Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony S, thanks for your replies regarding pulverized concrete and quiet explosives.

I credit you for being more sane than most other truthers, as you've allowed that the concrete was largely destroyed by the energy of the collapses.

I'm rather dismayed by your apparent reliance on some comments made in 2001 regarding possible promising areas for nanothermites, extrapolating those to fit into the alleged demolition of the WTC towers.

I believe the words were 'Nanoenergetics hold promise as useful ingredients for the thermobaric (TBX) and TBX-like weapons, particularly due to their high degree of tailorability with regards to energy release and impulse management. The feature of “impulse management” may be significant. It is possible that formulations may be chosen to have just sufficient percussive effect to achieve the desired fragmentation while minimizing the noise level.'

The context of these comments was regarding TBX weapons and fragmentation. I see no indication that this is relevant to cutting core columns of skyscrapers, even if it might have been 'promising' to researchers back in 2001.
Usually 'promising' means 'not yet developed fully', so I'd be very cautious about assuming that this stuff would have any meaningful applications as you seem to suggest.

If that's all you're going on it's awfully slim.

Elsewhere you wrote 'The core columns were made up of three stories tall sections which were butt welded together. I believe that some type of explosive charge was used every third floor to break the welds of the outer core columns, after the collapse was underway for a few floors. As they were inside the tower, any blast from the charges would not be visible, and the debris falling outside would mask any escaping ejections and the collapse itself would mask the noise. I don't think much would have to be done to the perimeter columns except to separate the orthogonal walls at the corners every 10 to 20 floors. This could have been done by attacking the spandrel splices at the corners, allowing the perimeter walls to petal outward.'

You're entitled to your opinion of course, but I was a bit alarmed to read ' As they were inside the tower, any blast from the charges would not be visible, and the debris falling outside would mask any escaping ejections and the collapse itself would mask the noise'

Really, what you're offering is that there is no direct evidence, either audible or visual, of the explosives you postulate, and therefore no way to verify or disprove the idea.

In other words, they couldn't be detected. In that case, it seems just as likely that they just weren't there in the first place.
That would solve your engineering problems right away.

Even a light application of Occam's Razor would discourage this type of theorizing amongst more prudent thinkers, one would think. Tony, quite honestly this stuff seems a bit foolish and wishful thinking on your part. I really wonder why you continue to waste time with these ideas.

A natural collapse scenario, without evidence of a dynamic load, does not satisfy the Occam's Razor criteria. What I think is wishful thinking is how one could believe these buildings fell apart like a house of cards in a natural way with no evidence of a dynamic load.

Occam's Razor would have to allow for speculation on explosive use for this reason.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I've seen a video that shows once of the collapses from a scarily close perspective. At this range, you can hear the floors failing one-by-one, with accelerating frequency and volume...bang, bang, BANG, BANGBANGBANG...it made a real impression.

Anyway, these were the "jolts" you seek. They were audible, they just weren't visible. This is possibly because the disintegrating outer shell obscured what was going on inside.

The jolt required is that necessary to overcome the reserve strength of the columns below, which were capable of supporting several times the load of the entire upper block above them. The jolt would have to include the mass of the entire upper block not just some of the floors inside. There is no evidence of any jolt or velocity loss involving the upper block.

 

[Reactor drone]

The jolt required is that necessary to overcome the reserve strength of the columns below, which were capable of supporting several times the load of the entire upper block above them. The jolt would have to include the mass of the entire upper block not just some of the floors inside. There is no evidence of any jolt or velocity loss involving the upper block.

The dynamic loads would only have to be great enough to overcome the reserve strength of the columns if the columns were taking the load,with the collapse causing the upper section to shift the loads were being taken by the floors and the floor to column connections.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

The dynamic loads would only have to be great enough to overcome the reserve strength of the columns if the columns were taking the load,with the collapse causing the upper section to shift the loads were being taken by the floors and the floor to column connections.

You have no real basis for this and it is certain that even if one or two sides impacted floors that at least two sides would not have. You can't fit a 207 foot square block into a 204 foot square hole.

I am wondering if you even know what the maximum loads the floor to column connections outside and inside the core could take. They were not insignificant.

 

[Heiwa]

Heiwa:


Correct me if I'm wrong, but the world trade centre wasn't in the water/air interface...was it? Mind you, losing touch with reality is a frequent occurrence when reading your posts.

Heiwa:


Let's get this straight. You work, apparently *cough* in marine structural design, and you're convinced 9/11 was a controlled demolition...because block A wouldn't crush block C. You haven't read anything that's been said to you, have you. You haven't taken a single word on board. You are a ______(fill in the blanks)

WTC1 was constructed in the interface ground(soil)/air and when earthquakes occur ground moves. But it doesn't happen often. But the principles are the same.

Yes, I am in the marine structure biz since 40+ years, where it is quite easy to do real, dynamic impact tests, e.g. big wave C hitting ship A or vice versa. Just select a suitable time (storm/big waves) and speed up A into C. After a while you will experience a BIG BANG (A hitting C or C A as you like) associated with jolt (A slowing down) and a splash (C braking apart). OK, in this example C and A do not have similar structures but replace C with another ship and you have a ship collision. All described at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm .

Thus, if, as alleged, WTC 1 upper part C impacts WTC 1 lower part A on 911, there must be a visible jolt (C slowing down)! If there is no jolt, there is no impact. It is as simple as that. Tony S has explained this in other ways but the conclusion is the same.

So there was no impact! Upper part C did not impact lower part A as suggested by Bazant, Seffen, NIST, Mackey & Co. So how on earth can then part A be destroyed? Just watch the videos! Part C is destroyed first and because the C roof line drops, it is believed that complete part C drops (and impacts A). This is not true. You see clearly part C being destroyed above part A, while part A is still intact. The destruction of part C then produces the famous fountain of smoke and debris and not until then part A is destroyed exactly like part C = being blown apart.

Because if part C would really have dropped on part A (through the fire/initiation zone), you would first see the jolt at impact ... followed by total arrest of any destruction soon after! Part C should remain up on top of part A. Only local failures of weak elements in interface C/A would take place.

 

[aggle-rithm]

The jolt required is that necessary to overcome the reserve strength of the columns below, which were capable of supporting several times the load of the entire upper block above them.

Several times the static load?

The jolt would have to include the mass of the entire upper block not just some of the floors inside. There is no evidence of any jolt or velocity loss involving the upper block.

Here's an experiment: Set up a video camera and make a video of someone stomping on a soft drink can and smashing it flat. (It may take several tries because it's difficult to smash it straight on without having it squirt from underneath.)

Identify the jolt when the foot impacts the can.

Or, better yet, look at high speed film of jets or rockets smashing into walls. Where is the jolt?

The fact is, in order to know whether a jolt should take place, you have to know the amount of force applied and the amount of resistance. When the ratio gets high enough, the jolt smooths out and you see nothing but a fluid motion, even at high speed.

Would you agree with this?

If so, then you are essentially arguing that the force/resistance ratio is too low for this fluid motion to take place. And since you are making the claim that there must be a jolt, then it is you who should provide concrete evidence.

This shouldn't be too difficult, since you are an engineer. You don't design things by just saying, "This looks right", do you? You have to do actual engineering.

So do it here, to prove your point.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Thus, if, as alleged, WTC 1 upper part C impacts WTC 1 lower part A on 911, there must be a visible jolt (C slowing down)!

....

So there was no impact!

....

Just watch the videos!

....

Because if part C would really have dropped on part A (through the fire/initiation zone), you would first see the jolt at impact ... followed by total arrest of any destruction soon after!

Perhaps I'm biased, but I have trouble accepting an engineering analysis that relies so heavily on strategically placed explanation marks.

 

[alienentity]

A natural collapse scenario, without evidence of a dynamic load, does not satisfy the Occam's Razor criteria. What I think is wishful thinking is how one could believe these buildings fell apart like a house of cards in a natural way with no evidence of a dynamic load.

Occam's Razor would have to allow for speculation on explosive use for this reason.

Agreed, except there WAS evidence of dynamic load in the case of the towers. Just because it didn't fulfill some particular criteria that you wish to impose on it doesn't make it go away.

The problem you've created for yourself is that you are forced to handwave a mountain of directly relevant evidence in order to bias towards your claim.

It's a losing battle Tony. The only way I can envision you succeeding is if the entire engineering and scientific communities suddenly got extremely dumb and bought into ALL of the inside job claptrap - that isn't going to happen in this particular universe.

Need I remind you that it's almost 8 years since the event, and the 'truth' movement has utterly failed to produce any material evidence that could result in a criminal conviction for the alleged crimes.
Even if you were able to convince some government body to conduct another investigation it would be futile, since it's fairly obvious (to most observers) that there WAS no inside job conspiracy.
You could have 100 commissions and investigations and you'd still get nothing.

I know you're not emotionally prepared to accept this reality, and I'm sorry for that.

 

[tfk]

You did? LOL! Little weak structural part C one-way crushing down big strong structural part A! And half-dozen or so effects to enable it. Please remind me how it is possible!

In a phrase: "one floor at a time".

Which, using your simplistic, facile language, turns this into:

"big strong 13 story, floor 98-110 part C crushes down little, tiny weak floor 97. Then big strong 14 story, floor 97-110 part C crushes down little tiny floor 96 ..."
___

Before I knew what a rude, insincere and technically incompetent person you are, I attempted to engage you in civil, respectful discussion about 15 successive times.

You ran.

You'll run again.

"... fool me once ..."

Tom

 

[tfk]

Bill,

You've picked up some technical words.

Please don't confuse yourself that you understand what they mean...

You may be misunderstanding me. I do not say there is NO wire mesh. I say that there is far too little by dozens of orders of magnitude.

Hmmm,

How many "dozens of orders of magnitude", bill.

1 dozen?
2 dozens?
5 dozens?

I assume that you acknowledge that you see at least one foot of your missing mesh.

Your vacuous patter has more technical words in it, bill. It's still technobabble. And, if imaginable, it makes you sound even dumber...

Tom

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Several times the static load?

What don't you understand here?

Here's an experiment: Set up a video camera and make a video of someone stomping on a soft drink can and smashing it flat. (It may take several tries because it's difficult to smash it straight on without having it squirt from underneath.)

Identify the jolt when the foot impacts the can.


Or, better yet, look at high speed film of jets or rockets smashing into walls. Where is the jolt?

This is irrelevant. The effect of an impact can be seen afterwards by a velocity loss which is measureable.

The fact is, in order to know whether a jolt should take place, you have to know the amount of force applied and the amount of resistance. When the ratio gets high enough, the jolt smooths out and you see nothing but a fluid motion, even at high speed.

Would you agree with this?

No. Have you read the Missing Jolt paper?

If so, then you are essentially arguing that the force/resistance ratio is too low for this fluid motion to take place. And since you are making the claim that there must be a jolt, then it is you who should provide concrete evidence.

This shouldn't be too difficult, since you are an engineer. You don't design things by just saying, "This looks right", do you? You have to do actual engineering.

So do it here, to prove your point.

I already wrote a paper on it. You need to read it.

 

[Heiwa]

In a phrase: "one floor at a time".

Which, using your simplistic, facile language, turns this into:

"big strong 13 story, floor 98-110 part C crushes down little, tiny weak floor 97. Then big strong 14 story, floor 97-110 part C crushes down little tiny floor 96 ..."

Tom

Sorry, you cannot ignore the 96 floors below floor 97, total of which makes up part A (connected to ground), when floors 98-110 (part C) drop on floor 97.

Actually, it is only floor 98 that impacts floor 97 assuming that all columns (and furniture) between floors 97-98 have been suddenly removed. Floors 99-110 do not impact anything! They are far above floor 98 and only connected to floor 98 via columns.

So what element breaks when floor 98 impacts floor 97? The columns below floor 97 or the columns above floor 98?

Tip! The columns above floor 98 are weaker than the columns below floor 97 for obvious reasons.

Additional question: Wouldn't you expect a jolt when floor 98 impacts floor 97, i.e. part C is slowed down when meeting this resistance that part A makes up?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Agreed, except there WAS evidence of dynamic load in the case of the towers. Just because it didn't fulfill some particular criteria that you wish to impose on it doesn't make it go away.

What evidence?

The problem you've created for yourself is that you are forced to handwave a mountain of directly relevant evidence in order to bias towards your claim.

I don't ignore solid evidence. What basis do you have for that?

It's a losing battle Tony. The only way I can envision you succeeding is if the entire engineering and scientific communities suddenly got extremely dumb and bought into ALL of the inside job claptrap - that isn't going to happen in this particular universe.

The reality is most engineers haven't looked into it and don't know either way.

Need I remind you that it's almost 8 years since the event, and the 'truth' movement has utterly failed to produce any material evidence that could result in a criminal conviction for the alleged crimes.

The only reason a new investigation isn't taking place is political. There has been plenty of scientific evidence to show the aircraft impacts and fires were not responsible for the complete collapses of those buildings.

Even if you were able to convince some government body to conduct another investigation it would be futile, since it's fairly obvious (to most observers) that there WAS no inside job conspiracy.
You could have 100 commissions and investigations and you'd still get nothing.

I know you're not emotionally prepared to accept this reality, and I'm sorry for that.

I am not naive and fully appreciate that political motives may well squelch any future investigation. However, that doesn't mean I can't say what the reality was. It is living in a fairy tale land to believe these building collapses were caused by anything other than controlled demolitions.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

WTC1 was constructed in the interface ground(soil)/air and when earthquakes occur ground moves. But it doesn't happen often. But the principles are the same.

Yes, I am in the marine structure biz since 40+ years, where it is quite easy to do real, dynamic impact tests, e.g. big wave C hitting ship A or vice versa. Just select a suitable time (storm/big waves) and speed up A into C. After a while you will experience a BIG BANG (A hitting C or C A as you like) associated with jolt (A slowing down) and a splash (C braking apart). OK, in this example C and A do not have similar structures but replace C with another ship and you have a ship collision. All described at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm .

Thus, if, as alleged, WTC 1 upper part C impacts WTC 1 lower part A on 911, there must be a visible jolt (C slowing down)! If there is no jolt, there is no impact. It is as simple as that. Tony S has explained this in other ways but the conclusion is the same.

So there was no impact! Upper part C did not impact lower part A as suggested by Bazant, Seffen, NIST, Mackey & Co. So how on earth can then part A be destroyed? Just watch the videos! Part C is destroyed first and because the C roof line drops, it is believed that complete part C drops (and impacts A). This is not true. You see clearly part C being destroyed above part A, while part A is still intact. The destruction of part C then produces the famous fountain of smoke and debris and not until then part A is destroyed exactly like part C = being blown apart.

Because if part C would really have dropped on part A (through the fire/initiation zone), you would first see the jolt at impact ... followed by total arrest of any destruction soon after! Part C should remain up on top of part A. Only local failures of weak elements in interface C/A would take place.

Anders, what you are saying here is the unvarnished absolute truth one sees when watching the videos of the WTC collapses and applying engineering principles to them. Of course, some here would say our eyes and years of engineering experience aren't seeing and explaining things right. Their problem is that they can't explain why.

Your thread here and the Heiwa Challenge thread have been on this forum's front page for three months and look like they could become the most posted on threads ever on the JREF forum. I am sure a number of individuals here just love that prospect.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

In a phrase: "one floor at a time".

Which, using your simplistic, facile language, turns this into:

"big strong 13 story, floor 98-110 part C crushes down little, tiny weak floor 97. Then big strong 14 story, floor 97-110 part C crushes down little tiny floor 96 ..."

tiny weak floor 97 could handle several times the vertical static load of floors 98-110 so how can it just crush it down? The same goes for floor 96 and all those below.

There needs to be load amplification for it to happen. How does that occur?

 

[Heiwa]

Anders, what you are saying here is the unvarnished absolute truth one sees when watching the videos of the WTC collapses and applying engineering principles to them. Of course, some here would say our eyes and years of engineering experience aren't seeing and explaining things right. Their problem is that they can't explain why.

Your thread here and the Heiwa Challenge thread have been on this forum's front page for three months and look like they could become the most posted on threads ever on the JREF forum. I am sure a number of individuals here just love that prospect.

Tony! This is the whole purpose of my efforts at JREF. Simple topics, simple challenges, simple critical thinking, science, structural analysis in a friendly and lively way. I get a lot of useful feedback which I put together for a paper for the ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics, which I was told last month will be published soon.
Evidently it is not popular among the 'people in power'. I have plenty of experience of the latter; a ship sinks, 850+ people die, people in power order a cover-up of the tragedy = a conspiracy!, the poor conspirators make a mess of the cover-up, more people are killed, the people in power order more cover-ups, people are bribed or threatened to shut up, etc, etc. The people in power get away with it as they control the media that just support the cover-up/conspiracy. Normal people get afraid and keep silent. Democracy dies. I have described it all in my book DISASTER INVESTIGATION at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/DIP.pdf .

 

[tfk]

What don't you understand here?

This is irrelevant. The effect of an impact can be seen afterwards by a velocity loss which is measureable.

No. Have you read the Missing Jolt paper?

I already wrote a paper on it. You need to read it.

Tony,

Thank you for answering my previous questions. This leads to progress, I believe. (I'm busy today. I'll be able to respond later.)

Please answer precisely. Engineering terms.

What, exactly, determines the instantaneous magnitude of the acceleration?

What, exactly, determines the sequence (i.e., the timing) of the successive accelerations?

Tom

 

[tfk]

Sorry, you cannot ignore the 96 floors below floor 97, total of which makes up part A (connected to ground), when floors 98-110 (part C) drop on floor 97.

Actually, it is only floor 98 that impacts floor 97 assuming that all columns (and furniture) between floors 97-98 have been suddenly removed. Floors 99-110 do not impact anything! They are far above floor 98 and only connected to floor 98 via columns.

So what element breaks when floor 98 impacts floor 97? The columns below floor 97 or the columns above floor 98?

Tip! The columns above floor 98 are weaker than the columns below floor 97 for obvious reasons.

Additional question: Wouldn't you expect a jolt when floor 98 impacts floor 97, i.e. part C is slowed down when meeting this resistance that part A makes up?

All answered in detail here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4743226

YOU should read MY post.

LoL.

Tom

 

[FineWine]

Sorry, you cannot ignore the 96 floors below floor 97, total of which makes up part A (connected to ground), when floors 98-110 (part C) drop on floor 97.

Actually, it is only floor 98 that impacts floor 97 assuming that all columns (and furniture) between floors 97-98 have been suddenly removed. Floors 99-110 do not impact anything! They are far above floor 98 and only connected to floor 98 via columns.

So what element breaks when floor 98 impacts floor 97? The columns below floor 97 or the columns above floor 98?

Tip! The columns above floor 98 are weaker than the columns below floor 97 for obvious reasons.

Additional question: Wouldn't you expect a jolt when floor 98 impacts floor 97, i.e. part C is slowed down when meeting this resistance that part A makes up?

Here is your madness in capsule form. YOU ignore the FACT that the top thirteen floors crush the floor immediately below. Then fourteen floors crush the floor below. And so on.

It is obvious to every sane human on the planet that it is NOT only the 98th floor, the bottom floor of the collapsing mass, that impacts floor 97: The weight of ALL the falling floors hit the floor below.

Please explain to us how the 96 floors below floor 97 help it to avoid being crushed when floors 98-110 fall on it. Stop blowing smoke and dancing around this most obvious of questions.

 

[Heiwa]

All answered in detail here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4743226

YOU should read MY post.

LoL.

Tom

So YOU said, quote:

3. The Errors in Heiwa's analysis:

These are too numerous to count. And have been detailed by numerous folks here already.

But the crucial one pertinent to this discussion include:

1. He ignores the difference between static & dynamic loads.
2. He ignores the asymmetric consequences of gravity and the vertical motion of the upper Part C.
3. He incorrectly claims that mass & energy of the upper block lose their ability to cause damage once they have broken into rubble.
4. Most important error: he ignores the fact that Part C is going to gather most of the debris created until its entire lower surface constitutes a near solid mass of impacted debris that easily crushes each Part A floor, one by one.
5. This lower solid mass of debris is also the material that protects the upper Part C from being eroded by the stub ends of Part A's columns.

un-quote.

LOL!

Part C is going to gather debris ... ! LLOL.

A solid mass of impacted debris ... LLLLLLOL!

This lower solid mass of debris ... protects the upper Part C ... Hilarious.

Sorry Tom! You don't know anything about structures and what happens when you drop a part C on a part A of same structure. Haven't you ever dropped something?