Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

Status
Not open for further replies.
Grizzly Bear said:
First part...


But to begin with this assumes that we're working off a scenario in which none of the columns were weakened by any mechanisms. This isn't true for the impact and fire region where columns would have been been more susceptible due to a combination of the redistributed loads after impact and then the heat induced loss in strength resulting in even tighter reserve strength.


At the point of collapse initiation they were, that's the point. Beyond initiation the remainder of the collapse can be blamed on this sort of mechanism.
I did a quick and dirty diagram to show it...

[qimg]http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/3798/drawing2.png[/qimg]


2nd part



Which refers only to the pre-collapse initiation conditions. The fire regions failed under the structure's static load from a combination of uneven load redistribution and loss of integrity from the fire. Everything beyond that point was dynamic because not only was the mass of the upper block moving, the impacts were not column to column. And nearly every column examined after the fact shows this clearly, that shear failure at the connections from -- in many cases -- angular load applications was responsible for them coming apart. The case you make about the deceleration being greater than gravity is correct but the net loss in velocity is entirely dependent upon the strength of the column along the axis it receives the load. This contact is taking place over such a small interval that the net loss in velocity is indistinguishable at the individual level.
Click to expand...

The net loss in velocity would not be indistinguishable and there are no decelerations or losses of velocity for the 114 feet we measured the fall, so there were no dynamic loads. The velocity loss should have been very large at impacts between floors and yet the upper block of WTC 1 doesn't only not lose velocity but it actually gains velocity throughout the entire fall.

The buckling of the wall you show does not necessitate an out of plane fall. However, we do know the upper blocks tilted in both cases so one could try to make a case that there could be some out of plane forces. You haven't done that here yet. However, this cannot happen to all four sides of the towers with the amount of inertia involved. You are also showing the upper block of WTC 2 when we are discussing WTC 1.
 
Last edited:
FineWine said:
Yes, I understand your embarrassment at having been exposed. The nonsense you peddle is certainly foolish. I'll repeat: no one who works in demolition--no, not Bachmann, Schneider, nor Jowenko--thinks the collapses of the towers resembles controlled demolitions. The evidence for demolition is nonexistent, as you know.

Most of us can't understand why someone who claims to be an engineer is incapable of learning anything from other engineers. Heiwa clearly has serious problems. You, by contrast, appear sane.

What's your excuse?
Click to expand...

You sound like you are just saying this for me. Thanks, but I would really rather hear your take on how the collapses could have continued in a natural way without a dynamic load being involved.
 
Heiwa said:
According Tom floor 98 doesn't really crush (sic) floor 97! Floor 98 gathers the debris of floor 97 under itself and makes it into a solid mass of impacted debris??? Floor 97 was already pretty solid (concrete + steel but thin!) but it apparently becomes thinner and more solid. I do not understand what Tom is really suggesting. Floor 97 - compacted - also protects floor 98 from being damaged. Why that is necessary is not clear! Floor 98 is superstrong! And then floor 98 - still undamaged - with a compressed floor 97 gathered below it - continues to damage floor 96 in the same manner. What happens to the columns in between is not clear. And so on 97 times!

It is however clear that floors 99-110 do not participate at all in the super efforts of floor 98 exactly as Bazant & Co suggest. It is only floor 98 - superstrong (rigid according to Bazant) - bottom of part C - that one-way crushes down anything below. Floors 99 -110 above floor 98 just displace down peacefully. Evidently it is all nonsense.

It is a modified pancake theory - one pancake (no. 98) - crushes 97 pancakes below. And when super pancake no. 98 has crushed 97 pancakes below, pancake no. 98 decides to crush pancakes 99-110 above! Crush-up. LOL.

Actually my paper to be published in the ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics describe the same Bazant nonsense in a more serious manner + math.
Click to expand...


Yes, you certainly write nonsense. But it is more significant that you also tell outright lies. Many posters have wondered if your obtuseness outweighs your dishonesty. My impression is that you are equal parts fool and charlatan.

It is daring of you to pretend a real engineer, Bazant, suffers from the sort of muddle-headedness that makes you such a laughingstock. No, the real engineers don't believe in a superstrong 98th floor. They believe that the thirteen collapsing floors, all of them damaged to some degree, hit the floor below and added it to the total falling mass. The process was repeated until the building was gone.

"It is however clear that floors 99-110 do not participate at all in the super efforts of floor 98 exactly as Bazant & Co suggest."

This sentence proves that you are an incompetent. There are no "super" efforts by the bottom floor of the falling mass. Floors 99-110 do not float in midair.

Remember another question that you and your mindless parrot ran from? I'll ask it again:

You're seated confortably on the 97th floor. The top thirteen floors have given way and are headed in your direction. The 98th floor contains lightweight garden furniture, while the 99th floor contains metal printers' plates weighing several tons each. Are you lucky that it isn't the 98th floor that contains the heavy stuff?

Stop running away and answer me.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
You sound like you are just saying this for me. Thanks, but I would really rather hear your take on how the collapses could have continued in a natural way without a dynamic load being involved.
Click to expand...

My "take" is of no consequence, as I am not an engineer. Several real engineers have explained your errors, yet you seem incapable of processing anything they write.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
There are no decelerations or losses of velocity for the 114 feet we measured the fall, so there were no dynamic loads. The velocity loss should have been very large at impacts between floors and yet the upper block of WTC 1 doesn't only not lose velocity but it actually gains velocity throughout the entire fall.
Click to expand...

*sigh*
I even went as far as drawing a [albeit extremely dirty] force diagram to demonstrate the point... and you're still not understanding it... good grief... and why is a net velocity gain unusual if there's not sufficient resistance to stop the mass from accelerating? This has been beyond lunacy the entire time.
 
Last edited:
Would any of the real engineers here be kind enough to offer a few thoughts on my exchange with Heiwa from the previous page? Did he make any effort to address my question?

Thanks in advance.


Originally Posted by FineWine:

No, you're the one who knows nothing about tall buildings.

Let's pretend that directly below floor 97 is a solid mass of almost indestructible granite. We all agree that the collapsing mass, floors 98-110, gets arrested by this formidable obstacle. Please tell us how that helps save floor 97 from being crushed.

Don't run away, as Bill would. Don't babble incoherent gibberish in a futile attempt to deceive us into thinking you understand the question. Just stop and try to think.

Heiwa responded:

According Tom floor 98 doesn't really crush (sic) floor 97! Floor 98 gathers the debris of floor 97 under itself and makes it into a solid mass of impacted debris??? Floor 97 was already pretty solid (concrete + steel but thin!) but it apparently becomes thinner and more solid. I do not understand what Tom is really suggesting. Floor 97 - compacted - also protects floor 98 from being damaged. Why that is necessary is not clear! Floor 98 is superstrong! And then floor 98 - still undamaged - with a compressed floor 97 gathered below it - continues to damage floor 96 in the same manner. What happens to the columns in between is not clear. And so on 97 times!

It is however clear that floors 99-110 do not participate at all in the super efforts of floor 98 exactly as Bazant & Co suggest. It is only floor 98 - superstrong (rigid according to Bazant) - bottom of part C - that one-way crushes down anything below. Floors 99 -110 above floor 98 just displace down peacefully. Evidently it is all nonsense.

It is a modified pancake theory - one pancake (no. 98) - crushes 97 pancakes below. And when super pancake no. 98 has crushed 97 pancakes below, pancake no. 98 decides to crush pancakes 99-110 above! Crush-up. LOL.

Actually my paper to be published in the ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics describe the same Bazant nonsense in a more serious manner + math.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
*sigh*
I even went as far as drawing a [albeit extremely dirty] force diagram to demonstrate the point... and you're still not understanding it... good grief... and why is a net velocity gain unusual if there's not sufficient resistance to stop the mass from accelerating? This has been beyond lunacy the entire time.
Click to expand...

The real question is why there wasn't sufficient resistance to stop the mass from accelerating.

Please don't use fire weakening as an excuse here as there is no physical evidence of the steel experiencing high enough temperatures to even weaken it.

You are trying to make a silk purse out of a sows ear. It won't work. You should give it up. The buildings were taken down with some form of demolition method.
 
FineWine said:
My "take" is of no consequence, as I am not an engineer. Several real engineers have explained your errors, yet you seem incapable of processing anything they write.
Click to expand...

Then it sounds like you don't have the ability to judge either and are simply taking sides for emotional reasons.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Please don't use fire weakening as an excuse here as there is no physical evidence of the steel experiencing high enough temperatures to even weaken it.

You are trying to make a silk purse out of a sows ear. It won't work. You should give it up. The buildings were taken down with some form of demolition method.
Click to expand...

Since this claim is a repetition of cherry-picked data, you do not get to make that decision. I don't care how much you push this nonsense, and I have very little tolerance for people who cant comprehend data correctly. End of story. Not being able to read data from a report, or rather being able to parrot the same deliberate misrepresentation of data isn't something to take pride in.
 
Last edited:
3bodyproblem said:
lol, really? At what temperature does steel begin to weaken?
Click to expand...

This is from chapter 11 of Fundamentals of Building Construction (Edward Allen & Joseph Iano). Page 414 on the fourth edition.

steel001.jpg


Another reference is avalable here which is a bit more detailed
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
Then it sounds like you don't have the ability to judge either and are simply taking sides for emotional reasons.
Click to expand...


That's rather amusing coming from a "truther." You are wedded to an absurd conspiracy theory that has no points of contact with reality, and you are willing to subvert science to a bizarre political agenda. But I'm the one taking sides for emotional reasons.

No, I follow reason and evidence--you ignore both.
 
Last edited:
FineWine said:
That's rather amusing coming from a "truther." You are wedded to an absurd conspiracy theory that has no points of contact with reality, and you are willing to subvert science to a bizarre political agenda. But I'm the one taking sides for emotional reasons.

No, I follow reason and evidence--you ignore both.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, the emotional tie, as far as being wedded to a particular theory, seems to be yours, as the natural collapse theory has no solid evidence to support itself.

A number of engineers have now shown this to be true and that the evidence is really that these were not natural collapses at all. In spite of this, all you can do is make negative comments with no discussion of the merits of the argument.

The present official stories on the three building collapses are nothing more than pure unadulterated horse manure.
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
This is from chapter 11 of Fundamentals of Building Construction (Edward Allen & Joseph Iano). Page 414 on the fourth edition.
Click to expand...

Well Tony says there's no evidence of temperatures hot enough to weaken steel. No evidence what so ever. You'd think with all that thermite burning you'd have some evidence, but nope, Tony says no way.

Truthers are so convieniently ignorant of the most obvious things. :rolleyes:
 
Tony Szamboti said:
The real question is why there wasn't sufficient resistance to stop the mass from accelerating.

Please don't use fire weakening as an excuse here as there is no physical evidence of the steel experiencing high enough temperatures to even weaken it.

You are trying to make a silk purse out of a sows ear. It won't work. You should give it up. The buildings were taken down with some form of demolition method.
Click to expand...

But you don't know what kind of explosives were used, how they were installed, when they were installed, how they were concealed or how they were detonated.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
What don't you understand here?
Click to expand...

I don't understand why you think that a structure designed to support twice the static load that it is expected to handle could support the same load while it is moving.

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

Yes, we saw this in the collapse of the towers. When it hit the ground, it stopped moving.


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

All right. Which journal is it published in?
 
3bodyproblem said:
Well Tony says there's no evidence of temperatures hot enough to weaken steel. No evidence what so ever. You'd think with all that thermite burning you'd have some evidence, but nope, Tony says no way.

Truthers are so convieniently ignorant of the most obvious things. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

It was frio-nano thermite from the same manufacturer that makes hush-a-boom and invisicrete.
 
3bodyproblem said:
Well Tony says there's no evidence of temperatures hot enough to weaken steel. No evidence what so ever. You'd think with all that thermite burning you'd have some evidence, but nope, Tony says no way.

Truthers are so convieniently ignorant of the most obvious things. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You apparently can't walk and chew gum.

Why was most of the steel recycled before it was analyzed? The answer is most probably because the temperatures from heat weakening of joints by thermite were much higher than those which could be produced by fire and an analysis would have shown that.

Unfortunately, for the official story they have no physical evidence of high temperatures, but the extremely high temperatures caused by thermite use wouldn't have helped either and it actually would have blown the cover. What a dilemma, but I can hear certain perpetrators saying don't worry well just use a computer instead of physical evidence and make it show the temperatures had to be very hot.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom