Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

[funk de fino]

When all his spills out onto main street T as it certainly will in due course, a lot of people are going to have to come up with a lot of tortured excuses. It's a fascinating situation in a lot of ways. Pschologists and behavioural experts will have years of work to unravel the psychology involved.

They will be too busy studying 911 TM morons.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Are you telling us that the floor truss connections on the perimeter columns were enough to create a "jolt" and a "loss in velocity" to the falling upper mass of the tower?

If not the floor truss connections, can you please explain to me what was supposed to cause this "jolt" and "loss in velocity"? What structural members?

Do you know that each floor could support 12 times it's own weight or 29 million lbs.?

The columns below would have caused a jolt if they weren't being weakened/removed. I don't see any way the upper block completely misses the columns below and only lands on floor slabs. How do you account for the core columns in your thinking? Additionally, all four sides of the perimeters cannot move inside.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

My understanding of it (from reading analysis by various engineers, such as Bazant etc) is that there is no serious question that the kinetic energy generated by the downward, gravitationally-driven movement of the upper blocks was easily sufficient to continue the collapse all the way down to the foundations.
By making crude simplifications of the scenario, never intended to be more than computational guides, Bazant was able to provide some solid calculations about the expected strength of the structure and the forces which destroyed it.

The actual collapse is far more complex, and did not behave in the way a simple caricature does - Tony S is using the simplified caricature and expecting it to model precisely what the more complex object did.

Of course that was never the intention of Bazant's calculations at all.

Because Tony is unwilling to accept the inevitability of the collapse, he has to handwave away the unmistakable fact that the towers did NOT collapse at the rate of freefall acceleration, but were slowed by the structure, as expected. The fact that structure provided resistance demonstrates that it was not a controlled demolition at all, but a complex gravitational collapse initiated by the failure of structure due to plane impacts and fires.

That is why the engineering community at large has no need to pursue convoluted conspiracy theories to explain the collapses, and it never will.

If you read more of Tony Szamboti's posts on other internet forums (sciforums.com for example) you'll see he holds a number of corresponding goofball viewpoints, asking questions such as
'Why do you think the building collapses initiated on floors just above where the aircraft impact damage had occurred instead of where the damage was, which also had fire?'
'The collapses of the twin towers both initiated just at the very top edges of the impact zones, where there was almost no fuel and an insignificant number of columns damaged'
'Isn't it amazing that the columns from these initiation floors weren't saved, to show us just how hot they got? That would have nipped any conspiracy charges right in the bud. It is very suspicious that these columns weren't saved and no amount of obfuscation and spin can end that suspicion.

However, it could also be where a demolition could be initiated, since they were the first floors above which had little damage and the planted thermite charges would not have been upset.'

Elsewhere, as Tony has already written in this stupid Heiwa thread, he believes that mythical nanothermite materials, none of which he has seen, nor tested, nor seen tested, were actually responsible for the tower collapses, which did not require explosives anyway (as we have seen). So he not only argues (apparently expecting to be taken seriously!) that the plane impacts were merely a smokescreen for the REAL destruction by mythical compounds which, in his Harry Potter fantasy can magically accomplish this in a virtually undetectable way. 'Nano-thermite's brisance and noise level for a given charge is also tailorable by changing the size of the particles. Explosive noise and force away from the target could also be kept to a minimum by tamping.'
Please note that Tony is extrapolating his entire nanothermite theory from some obscure references about research into nanothermite weapons made in 2001. He's paraphrasing the comments, trying to co-opt them into the truthersphere for building demolition. I kid you not.
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2287107

Skeptics have sarcastically termed such fantasy, low-noise explosives as 'hush-a-boom' explosives. There is good reason for such derision, and it's not even worth mentioning why, I hope. (you know, a high-velocity, high explosive charge that is somehow quiet?!? Oy vay!)

Dr. Frank Greening has also discovered some large errors in Tony's paper, discussed here by Dr. Greening
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/newton-s-3rd-law-and-the-collapse-of-wtc-1-t153.html

Greening was shown to be wrong about the columns acting like springs in series in a collision. While it is true that two equal springs stacked on top of one another and loaded from one end will cause the stiffness to be halved and the elastic energy absorption to be halved, this is not true in a collision, and will not occur due to the elastic wave traveling in opposite directions from either side of the impact.

Additionally, the elastic compression is only a portion of the energy loss. I explained to Greening that even if coupling could occur it would only amount to a 9% difference in the energy drain from the upper block, not the 50% he thought, as the axial plastic deformation and buckling losses, on both sides of the collision, would be unaffected by any spring coupling.

The only legitimate thing Dr. Frank Greening found in his review of the paper was a minor arithmetic error (which I thanked him for and promptly corrected). That is it. So much for your large errors and distortion of reality. It is telling that you don't include a link to where I corrected Greening on the issue of coupling on the same forum.

Now if you want to continue to maintain that the building collapses were not due to contolled demolitions you need to start trying to explain why there is no jolt in the fall of the upper block of WTC 1, which would be necessary if it was a natural collapse, and stop distorting reality in your effort to discredit me. So far it seems you have nothing else to support your position.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Do you know that each floor could support 12 times it's own weight or 29 million lbs.?

...and if the force applied to it exceeds that much, it will collapse. That's what happened.

The columns below would have caused a jolt if they weren't being weakened/removed.

There was a PLANE CRASH. There was a FIRE. Of COURSE the columns were weakened, if not by these initial causes then by the progressive collapse itself.

I don't see any way the upper block completely misses the columns below and only lands on floor slabs.

You don't? You really don't?

Hint: There was a lot more floor slab than there was column in terms of surface area.

How do you account for the core columns in your thinking? Additionally, all four sides of the perimeters cannot move inside.

Look, it's not that difficult. You believe there should be a jolt when there is acceleration (or "deceleration", as you call it). I and other posters here have offered several real-world examples that falsify this hypothesis.

It's OVER. Give it up.

 

[GlennB]

Now if you want to continue to maintain that the building collapses were not due to contolled demolitions you need to start trying to explain why there is no jolt in the fall of the upper block of WTC 1, which would be necessary if it was a natural collapse,

Tony - the measurements in your own paper clearly show that at no time was the upper block in freefall. Yet this is the model Bazant used. So you cannot mix+match a model with reality here.

You accept that impact was not simultanous and axial across the sections colliding, yet this too is the model Bazant used. You cannot mix+match a model and reality in this area either.

You are using Bazant's model to find something 'wrong' in a real-life event that didn't mimic Bazant's model. You are, effectively, contradicting yourself. But you can't see it.

 

[newton3376]

After reading this moronic comment....

Of course, the fall of WTC 1's upper block does not show any deceleration or velocity loss so it's kinetic energy was not transferred.

I find it unbelievable that Tony claims to be an engineer..thankfully the chances of me ever having to read anything by this guy in real life are very very remote...

If I did I would be skeptical of whatever conclusions he made right from page 1.

These truthers are simply breathtaking in their ignorance and idiocy....

 

[Justin39640]

Do you know that each floor could support 12 times it's own weight or 29 million lbs.?

again like i said on the last page
that was spread over the entire floor surface NOT A FEW SPOTS
also that was a static load (for the most part since all the contents of the floor would never move all at the same time) not a dynamic crush

simple math (im sure theres variables that would change this but)
1 acre = 6,272,640 at 29 million lbs
that comes out to 4.6 PSI
figure they never expected every sq inch to be covered so ill bump that to 30 psi
you really think the first parts of the top half of the building hit at 30 psi or so?

the floor was designed to hold up desks people machinery cabinets etc etc
but that was spread out over the entire surface of the floor
when you have the entire weight of the upper part come down on just a few square feet the floor will NEVER stop it

this same idea is why i yell at people for lifting their cars with forklifts
the forks are designed by weight class
a 5000 capacity pair of forks can lift 5000 lbs
but thats spreading the weight over the entire face of the fork
picking up 5000 lbs on a few square inches can bend or shatter the fork and cause 1 hell of an accident

this is so simple its stupid
yet you clearly dont comprehend it

ive also had forklifts go through floors in retail space (some settle when the frame hits the floor, guess why H man, some get a free trip to the basement)
cause they were too heavy for that design
but the floor holds up the racks and all the merchandise just fine
cause that weight is spread out and the machines weight is compact

(your average 5000 cap FL fully loaded weighs in at about 15000 lbs)

ETA: this is the result of either the customer just buying a lift with no research into what his/her facility's floors can support
or a salesman mismatching a machine to a facility
both of which happens a lot

The columns below would have caused a jolt if they weren't being weakened/removed. I don't see any way the upper block completely misses the columns below and only lands on floor slabs. How do you account for the core columns in your thinking? Additionally, all four sides of the perimeters cannot move inside.

there were no columns under the floors and the top columns didnt hit the bottom ones square (or probably at all)
you have a real optimistic view of something as random as a building collapse

so i ask you tony
how can 15000 lbs of forklift & load go through a floor thats designed for a million lbs?
the last time i seen it happen was a national chain pet food store
that one had a free trip to the basement 1 level down
miraculously the operator was unhurt

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Do you know that each floor could support 12 times it's own weight or 29 million lbs.?

The columns below would have caused a jolt if they weren't being weakened/removed. I don't see any way the upper block completely misses the columns below and only lands on floor slabs. How do you account for the core columns in your thinking? Additionally, all four sides of the perimeters cannot move inside.

The estimate you're posting refers to a static load which was nevertheless exceeded in both towers.

As for the columns, once the collapse got started the upper section had tilted effectively nulling any hope of the ideal axial loading that you appear to be expecting out of taking Bazant's modeling literally...

 

[Justin39640]

my models dont collapse square

altough ill admit theyre not very accurate scientifically
and theres a lot of limits i work with there

but they are operating in a game engine that uses basic laws of physics
unsquare shifting of weight always results in total or near total collapse

except the 1 i made for Heiwa where i did drop it square
then just the top few floors of the lower part collapsed
but that was again in a perfect virtual world

check out my YT page
http://www.youtube.com/user/justin39640

 

[GlennB]

The problem with what you are saying here is that you don't explain that the kinetic energy has to be transferred to cause damage and that requires deceleration and velocity loss. Of course, the fall of WTC 1's upper block does not show any deceleration or velocity loss so it's kinetic energy was not transferred.

Repeat for Tony.
Have you thought about that bolded statement of yours yet?

A few clues, from your own paper:

"Using this formula, we discover that a freely falling object would travel 161.6 feet in the time it took the roof to drop 114.4 feet. "

"The velocity of the roof increases in a relatively linear way and is 68.65 ft./s after 3.00 seconds, which is about 71% of the free fall velocity of 96.52 ft./s for this fall time. "

 

[Gamolon]

Do you know that each floor could support 12 times it's own weight or 29 million lbs.?

Is the each truss connection or is that 29 million lbs. distributed amongst the trusses, concrete floor, truss connections, and columns?

The columns below would have caused a jolt if they weren't being weakened/removed.

The perimeter columns were clong the OUTSIDE edge of the concrete floor and the core columns were along the INSIDE edge of the concrete floor. They were not BELOW the floors which is why they used "L" shaped truss connections welded to the plates on the perimeter columns. So when the bottom floor of the upper mass hit the top floor of the lower mass, what took the brunt of the force? Was it the columns or the truss connections? Can you draw a diagram and show the applicable forces to each structural member and connection? Was the force of the upper mass enough to shear off or bend the truss connections?

I don't see any way the upper block completely misses the columns below and only lands on floor slabs. How do you account for the core columns in your thinking? Additionally, all four sides of the perimeters cannot move inside.

So draw a diagram of how you think the bottom floor of upper mass met the top floor of the bottom mass?

Also, if you took a slab of concrete similar to the floors of the towers and slammed if onto the top of one of the core columns, would the columns crumple like and accordian or do you think the concrete would shatter?

What took the brunt of the downward force? The top og the columns or the floor truss connections?

 

[alienentity]

Tony Szamboti wrote

Now if you want to continue to maintain that the building collapses were not due to contolled demolitions you need to start trying to explain why there is no jolt in the fall of the upper block of WTC 1, which would be necessary if it was a natural collapse, and stop distorting reality in your effort to discredit me. So far it seems you have nothing else to support your position.

I've already done that, Tony. You're just deaf to any ideas outside the truthersphere echochamber apparently.

You're accusing me of distorting reality. That's a good one. I observe (as does anyone who cares to notice) that the upper block falls at a rate of acceleration LESS than freefall, which proves that energy was being transferred into destroying structure.

You fail to see this and acknowledge the inescapable truth of it. And I'M distorting reality?

Your own calculations show you that the mass of the upper block was more than sufficient to destroy the undamaged structure below, given a chance to accelerate.
The only point we differ on is your insistence that the impulse must manifest in a cartoon-like way as a 'jolt', and I (and many others) don't.

I've already quoted you on other forums questioning every aspect of reality which challenges your conspiracy beliefs, to the point of utter absurdity; and yet you accept the most highly speculative and thinly supported conjecture about mythical nanothermite explosives without batting an eyelash, so to speak.

And you're also offering, as your 'truther-improved' version of reality, that the explosives must've been somehow hidden away in the cores of the towers so they couldn't be detected on video or audio, and must've been special 'hush-a-boom' quiet explosives....never before seen or verified, of course. Yikes!!

You might want to have a chat with David Chandler about the explosives, since he's 'proven' through his marvelous insights how the deadly 'squibs' are very clearly seen in the videos.

At least get your stories straight before you embarrass yourselves on Hardfire.

 

[tfk]

Yes I'm awfully awfully embarrassed. But never mind is what I say.

.
Well, bill, you are nothing if not self-absolving of you own foolishness.

See- I told you it was a lot of mesh that's missing from the rubble. The best part of a square mile in fact.

.
Yeah, bill, you did say that. And you know, given your unblemished record of "guaranteed 100% wrong", that is the SECOND most compelling reason to believe that there is absolutely no mesh or rebar missing from the rubble.

Right after "living in THIS universe, where matter does not spontaneously vanish".

I notice you didn't have any sensible answers to the question either.

.
I notice that for some (typical) reason, you were unable to read, process or understand the first sentence of my post, where I said:

Yes, bill. I know EXACTLY where the 3/4th of a square mile of mesh reinforcing has gone. It has gone nowhere.

That's as "sensible" as it gets, bill. It also happens to be the correct answer.
.

What about the '' Find the missing square mile of rebar '' Challenge.

.
This "challenge" does not exist. Anywhere except in "Little Billy World".

Do the sexual references get your rocks off then ? I was always uneasy about you following me around. A groupie is one thing but....

.
You know, bill, I was a little uncomfortable with that simile myself, when it first occurred to me.

But the more I thought about it, the more "pleasuring yourself in public" came to accurately & concisely describe your activities here.

It has all components of the traditional act:

The single incomprehensible perpetrator.
The innocent bystanders.
The seedy act.
The shock.
The momentary disorientation.
The pause of disbelief. ("He couldn't POSSIBLY be doing THAT, could he ...?")
The instant of recognition.
The averted eyes of the genteel.
The reflexive hoots & hollers. ("Oh damn. Bill's at it again!")
The emergent revulsion.
The influx of the outraged, angry mob.
The more experienced shouting, as they continued by, "if you guys would just ignore him, maybe he'd stop."

In the midst of the mini-maelstrom, you. Grinning vacuously.

Meanwhile, in the gathered crowd, the pummeling about your head & shoulders commences.
Each blow driving you to more incoherent mumblings. More vacuous grinning. More fervent, determined fumblings.
The beatings abate only when they are too much for civilized people to bear.
Or with the arrival of the sheriff (a mod) who pulls the mob off of you.
You are, of course, oblivious to it all.
The sheriff insincerely chastises the mob that they "should attack yes, even this buffoon's arguments, not the buffoon himself".
Finally the slow dispersal of the uneasy mob, dissatisfied with the lack of "frontier justice".

And at the end of the fracas, there you are. Trampled & beaten to a bloody pulp. Claiming victory.

Then, the post-fracas let-down & discussion:
The unanimous condemnation of your public indiscretions.
The regret that we can't think of a civil way to get you to understand the essential seediness of your behavior.
The determination of the dignified to avoid contact with you (aka, "Ignore Feature").
The wringing of hands amongst the town council (i.e., the mods), anguishing over their helplessness to stop this.
The consensus view: "that boy just ain't right in the head! Been that way ever since he was kicked by that mule."
The resignation that "Yep, he'll be doin' it again. Soon."
The perfunctory whack upside the head that the less tolerant citizens casually administer to you daily, in passing.
Your unrepentant addiction to your own compulsion

The inevitable repeat from the beginning.
And the daily call, "Oh damn. Bill's at it again!"

Did I miss anything??


Tom

 

[Gamolon]

Do you know that each floor could support 12 times it's own weight or 29 million lbs.?

Do you know that my 14 year old son can stand on top of a pop can without it crushing down, but then if he jumps on top of it, it crushes into a nice neat package?

Do you know that my 14 year old son can stand on top of a pop can without it crushing down, but while still standing on it, if he bends over and taps the sides of the can slightly, it then crushes down in a nice neat package?

Controlled demolition?

How many lbs. of force came down on the top floor of the bottom mass? Was it more than 29 million lbs.? Was the downward force evenly distributed among all the connections that supported that 29 million lbs.?

 

[Gamolon]

Do you know that each floor could support 12 times it's own weight or 29 million lbs.?

On page 7 of your paper you say this:

The mass above the 98th floor, from the mass analysis, is 68,295,000 lbs.,

Is that not more that 68 million lbs.? Is this estimated figure what the mass above weighed in total or does it mean something else?

 

[bill smith]

Greening was shown to be wrong about the columns acting like springs in series in a collision. While it is true that two equal springs stacked on top of one another and loaded from one end will cause the stiffness to be halved and the elastic energy absorption to be halved, this is not true in a collision, and will not occur due to the elastic wave traveling in opposite directions from either side of the impact.

Additionally, the elastic compression is only a portion of the energy loss. I explained to Greening that even if coupling could occur it would only amount to a 9% difference in the energy drain from the upper block, not the 50% he thought, as the axial plastic deformation and buckling losses, on both sides of the collision, would be unaffected by any spring coupling.

The only legitimate thing Dr. Frank Greening found in his review of the paper was a minor arithmetic error (which I thanked him for and promptly corrected). That is it. So much for your large errors and distortion of reality. It is telling that you don't include a link to where I corrected Greening on the issue of coupling on the same forum.

Now if you want to continue to maintain that the building collapses were not due to contolled demolitions you need to start trying to explain why there is no jolt in the fall of the upper block of WTC 1, which would be necessary if it was a natural collapse, and stop distorting reality in your effort to discredit me. So far it seems you have nothing else to support your position.

If you want to see a truly disgusting example of how they try to discredit people have a little read through this short thread. (if you can handle it that long)
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=147369

 

[newton3376]

Do you know that my 14 year old son can stand on top of a pop can without it crushing down, but then if he jumps on top of it, it crushes into a nice neat package?

That's unpossible!!!

Was there observed deceleration?

If not then it is unpossible for there to be any transfer of kinetic energy to support your "one way crush down" scenerio....

You have violated Newton's third law!!! The can would push up with equal force resulting (somehow) in a net upward force...which would decelerate your son and cause deformation of his shoe/foot at least equal to any damage to the can!!!

Do you know that my 14 year old son can stand on top of a pop can without it crushing down, but while still standing on it, if he bends over and taps the sides of the can slightly, it then crushes down in a nice neat package?

Once again unpossible...you do not understand basic physics....

Controlled demolition?

Is there another kind?

How many lbs. of force came down on the top floor of the bottom mass? Was it more than 29 million lbs.? Was the downward force evenly distributed among all the connections that supported that 29 million lbs.?

Please do not employ the usual debunker strategy of using mathematics, physics, or engineering to prove your point.....the truthers have google video and youtube which trumps any actual equations or calculations...

 

[tfk]

Tony,

Do you know that each floor could support 12 times it's own weight or 29 million lbs.?

It is beyond comprehension that a person claiming to be an engineer would say something this removed from reality.

First, I believe that the number for which you are desperately grasping is more like 6 floors. When the building was "as designed". As properly built. As undamaged. When the weight was symmetrically loaded onto the proper weight bearing structures. Statically.

NOBODY in their right mind claims that the massively damaged, blazing, tilting, and finally completely disintegrating top floor, where 2/3rds of the supports have been ripped away, along with their cross trusses, would be able to support six stories... when they were loaded, dynamically, onto the 4" thick concrete floors.

Floors that were rated for approximately 300 psi loads.

Floors that were being impaled with about 150 spikes (aka, columns) bearing about 75 tons apiece.

Your comment is breathtakingly (uh ... I'm struggling for a civil adjective here, Tony. Let's keep it simple & go with) wrong.

Would you please address just this one point for me.

Thank you.

Tom

 

[Gamolon]

Please do not employ the usual debunker strategy of using mathematics, physics, or engineering to prove your point.....the truthers have google video and youtube which trumps any actual equations or calculations...

My apologies. I will try to control myself in the future and apply the proper thinking techniques in this forum.

 

[bill smith]

.
Well, bill, you are nothing if not self-absolving of you own foolishness.


.
Yeah, bill, you did say that. And you know, given your unblemished record of "guaranteed 100% wrong", that is the SECOND most compelling reason to believe that there is absolutely no mesh or rebar missing from the rubble.

Right after "living in THIS universe, where matter does not spontaneously vanish".


.
I notice that for some (typical) reason, you were unable to read, process or understand the first sentence of my post, where I said:

That's as "sensible" as it gets, bill. It also happens to be the correct answer.
.


.
This "challenge" does not exist. Anywhere except in "Little Billy World".


.
You know, bill, I was a little uncomfortable with that simile myself, when it first occurred to me.

But the more I thought about it, the more "pleasuring yourself in public" came to accurately & concisely describe your activities here.

It has all components of the traditional act:

The single incomprehensible perpetrator.
The innocent bystanders.
The seedy act.
The shock.
The momentary disorientation.
The pause of disbelief. ("He couldn't POSSIBLY be doing THAT, could he ...?")
The instant of recognition.
The averted eyes of the genteel.
The reflexive hoots & hollers. ("Oh damn. Bill's at it again!")
The emergent revulsion.
The influx of the outraged, angry mob.
The more experienced shouting, as they continued by, "if you guys would just ignore him, maybe he'd stop."

In the midst of the mini-maelstrom, you. Grinning vacuously.

Meanwhile, in the gathered crowd, the pummeling about your head & shoulders commences.
Each blow driving you to more incoherent mumblings. More vacuous grinning. More fervent, determined fumblings.
The beatings abate only when they are too much for civilized people to bear.
Or with the arrival of the sheriff (a mod) who pulls the mob off of you.
You are, of course, oblivious to it all.
The sheriff insincerely chastises the mob that they "should attack yes, even this buffoon's arguments, not the buffoon himself".
Finally the slow dispersal of the uneasy mob, dissatisfied with the lack of "frontier justice".

And at the end of the fracas, there you are. Trampled & beaten to a bloody pulp. Claiming victory.

Then, the post-fracas let-down & discussion:
The unanimous condemnation of your public indiscretions.
The regret that we can't think of a civil way to get you to understand the essential seediness of your behavior.
The determination of the dignified to avoid contact with you (aka, "Ignore Feature").
The wringing of hands amongst the town council (i.e., the mods), anguishing over their helplessness to stop this.
The consensus view: "that boy just ain't right in the head! Been that way ever since he was kicked by that mule."
The resignation that "Yep, he'll be doin' it again. Soon."
The perfunctory whack upside the head that the less tolerant citizens casually administer to you daily, in passing.
Your unrepentant addiction to your own compulsion

The inevitable repeat from the beginning.
And the daily call, "Oh damn. Bill's at it again!"

Did I miss anything??


Tom

Less would be more T. This is just repetetive, circular and boring. Better to stick with the debunkng while it lasts given that you have no future in creative writing.