetrical, debris impact in one spot? The hypothetical local impact load would be distributed because the slab would act like a rigid drum surface. The truss system would remain firmly stuck to the underside of the floor.

And. like a drumhead every inch is attached to, reinforced by, and dependent on the structural integrity of the rest.

You have to shear off all the connections around the entire internal and external perimeter of the square donut floor pan to get it to try to pancake and it would still experience friction and resistance around the internal/external edges as it slid down.

Bull flops. You break a few slabs loose, over-pressurize the interior with falling debris so that outward pressure is placed on the perimeter columns and the weight of the perimeter columns adds to the energy exerted on the rest and soon you have a cascading effect.

Friction on the outer edges? Why? The perimeter cloumns were forced outward, out of the way, thus unable to impede the fall in any way.
 
Last edited:
Here is another little test:
[qimg]http://heiwaco.tripod.com/WTCFlex1.jpg[/qimg]
See the structure left? It consist of horizontal and vertical elements connected to each other. There are 24 levels of horizontal elements all similar supported by 4 rows of vertical elements. The vertical elements supports the horizontal elements.

Cool. You can produce two-dimensional models of stuff.

Care to try it again with a model that, in some even laughably remote way resembles the towers?
 
Cool. You can produce two-dimensional models of stuff.

Care to try it again with a model that, in some even laughably remote way resembles the towers?

Well, Bazant and Seffen (and NIST?) proved one-way crush down in 1-D (no horizontal elemens/no joints), i.e. only one (!) column - lika a flag pole - and it was shortened 75% when a top bit decided to drop off and compress the only column. What kind of structure is that???

Imagine! A model with only two super-elements. One - a 1-D line element (part A) that can compress to 25% of original length (it becomes rubble - part B) and another 1-D line element (part C) that cannot compress at all. LOL! And part C compresses part A!
Science? Structural analysis? Pure fraud in my view.
 
alienentity; said:
Sagging floor truss viewable thru window openings. It's not a theory, it's a fact. That's hard evidence, not pseudoscientific, primitive math equations.
sag.ht1.jpg
That would be steelwork behaving gradually in an asymmetrically failing, plastic, ductile manner then, still immensely strong in compression as well as tension. So why did it give up those inherent properties suddenly to become super-brittle in the low resistance symmetrical gravity fed kinetic energy explosive destruction theory?
 
That would be steelwork behaving gradually in an asymmetrically failing, plastic, ductile manner then, still immensely strong in compression as well as tension. So why did it give up those inherent properties suddenly to become super-brittle in the low resistance symmetrical gravity fed kinetic energy explosive destruction theory?

What?
 

So why did it give up those inherent properties suddenly to become super-brittle in the low resistance symmetrical gravity fed kinetic energy explosive destruction theory?

Heat + time = sagging
No Heat + smashing = super brittle explosive destruction

You don't really expect the floor system to sag like that as the weight of the upper section comes crushing down on it do you?
 
Heat + time = sagging
No Heat + smashing = super brittle explosive destruction

You don't really expect the floor system to sag like that as the weight of the upper section comes crushing down on it do you?

OK, this is one floor of WTC 2 on opposite side of plane impact. The floor connections could simply have sheared off at plane impact. Local failures. Don't change anything in my damage analysis = A one-way Crush down is not possible.
 
That would be steelwork behaving gradually in an asymmetrically failing, plastic, ductile manner then, still immensely strong in compression as well as tension. So why did it give up those inherent properties suddenly to become super-brittle in the low resistance symmetrical gravity fed kinetic energy explosive destruction theory?

I'm not sure what the question is, but the answer is probably Euler buckling. A vertical column that is behaving in an asymmetrically failing, plastic, ductile manner will buckle sideways, at which point its structural strength is drastically reduced. There are plentiful samples on record of columns recovered that showed clear signs of that behaviour. There's no reason to suppose that the steel suddenly became unusually brittle, and every reason to believe that it simply behaved the way steel behaves.

Dave
 
leftysergeant; said:
Pay more attention to the posts that other people make. We have pictures of floor slabs visible through the windows. They sagged.
OK but that does not really help your theory though IMO, because that would be steelwork behaving gradually in an asymmetrically failing, plastic, ductile manner then, still immensely strong in compression as well as tension. So why did it give up those inherent properties, that steel has, so suddenly, to become super-brittle in the low resistance symmetrical gravity fed kinetic energy explosive destruction theory?

leftysergeant; said:
And. like a drumhead every inch is attached to, reinforced by, and dependent on the structural integrity of the rest.
OK, so you admit then that the floors were holding, by immensely strong tension means, the perimeter columns to the core columns every 12 feet down the building like 110 West Indian steel pan drumheads.

leftysergeant; said:
Bull flops. You break a few slabs loose, over-pressurize the interior with falling debris so that outward pressure is placed on the perimeter columns and the weight of the perimeter columns adds to the energy exerted on the rest and soon you have a cascading effect.
Friction on the outer edges? Why? The perimeter cloumns were forced outward, out of the way, thus unable to impede the fall in any way.
Rubbish. The hypothetical (already explosively destroyed, by nano-thermite apparently) falling floors, have to break all the immensely strong tension bonds linking the perimeter columns to the core columns every 12 feet to get the perimeter columns to peel out sideways and break out the "tube barrel" horizontal banding effect. Also the core columns go where? Magically offer no compression resistance to the collapse process? That internal core to external "tube" strongly bonded severance process would take time and use energy and inevitably create considerable resistance to the collapse process. You make the building sound like a pack of slippery cards collapsing, with absolutely no kind of "glue" bonds sticking the cards together offering any resistance and any structural integrity.

Un-reacted hi-tech nano-thermite was found in WTC dust for which there is really no plausibly innocent explanation. Un-reacted nano-thermite was not just "rust dust" as some deniers appear to think, it was apparently an indication of nano-technology at work in the WTC event, including nano-aluminium particles ("nano" as in very, very small and hard to make). Something not technically possible to even make before about the 1990s and it is an example of some very expensive technology, suggesting some First World state-sponsored terrorism, not amateur civilian terrorism from the Third World. Just as the 2001 nano-tech anthrax weapon attack was evidently an example of First World state-funded military technology and not amateur low-tech Third World terrorist technology. In any event it would not be clear to me how high-tech, nano-tech, thermite, or any other kind of explosive residue should have been present in the dust under the "Third World Terrorist Osama (or KSM) and nineteen grumpy suicidal young men, acting alone, Conspiracy Theory". Nano-technology, shortened to "Nano-tech", is the study of the control of matter on an atomic and molecular scale. Generally nano-technology deals with structures of the size 90 nano-metres or smaller, and involves developing materials or devices within that size. Nano = billionth (10 to the -9th power). Scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratories are apparently exploring the potential to release energy from nano-particles to make nano explosives. Nano-energetics is a new field in which nano-aluminium particles are used as more effective explosives. The nano-aluminium presents a higher surface area to volume of the material. This means that when ignited a greater volume of the aluminium achieves the chemical reaction, releasing its energy, and generating a larger explosion per pound of material. Nuclear weapons achieve their destructive power in this same way at the very lowest atomic level. This means that nano-aluminium and the "super-thermite" that is made from it present significantly more powerful weapons than with older and cruder thermite formulations going back more than 100 years.
 
3bodyproblem; said:
Heat + time = sagging
No Heat + smashing = super brittle explosive destruction

No sorry but steelwork is not "super brittle" with "no heat" during a "smashing" impact. If it were it would not gradually crush during a vehicle impact to decelerate the occupants of the car. If steelwork were brittle it would disintegrate like a toughened bit of glass and the car occupants would hit the thing they were going to hit a lot harder and faster.
 

OK but that does not really help your theory though IMO, because that would be steelwork behaving gradually in an asymmetrically failing, plastic, ductile manner then, still immensely strong in compression as well as tension. So why did it give up those inherent properties, that steel has, so suddenly, to become super-brittle in the low resistance symmetrical gravity fed kinetic energy explosive destruction theory?


OK, so you admit then that the floors were holding, by immensely strong tension means, the perimeter columns to the core columns every 12 feet down the building like 110 West Indian steel pan drumheads.


Rubbish. The hypothetical (already explosively destroyed, by nano-thermite apparently) falling floors, have to break all the immensely strong tension bonds linking the perimeter columns to the core columns every 12 feet to get the perimeter columns to peel out sideways and break out the "tube barrel" horizontal banding effect. Also the core columns go where? Magically offer no compression resistance to the collapse process? That internal core to external "tube" strongly bonded severance process would take time and use energy and inevitably create considerable resistance to the collapse process. You make the building sound like a pack of slippery cards collapsing, with absolutely no kind of "glue" bonds sticking the cards together offering any resistance and any structural integrity.

Un-reacted hi-tech nano-thermite was found in WTC dust for which there is really no plausibly innocent explanation. Un-reacted nano-thermite was not just "rust dust" as some deniers appear to think, it was apparently an indication of nano-technology at work in the WTC event, including nano-aluminium particles ("nano" as in very, very small and hard to make). Something not technically possible to even make before about the 1990s and it is an example of some very expensive technology, suggesting some First World state-sponsored terrorism, not amateur civilian terrorism from the Third World. Just as the 2001 nano-tech anthrax weapon attack was evidently an example of First World state-funded military technology and not amateur low-tech Third World terrorist technology. In any event it would not be clear to me how high-tech, nano-tech, thermite, or any other kind of explosive residue should have been present in the dust under the "Third World Terrorist Osama (or KSM) and nineteen grumpy suicidal young men, acting alone, Conspiracy Theory". Nano-technology, shortened to "Nano-tech", is the study of the control of matter on an atomic and molecular scale. Generally nano-technology deals with structures of the size 90 nano-metres or smaller, and involves developing materials or devices within that size. Nano = billionth (10 to the -9th power). Scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratories are apparently exploring the potential to release energy from nano-particles to make nano explosives. Nano-energetics is a new field in which nano-aluminium particles are used as more effective explosives. The nano-aluminium presents a higher surface area to volume of the material. This means that when ignited a greater volume of the aluminium achieves the chemical reaction, releasing its energy, and generating a larger explosion per pound of material. Nuclear weapons achieve their destructive power in this same way at the very lowest atomic level. This means that nano-aluminium and the "super-thermite" that is made from it present significantly more powerful weapons than with older and cruder thermite formulations going back more than 100 years.

Good post Andrew. The presence of any significant volume of highly engineered nano particles in the WTC dust is incriminating on it's own. I think the floors may have been impregnated with nano thermite. The particles can even enter human cells so to get it into the microstructure of concrete shooud not have been a problem. The sudden release of heat would have pulverised the cncrete floors instantly explaining why there was virtually no concrete in the rubble. Amazing when you think that there was 110 ACRES of concrete to start with along with 110 acres of reinforcing, very little- if any of which survived.
 
Last edited:
OK but that does not really help your theory though IMO, because that would be steelwork behaving gradually in an asymmetrically failing, plastic, ductile manner then, still immensely strong in compression as well as tension. So why did it give up those inherent properties, that steel has, so suddenly, to become super-brittle in the low resistance symmetrical gravity fed kinetic energy explosive destruction theory?

Of course, this is a classic truther strawman argument, as there is no such theory. The steel didn't become super-brittle, or change its properties in any way; it's possible to calculate a limiting case for the structural resistance of the columns, based on the known physical properties of steel, that reproduces the collapse time exactly, as Frank Greening, Newtons Bit and Gregory Urich have all done. There's no "low resistance" theory, just one with the expected resistance; and perhaps we should all remember that the "explosive destruction theory" is the one generated by the fantasists who don't understand engineering enough to produce a coherent theory of anything.

Now, please continue pulling your strawman apart, but don't cry when the rest of us can't be bothered to put it back together again.

Dave
 


No sorry but steelwork is not "super brittle" with "no heat" during a "smashing" impact. If it were it would not gradually crush during a vehicle impact to decelerate the occupants of the car. If steelwork were brittle it would disintegrate like a toughened bit of glass and the car occupants would hit the thing they were going to hit a lot harder and faster.

Different steel, different characteristics. Some steels are much more brittle that others...do you not agree?

TAM:)
 
bill smith; said:
The sudden release of heat would have pulverised the concrete floors instantly explaining why there was virtually no concrete in the rubble. Amazing when you think that there was 110 ACRES of concrete to start with along with 110 acres of reinforcing, very little- if any of which survived.

Jim Hoffman (October 16th, 2003) actually calculated that:
* 111,000 KWH is generated by the collapse of each tower.
* 135,000 KWH is needed to crush the concrete.
* 2,682,000 KWH is needed to create the dust cloud (this assumes a sufficient source of water or this figure increases dramatically).
This means that 122% of the total gravitational collapse energy available was necessary just to pulverise the concrete (let alone create the dust cloud), that is, more energy was needed just to pulverise the concrete than was generated by the collapse. This, of course, means that explosives, thermite or some other energy source must have supplied the extra energy.

I theorise that since WTC 1 and 2 were open plan office spaces they would have had raised technical services metal square flooring. In open plan office spaces you need to be able to wire the office services (electricity, telephone, Ethernet etc.) to a spot underneath each workstation desk. This means that you need raised removable square-panel technical flooring (and normally cosmetic decoration square carpet tiles on that) which leaves a gap above the concrete floor slab, beneath your feet, where the wires can run. This convenient technical services space would be a good place in which to spread your hypothetical nano-thermite compound, during out of office-hours periods (nights, weekends and public days-off work festivals like Christmas etc.) Such building (sophisticated First World militaristic) sabotage efforts would of course be completely invisible to the office workers using the office space, if carried out during the weeks before the extravagant 9/11 terrorist "shock and awe" event.
 
T.A.M.; said:
Different steel, different characteristics. Some steels are much more brittle that others...do you not agree?

TAM:)

The steel used in constructing skyscrapers is not brittle, but ductile, and very strong indeed in compression and tension. That is why skyscrapers around the world do not shatter, explosively, as frequently as they did on 9/11 in New York. It would be extraordinarily dangerous to build skyscrapers out of brittle steel and since they could not move, flex and sway in winds or earthquakes, I expect we would have all witnessed the folly of using brittle steel in skyscrapers many times, a long time ago.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom