Proposed Design for Progressive Collapse Demonstration

[Dave Rogers]

As for myriad's model, he should just build it and watch. One that adheres to the challenge conditions could probably be built in his living room on a smaller scale.

This is, I think, a classic example of the gulf of understanding that exists here. The whole argument concerning the inapplicability of small-scale models to predictions of the collapse behaviour of the Twin Towers is that different properties scale in different ways. I can make a fairly confident prediction on this. If Myriad's full scale structure is found to collapse under the conditions stated, and if Myriad were then build a scaled-down model to a size capable of being built in a living room, with no adjustments to materials strengths or dimensions, the scale model would not collapse. The only value of such a demonstration would be to show that the scaling arguments are real and valid, something every engineer or scientist outside the truth movement is able to comprehend without any such demonstration; and if the demonstration were made, the truth movement would focus on the failure of the scale model to collapse, and somehow rationalise the collapse of the full-size structure out of their theories altogether.

Dave (trying desperately to post something at least tangential to the topic)

 

[leftysergeant]

This is, I think, a classic example of the gulf of understanding that exists here. The whole argument concerning the inapplicability of small-scale models to predictions of the collapse behaviour of the Twin Towers is that different properties scale in different ways. I can make a fairly confident prediction on this. If Myriad's full scale structure is found to collapse under the conditions stated, and if Myriad were then build a scaled-down model to a size capable of being built in a living room, with no adjustments to materials strengths or dimensions, the scale model would not collapse.

Mechanical resonnance is the first thing that goes when you scale down. The cores have to vibrate themselves to bits. I can't see it happening in anything small enough to build indoors.

 

[GlennB]

Mechanical resonnance is the first thing that goes when you scale down. The cores have to vibrate themselves to bits. I can't see it happening in anything small enough to build indoors.

I'm not totally sure about that. If the floors are gone and the core beams are largely destroyed, then lateral support is minimal. Then many thousands of tons of impacting debris are wedging the base of the core columns sideways. Then we expect what actually happened - the remnants of the cores stood for a while before collapsing.

 

[Myriad]

The difference in vibrational modes might have a significant effect but the biggest difference is simply vertical size. The pressure that a moving object can apply in collision is more or less proportional to the length of the object in the direction of the push. For instance, a long spear will penetrate farther than a short spear moving at the same speed. When the movement is vertical, that means it's all about height.

A perfect scale model of a WTC tower a meter high would be no more likely to collapse than a scale model created by only shrinking the height to a meter high (that is, a model about 60 meters by 60 meters by 1 meter high). It would be like trying to get a folded newspaper lying flat on the ground to collapse downward onto itself, by pulling out one sheet. On the other hand, a scale model shrunk only in length and width but not reduced in height, say about 1 meter by 1 meter by 400 meters high (it would have to be guyed to stand up) would progressively collapse at pretty much the same rate as the full-scale tower, if you weakened one story enough to get the top 10 or more stories above it moving downward.

It's interesting, the effort that truthers are going to here to divert the subject to smaller models rather than discuss the 10+ meter model in the OP. Is there a hint of desperation there? It's almost as though their intuition is warning them that while dropping 10 pizza boxes two inches onto another pizza box that could probably hold several hundred pizza boxes statically will not cause a progressive collapse, a half-ton concrete mass falling a meter or more onto another half-ton concrete mass whose supports are only able to hold 1.3 tons statically really will cause that layer to collapse, with plenty of momentum and gravitational potential energy left over to hit the next level down even harder with an even bigger overload.

(Fortunately for me, Heiwa thinks otherwise, or else he would not have offered a million dollar prize for a successful demonstration of it.)

I also expect the usual double standard to kick in soon. Watch for the same people who have argued that models of pizza boxes or office trays are quite sufficient to prove all progressive structure collapse impossible, to soon attempt to claim that the 10-meter model would prove nothing because it doesn't have a core, doesn't have welded steel columns, and so forth.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[FactCheck]

I don't see how you are going to replicate this...

...with wood.

Unless the columns can be pulled in to replicate the bowing, and unless the upper perimeter face falls behind the lower face shearing off the floors, the test is not anything like the towers collapse. Follow the link below for details.

http://debunking911.com/collapse.htm

 

[Myriad]

I don't see how you are going to replicate this...

[qimg]http://debunking911.com/sim1.gif[/qimg]

...with wood.

Unless the columns can be pulled in to replicate the bowing, and unless the upper perimeter face falls behind the lower face shearing off the floors, the test is not anything like the towers collapse. Follow the link below for details.

http://debunking911.com/collapse.htm

Of course it's not going to resemble the towers' collapse in detail. What it will show is a top-down vertical progressive collapse in which an initial displacement of the top 10% results in progressive destruction of the entire structure. Certain individuals promoting 9/11 conspiracy theories have declared that any such collapse -- not just one like the ones that happened on 9/11 but any collapse of that nature whatsoever -- is impossible in any structure possessing certain properties such as overall uniformity in materials and mass distribution. One of those individuals has the good fortune to possess a spare million dollars, which he has offered to anyone who can prove otherwise. The rules of the challenge came from him, not me.

Bowing of the columns is not applicable anyhow because this is a demonstration of a progressive collapse being sustained once initiated, not a test or demonstration of how it might have been initiated. The challenge rules require the upper portion to be disconnected from its supports and dropped (allowing it also, as an option, to be lifted before the drop) to initiate the collapse.

However, I am pretty certain the columns (which are the closest thing to outer walls the model has) will indeed be sheared from the floors and will then fall primarily outward.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Myriad]

Since Heiwa appears to be back, I'm bumping this for his benefit and I direct his attention to Post 33.

(Not that responses to other posts since then are unwelcome, it's just that post 33 was the last one directly relevant to the discussion between Heiwa and me of my 10-meter model proposal with regards to his challenge terms.)

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Heiwa]

shall

Now, here are some specific questions about the proposal that I'd like you to answer:

1. Are the guy ropes as described in the proposed design acceptable? Note that the proposed design, to keep costs reasonable, is considerably slenderer than the actual wtc towers were, so for safety the possibility of topping from near the base must be ruled out. Your rationale for collapse arrest does not involve toppling of part A, radical rotation of part A, or major horizontal displacement of part A, which the guy ropes would prevent from unexpectedly happening. (Part C is not attached to any guy ropes so it is completely free to tilt, rotate, bounce, or whatever the laws of physics determine.)

2. Are the nailed connections acceptable? Technically, nails (and most other construction fasteners other than welds or adhesives) attach things together by friction. Please clearly state whether or not the nailed connections in the proposal are acceptable under term 4 of the original challenge. (Note that in this design the nails are supporting shear loads as is typical of real-world nailed construction, and that nail failure is not expected to contribute to collapse in the design of the demonstration.)

3. How shall we proceed into the negotiation of a formal agreement between us regarding the challenge terms? I've made a reasonable start by describing the proposed demonstration in considerable detail. But it appears that you do have some doubts or objections regarding the details. I think the best way to proceed would be for you to begin a first draft of the contract, using what I've proposed as the guideline, and that as you do so you communicate with me to make clear any specific objections or additional requirements you are adding, so that we can negotiate precise final terms regarding what is and is not permissible in the demonstration.

4. Just to repeat from earlier, please clarify the acceptable parameter envelope for the side impact test, keeping in mind that the stated purpose of that test is to ensure that the structure is honestly self-supporting and that connections are fastened, not to prove that the structure is strong enough for any particular purpose.

5. I hope you have a pleasant (or profitable) vacation (or job). If continuing this discussion during that period is not practical, then I look forward to completing the necessary preliminary arrangements when you return.

Respectfully,
Myriad

1. Guy ropes? Keep it simple! Produce a structure. Remove a top part C previously carried by the structure and drop it on the remainder, part A, A>10C and similar in structure. Pls no big heavy mass C on a flimsy structure A with little mass, etc.

2. Nailed connections? Why not? If part C has nailed connections, part A can also have nailed connections. If your structure is cement and wood and connecting nails are steel, why not? But you could also use wood and cement as connections.

3. Why don't you just carry on with your structure? Try to get a sponsor! FOX, CNN, Hardfire, FBI, CIA, NSA? Or some religious, fundamentalist sekt? There are plenty!

4. Side impact test? OK! Let's say C impacts A vertically with energy E for one-way crush down! To keep it simple. A shall also resist same energy application horizontally, applied at top. No damages, just elastic deformation, sideways, swaying.

5. Thanks. I switched on my PC at present location and PC indicated that I could connect to Internet via some remote connection! Actually the neighbor Hubert! Nice guy. Hubert provided User name + password = I am in touch. Last year it was not so! I was cut off. So just carry on with your arrangements. In meantime I carry on my house renovation. House roof has interesting wooden structure - design year 1590! All connecting nails are wood! I have actually done a FEA of this wooden structure and found it quite strong. That's why it has lasted 419 years.

 

[Myriad]

3. Why don't you just carry on with your structure? Try to get a sponsor! FOX, CNN, Hardfire, FBI, CIA, NSA? Or some religious, fundamentalist sekt? There are plenty!

FOX, CNN, Hardfire, FBI, CIA, NSA, and religious, fundamentalist sects have not, to my knowledge, offered a million dollar prize for the demonstration of a progressive collapse. You have, or so you've claimed. Will you take the necessary steps to back that claim and make the attempted demonstration happen?

The demonstration will cost at least in the high tens of thousands of US dollars, and possibly much more. I will get financing (including self-financing) and sponsorship, but only if the million dollar prize offer is proven genuine and legally enforceable. This requires a formal contractual agreement between us in order to proceed. Among the necessary terms of that agreement are escrow of 1/10th of the prize money being placed under the control of a mutually agreed upon neutral arbiter, and a certification by a reputable independent certified accountant that you possess sufficient assets to pay the entire prize if it's won.

By the way, some of your other comments suggest that you have not actually read the description in the OP very carefully. For instance, you yourself (in another thread) advised me to take safety precautions, and I explained that they guy ropes are a necessary safety precaution, so "keep it simple" is not an adequate answer to the question I posed. (If you do not permit safety precautions to be taken, then of course the experiment will not happen.) I know the OP is long, but you have a million dollars on the line (supposedly) so it will be necessary for you to fully understand each detail and provide full and detailed answers to questions if we are to proceed. Since you apparently have the resources available, you might want to engage the services of a consultant whom you trust to negotiate the details.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Heiwa]

FOX, CNN, Hardfire, FBI, CIA, NSA, and religious, fundamentalist sects have not, to my knowledge, offered a million dollar prize for the demonstration of a progressive collapse. You have, or so you've claimed. Will you take the necessary steps to back that claim and make the attempted demonstration happen?

The demonstration will cost at least in the high tens of thousands of US dollars, and possibly much more. I will get financing (including self-financing) and sponsorship, but only if the million dollar prize offer is proven genuine and legally enforceable. This requires a formal contractual agreement between us in order to proceed. Among the necessary terms of that agreement are escrow of 1/10th of the prize money being placed under the control of a mutually agreed upon neutral arbiter, and a certification by a reputable independent certified accountant that you possess sufficient assets to pay the entire prize if it's won.

By the way, some of your other comments suggest that you have not actually read the description in the OP very carefully. For instance, you yourself (in another thread) advised me to take safety precautions, and I explained that they guy ropes are a necessary safety precaution, so "keep it simple" is not an adequate answer to the question I posed. (If you do not permit safety precautions to be taken, then of course the experiment will not happen.) I know the OP is long, but you have a million dollars on the line (supposedly) so it will be necessary for you to fully understand each detail and provide full and detailed answers to questions if we are to proceed. Since you apparently have the resources available, you might want to engage the services of a consultant whom you trust to negotiate the details.

Respectfully,
Myriad

A $1M prize is mentioned in another thread to encourage people to understand why a one-way crush down is not possible by a part C of a structure A (C<1/10A) when C is dropped on A. In spite of this generous offer nobody was able to come up with some evidence to the opposite. Legal/economic aspects were also clarified in the thread. Then clowns and OTC fundamentalists inundated the thread with nonsense. A pity. $1M!

The Heiwa Challenge thread was then started to further assist people believing that C can one-way crush down A and how to do that. No real response, except you!

I appreciate this thread with your proposed design. I have my doubts that your contraption will work. Suggest you analyse your design with FEA, etc, before actually building it. Imagine - a structure A that will self-destruct, when a part C (<1/10A) is dropped on it! It would be worth more than $1M in any currency.

Good luck.

 

[MIKILLINI]

A $1M prize is mentioned in another thread to encourage people to understand why a one-way crush down is not possible by a part C of a structure A (C<1/10A) when C is dropped on A. In spite of this generous offer nobody was able to come up with some evidence to the opposite. Legal/economic aspects were also clarified in the thread. Then clowns and OTC fundamentalists inundated the thread with nonsense. A pity. $1M!

The so-called "clowns" and OTC fundamentalists don't share your belief:

It's almost as though their intuition is warning them that while dropping 10 pizza boxes two inches onto another pizza box that could probably hold several hundred pizza boxes statically will not cause a progressive collapse, a half-ton concrete mass falling a meter or more onto another half-ton concrete mass whose supports are only able to hold 1.3 tons statically really will cause that layer to collapse, with plenty of momentum and gravitational potential energy left over to hit the next level down even harder with an even bigger overload.

(Fortunately for me, Heiwa thinks otherwise, or else he would not have offered a million dollar prize for a successful demonstration of it.)

 

[Heiwa]

... a half-ton concrete mass (part C) falling a meter or more onto another half-ton concrete mass (part A) whose supports are only able to hold 1.3 tons statically really will cause that layer to collapse, with plenty of momentum and gravitational potential energy left over to hit the next level down even harder with an even bigger overload.

(Fortunately for me, Heiwa thinks otherwise, or else he would not have offered a million dollar prize for a successful demonstration of it.)

...

Respectfully,
Myriad

Now try to crush a half-ton concrete mass (part A) with a 50 kg slice (part C)of same concrete mass and you are in business.

You really have to study the conditions of The Heiwa Challenge to participate.

 

[beachnut]

Now try to crush a half-ton concrete mass (part A) with a 50 kg slice (part C)of same concrete mass and you are in business.

You really have to study the conditions of The Heiwa Challenge to participate.

See post #1 above.

BTW I'll pay you $1M if you can produce a structure that can be crushed like that. Suteki desu ne!? Get working!

The reason why I offer $1M to anybody that can disprove my axiom, &c, is as follows: ...

Post #34 is personal encouragement to one poster. #117 is refering to another thread. No prize in The Heiwa Challenge. Just honour.

Just another fraud from 911Truth. A liar. You are a better liar than the make-believe structural engineer you think you are. So your ideas are not proved wrong as you fail to have the kool-aid faith you once had in your million dollar offer. Fraud is 911Truth, you are a member in great standing.

To Myriad, I don't know whether to be impressed or concerned that you spent that much time just to expose Heiwa's incompetence, particularly since he does that for free on his own...

... however, good writeup.

In the off-chance that it somehow becomes a real test, probably in a greatly reduced form after the non-existent prize fails to materialize, I'd be honored to present it along the lines of my Hardfire Modeling Challenge, or contribute technically.

Truth - good post

 

[Myriad]

Now try to crush a half-ton concrete mass (part A) with a 50 kg slice (part C)of same concrete mass and you are in business.

You really have to study the conditions of The Heiwa Challenge to participate.

The falling half-ton concrete mass referred to is 1/10th of the total mass of the structure, as the Heiwa Challenge specifies. (Some versions, anyhow; other versions of the Challenge require the falling mass to be 1/11th so add one extra tray. Even though the falling portion of wtc1 was much closer to 1/8 of the whole, making the Challenge a bit of a strawman.)

Heiwa, this thread is about the proposed progressive collapse demonstration described in the OP. If you wish to post on topic in the thread, it will be necessary for you to read and understand the OP. If you wish to discuss different models such as dropping a piece of concrete onto a solid concrete block, please do so in a different thread.

In my proposed demonstration/model, the top tray weighs half a ton and will fall toward the second tray which also weighs half a ton. The second tray is fastened to its support columns using connectors that have a calibrated breaking strength corresponding to a static load of 1.3 tons. What will happen?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Heiwa]

The falling half-ton concrete mass referred to is 1/10th of the total mass of the structure, as the Heiwa Challenge specifies. (Some versions, anyhow; other versions of the Challenge require the falling mass to be 1/11th so add one extra tray. Even though the falling portion of wtc1 was much closer to 1/8 of the whole, making the Challenge a bit of a strawman.)

Heiwa, this thread is about the proposed progressive collapse demonstration described in the OP. If you wish to post on topic in the thread, it will be necessary for you to read and understand the OP. If you wish to discuss different models such as dropping a piece of concrete onto a solid concrete block, please do so in a different thread.

In my proposed demonstration/model, the top tray weighs half a ton and will fall toward the second tray which also weighs half a ton. The second tray is fastened to its support columns using connectors that have a calibrated breaking strength corresponding to a static load of 1.3 tons. What will happen?

Respectfully,
Myriad

I have read your post #1. A structure does not just consist of trays in the air. The trays - a structural subelement must be supported to remain in the air, so there are also supports of some kind - another subelement. And then there are connections between trays and supports and supports and supports. The connections must really ensure that the structure can deform vertically and laterally without falling apart.
I have described a simple model at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/funnym.htm as you know.
Your problem is then to cut the structure into two parts C and A, where C is about 1/10 A and from the upper part of A. Each part C and A thus consist of trays, supports and connections. And then you shall drop C on A from a specified height.
If you can crush 70% of all subelements and connections of A by C + gravity you are a winner.
It is impossible but if you believe the opposite, have a try.

 

[Myriad]

I have read your post #1. A structure does not just consist of trays in the air. The trays - a structural subelement must be supported to remain in the air, so there are also supports of some kind - another subelement. And then there are connections between trays and supports and supports and supports. The connections must really ensure that the structure can deform vertically and laterally without falling apart.

If you had indeed read the OP, then you would know in considerable detail how the trays are to be supported and connected.

So, using that information, you should be able to give your answer to my question. The top tray weighs half a ton and will fall toward the second tray which also weighs half a ton. The connectors fastening the second tray to its support columns have a calibrated breaking strength corresponding to a static load of 1.3 tons. What will happen?

I have described a simple model at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/funnym.htm as you know.

Yes, I've evaluated your "funny m model." (Note to lurkers: I don't say "funny" to insult; it's the term Heiwa himself uses to refer to the elements of his model.) The original version would progressively collapse. The modified version has floors that can compress 1/10th of their height before failing, a property that no known form of useful building construction is anywhere close to.

The funny model is rather similar to my proposed demonstration structure (and those similarities make it on-topic to discuss it here). Like my structure, the funny m model has an equal distribution of mass (equal masses vertically spaced at equal displacements). Like my model, the failure load at each level is proportional to the static load it bears in the intact structure. And since I'm not planning to build my model out of rubber, like my model, the funny m model with its original parameters (before you deliberately changed them to absurdly unrealistic values) can be mathematically predicted to progressively collapse.

If you can crush 70% of all subelements and connections of A by C + gravity you are a winner.

It appears that since you were not being sincere about offering a million dollar reward for a successful demonstration, what I'd end up with would be a pile of rubble and tens of thousands of dollars of subcontractors' bills, having demonstrated something that every competent structural engineer already knows is true. In what way would that make me a winner?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Heiwa]

Yes, I've evaluated your "funny m model." (Note to lurkers: I don't say "funny" to insult; it's the term Heiwa himself uses to refer to the elements of his model.) The original version would progressively collapse. The modified version has floors that can compress 1/10th of their height before failing, a property that no known form of useful building construction is anywhere close to.

The funny model is rather similar to my proposed demonstration structure (and those similarities make it on-topic to discuss it here). Like my structure, the funny m model has an equal distribution of mass (equal masses vertically spaced at equal displacements). Like my model, the failure load at each level is proportional to the static load it bears in the intact structure. And since I'm not planning to build my model out of rubber, like my model, the funny m model with its original parameters (before you deliberately changed them to absurdly unrealistic values) can be mathematically predicted to progressively collapse.


Respectfully,
Myriad

Please do not mix up Funny m with The Heiwa Challenge. You can evidently do your structure as stiff as you like (or the supports that are supposed to compress) and the connections as weak as you like as long as you trays are hanging on and the whole thing passes the transverse impact test.

Doing that and then you drop the two top trays - part C - on A (20 trays) - missing the supports, you will produce a typical pancake model .... All the trays will disconnect from the supports and pile up on top of each other on ground ... undamaged. And the A supports will remain standing. Only connections tray/support have failed. Sorry, no one-way crush down.

As I said in my last post "It (a one-way crush down) is impossible but if you believe the opposite, have a try."

 

[Myriad]

All the trays will disconnect from the supports and pile up on top of each other on ground ... undamaged. And the A supports will remain standing. Only connections tray/support have failed. Sorry, no one-way crush down.

Please examine again the section on how my support structure works. Each column only spans two adjacent trays. There is no way the supports can be left standing if all the trays have pancaked. (It's not the same as the wtc tower design, but it shares the property that the vertical columns cannot stand with the floors removed.) So, if all the trays are piled on the ground, we have a complete collapse by your definition (70% height reduction) as well as mine (no tray remaining supported by columns).

Or are you changing the terms of your challenge again, to now require that the floor components be damaged? I think they would be damaged if it were not for the measures I would take to cushion the floor of the room to prevent that from being damaged. If that's now a requirement, I can modify the design to meet it. However, I'm beginning to wonder if the reason you think the challenge is impossible is that you know that during the time it would take the structure to collapse, you would change the requirements.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Heiwa]

Please examine again the section on how my support structure works. Each column only spans two adjacent trays. There is no way the supports can be left standing if all the trays have pancaked. (It's not the same as the wtc tower design, but it shares the property that the vertical columns cannot stand with the floors removed.) So, if all the trays are piled on the ground, we have a complete collapse by your definition (70% height reduction) as well as mine (no tray remaining supported by columns).

Or are you changing the terms of your challenge again, to now require that the floor components be damaged? I think they would be damaged if it were not for the measures I would take to cushion the floor of the room to prevent that from being damaged. If that's now a requirement, I can modify the design to meet it. However, I'm beginning to wonder if the reason you think the challenge is impossible is that you know that during the time it would take the structure to collapse, you would change the requirements.

Respectfully,
Myriad

No change in conditions. I am mystified of your column/column connections and tray/column connections - if they can resist the transverse test, and if the structure will stand by itself with your heavy, solid trays, &c.

The trays must also become rubble and break up into its components, of course.

If the trays are solid steel plates, they will evidently not get damaged in your model. You suggest some sort of wooden box, plywood bottom + cement. It will not get crushed either. All the wood boxes will probably remain virtually intact at end. No rubble will be produced during crush down. Only connections breaking.

Remember the uniform densities of comparable structures. 0.25 before impact, 1 in the rubble!!

Suggest you replace the plywood bottoms by cardboard or paper. Same for the wooden frame. You do not need it. You just need a square of cement of certain thickness. Drill a hole in the cement for the connection to support.

Now the cement squares may actually break up during crush down. Good - no pancaking. But then maybe pieces of broken cement will be diverted out of tower at first impact ... and arrest will follow.

But if the cement doesn't break - then we are back to pancake.

Good luck, anyway. When you have sorted out the details of your structure, we can talk business.

 

[Myriad]

Please specify the maximum size of the pieces the concrete contents of the trays must break into in order to win your challenge.

Also, please specify what percentage of the component parts must separate. If two tray sides happen to still be attached together, does that fail? How about if a chunk of concrete remains stuck to the tray bottom?

ETA: I see you specified 70% separation. I guess what I'm really asking in the previous paragraph is a rigorous definition of "element." I have been regarding each tray with its concrete as a single element. As you implied with your suggestion of omitting the trays, the use of the wood box is only for convenience and safety in construction. Bare concrete slabs could be used (with the metal fasteners pre-embedded in them) and the principle would be the same, but fabrication would become much more difficult. What about nails, are they separate elements? (Must 70% of them come out for you to consider the structure collapsed?) What about the fasteners and column pieces -- when a fastener breaks, each half of it will likely remain attached to a tray or column, is that a problem? Most of the columns in the wtc tower were built of steel plates welded together, and most of those welds remained intact, so is a built box column one element or four?

Also, I have not agreed to double the number of trays. I'll add one tray if you insist on the dropped portion being 1/11 instead of 1/10 of the whole (though that requirement makes little sense) but it's not practical to double the height of the structure and it introduces scaling problems to half the height of each floor. (Like I said, if the wtc tower had 600 floors spaced 20" apart it might not have collapsed either). So, I will be dropping one tray onto 10 trays if that's okay.

Respectfully,
Myriad