Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

Status
Not open for further replies.
tfk said:
.
Well, one of the world's premier experts is Zdenek Bazant.

You would do well to attempt to emulate this paper:
"Stability of Elastic, Anelastic, and Disintegrating Structures, and Finite
Strain Ejects: an Overview"
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/S49.pdf

Next would be Leslie Robertson, who has stated clearly that, once the collapse began, collapse to the street was inevitable.

Next would be about 100 structural engineers who produced NIST report.

According to you, there is no such thing as progressive collapse in a building due just to gravity. For you, the beginning & end of "Engineering Principles of Progressive Collapse" is "keep explosives away from buildings".

So, you should consider the approximately 10,000 authors of the following 4500 papers, books regarding "progressive collapse" to believe that there is just a tad more to it than you believe.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="progressive+collapse"&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search

Just a sampling.

Others here have also posted the names of hundreds of experts.

You were saying, as to why we should believe you...??

Tom
Click to expand...

Hm, this Bazant paper from year 2000 is just a review about the first failure that may develop in a structure due, e.g. overload, and of little value to proper structural damage analysis and its multiple failures one after the other, the first failure causing the second failure, loads being transferred and/or shifted, and so on.

Bazant's only venture into WTC 1 destruction on 911 has resulted into a couple of papers, the latest so called BLGB 2008 with Greening and Benson assisting. In all these papers the model is 1-D and upper part (line!) C is considered rigid with an extremely strong bottom floor (#97) that remains intact during destruction of floors #1-97 including all intermediate support structure; columns. As part/line C bottom floor (#97)/point doesn't displace relative to other floors #98-110/points on line C and the other floors #98-110 remain fixed relative each other, line C thus remain constant.

The lower structure, part A, is also a line of floors #1-96 or points and this line is compressed, point by point starting from point 96, from above by line C. So when point 96 is compressed down towards point 95 by line C, the line in between these two points in line A become shorter - it is compressed so it becomes 1/4 of its original length. The compressed line is called line B (rubble).
This compression of line A into line B is thus done in 97 steps et voilà! Line A has disappeared and become a line B = A/4, with line C still on top.
At this stage line C is also compressed! By line B from below and C becomes C/4.
With this strange 1-D model of lines C, A and B Bazant suggests that structures can be one-way crushed down (C crushing/compressing A into B) and crushed up (B crushin/compressing C into 1/4 its original length).

Evidently it is just a mathematical model with very strange assumptions, e.g. C being constant during crush down and being compressed during crush up.

What kind of structure is that? Does it exist? Answer is no.

You can evidently improve on the Bazant model and assume that line C behaves exactly as line A when force is imposed on it, i.e. line C is also being compressed into line B. Then line C disappears very early!

Another assumption is about line B. According Bazant line B becomes very solid and cannot get further damaged and due to gravity force, it compresses first line A more and more during crush down and then line C during crush up and finally line B - compressed lines A and C - becomes unstable and a heap of bits - the model is not 1-D any more.

So anther question; what is really B? Bazant suggests it is rubble - a line representing rubble - that can apparently destroy structures like A and C in any direction; down or up.

Does such rubble (of previous intact structure) exist? Answer is no.

This is another version of my paper to ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechancis to be published soon (after apparent peer review) as informed by editor Ross Corotis.

Re Mr Robertson it is just an opinion based on no facts at all.

Re the 100+ world famous experts of NIST you say have explained the WTC 1 destruction, the simple answer is that NIST never made any structural damage analysis of WTC 1 and only suggested that potential energy applied on the structure at and after initiation (part C dropping on part A) exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure (A and C) and that global collapse ensued. No calculations of any kind.

Actually the potential energy applied at initiation (assuming a big free fall drop of 3.7 m) is very small and the strain energy that the structure could absorb was say 10 000 times that! Due to that you would expect, apart from an immediate jolt at contact C/A, very limited local failures of both C and A, if upper part C was actually dropped on lower part A. That's why a one-way crush down is not possible. In any scale! For any structure.

I have of course explained this before in my popular papers and nobody seems to be able to debunk them. I have asked Bazant for comments = no replies.

Any other world famous structural design experts supporting the OCT?

Re your Google search on progressive collapse they are all about an initial failure for various reasons and subsequent local failures. There are many papers about ship structures! Search and you may find mine! But you will not find any paper about a structure where dropping a part of this structure will destroy the rest of the structure.
 
Last edited:
Heiwa wrote
Re Mr Robertson it is just an opinion based on no facts at all.
Click to expand...

No, what you wrote is an opinion based on no facts. Robertson reported doing calculations to the point of collapse. Are you calling him a liar?
 
alienentity said:
Heiwa wrote

No, what you wrote is an opinion based on no facts. Robertson reported doing calculations to the point of collapse. Are you calling him a liar?
Click to expand...

Personlly I am slow to call anybody a liar but in certain cases it definitely applies. If this ever comes on top the people I mention here will be among the first to be arrested. Les Robertson, Shyam Sunder, Mark Loiseaux, and John Lloyd. There are many others of course but these are prime among them.
 
bill smith said:
Personlly I am slow to call anybody a liar but in certain cases it definitely applies. If this ever comes on top the people I mention here will be among the first to be arrested. Les Robertson, Shyam Sunder, Mark Loiseaux, and John Lloyd. There are many others of course but these are prime among them.
Click to expand...

Thanks Bill. I've just added that statement to my signature. You've done yourself proud.

I really, really want to believe that you're just spoofing us and you're not really a truther. But Ishouldn't be too hopeful, I spose.
 
This is what Bill has said in other threads

Bill: Where are the 10 miles of steel columns??

Me: Under the pile, and some are right here. (Posts picture, noting many steel column pieces in plain sight.)

Bill: Where?

Me: RIGHT HERE!!! (points out many steel columns, iincluding some piled neatly near a crane)

Bill: But where is the steel mesh in the concrete??

Me: Right here bill. See this?? Thats steel mesh.

No response from bill.


Im sorry bill, you have lost this argument.
 
alienentity said:
Heiwa wrote

No, what you wrote is an opinion based on no facts. Robertson reported doing calculations to the point of collapse. Are you calling him a liar?
Click to expand...

No! I was only aware of Robertson stating that a big plane hitting WTC1/2 would just cause local structural failures. That I agree with and that is a fact. Plenty of redundancy in the structure. If Robertson has suggested that a structure can collapse from top down later as a result of further local failures caused by, e.g. fire - upper part C free falls and impacts lower part A - he must be misquoted or done some wrong calculations.
Pls correct me if I am wrong! Has Robertson produced calculations that a structure self-destroys from top down?
 
Heiwa originally wrote 'Re Mr Robertson it is just an opinion based on no facts at all. '

That is false or incorrect.

Heiwa, I find it very hard to accept that someone who purports to be a student of 9/11 collapse physics wouldn't have this basic info about Robertson.
Robertson made the reference in an interview with Steven Jones in 2006.

I'll leave it to you to find the link, but caution you against making repeated false statements.

I suppose in your paranoid and arrogant mind the calculations and opinions of the chief structural engineer of the WTC towers don't mean much, but that's your shortcoming, not his. Hand wave it away and go back to your truther fantasies - I don't care.
 
Last edited:
I should also mention that Mr. Robertson, who has been responsible for many, many tall building designs, including the newish World Financial Center in Shanghai, thinks that controlled demolition theories such as those espoused by Heiwa are nonsense.

I'm inclined to agree with Mr. Robertson. However, Mr. Robertson has never built any ships, so perhaps we can argue he doesn't have the qualifications of the great Heiwa when it comes to tall buildings.

why didn't I think of that sooner? :D
 
alienentity said:
I should also mention that Mr. Robertson, who has been responsible for many, many tall building designs, including the newish World Financial Center in Shanghai, thinks that controlled demolition theories such as those espoused by Heiwa are nonsense.
Click to expand...

Link, please.
 
Heiwa said:
Link, please.
Click to expand...

I'll do better than that Heiwa. I have an email from Mr. Robertson from not to long ago when I was asking about other information pertaining to the towers. I was discussing another person's core ideas, a person who shall remain nameless as saying the name drives people into a fit of rage. I originally wrote to Sawteen See at LERA who is listed as a contact for questions pertaining the towers and 9/11.

Here is the link to the LERA page with SawTeen's contact information:
http://www.lera.com/sep11.htm

Here is the email from Robertson to me. His response is in capital letters beneath the body of my original email:
Leslie Robertson's email said:
---------------
Date: 6/9/2009 9:54:05 AM
To: "Leslie E Robertson" <leslie.robertson@lera.com>
From: xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Trying to get some information on the general layout of the WTC
towers

I would first like to thank you very much for your reply to my email. I know
you are a busy person and I really appreciate it.

Why this information is important to me is because of one reason. I am
involved in a few internet discussion forums that debate conspiracy theories
about September 11th. I am against conspiracy theories outright. I can't stand
the fact that there are people out there that think that the government was
involved in it. I have been trying to set these people straight, maybe even
try to convince them that their information and beliefs are very wrong.
HOW IS IT POSSIBLE TO BELIEVE THAT THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT HAS THE SMARTS REQUIRED TO PULL IT OFF AND KEEP IT UNDER WRAPS?...
Click to expand...

There is more to the email, but it pertains to my questions concerning the core structure and what a certain person thought was contained therin.

The important part of the email is the response from Mr. Robertson that I have bolded.

He IS approachable as I have shown. Why don't you email your claims to SawTeen See and Mr. Robertson and see what they say about your theory and claims.

Maybe you'll get a response. It took awhile and a couple of emails, but he finally got back to me.
 
Gamolon said:
I'll do better than that Heiwa. I have an email from Mr. Robertson from not to long ago when I was asking about other information pertaining to the towers. I was discussing another person's core ideas, a person who shall remain nameless as saying the name drives people into a fit of rage. I originally wrote to Sawteen See at LERA who is listed as a contact for questions pertaining the towers and 9/11.

Here is the link to the LERA page with SawTeen's contact information:
http://www.lera.com/sep11.htm

Here is the email from Robertson to me. His response is in capital letters beneath the body of my original email:


There is more to the email, but it pertains to my questions concerning the core structure and what a certain person thought was contained therin.

The important part of the email is the response from Mr. Robertson that I have bolded.

He IS approachable as I have shown. Why don't you email your claims to SawTeen See and Mr. Robertson and see what they say about your theory and claims.

Maybe you'll get a response. It took awhile and a couple of emails, but he finally got back to me.
Click to expand...

??? Is Mr Robertson still alive?

Anyway, topic is Why a one-way Crush down is not possible and I am curious if Robertson has any ideas about it?
 
Heiwa said:
??? Is Mr Robertson still alive?

Anyway, topic is Why a one-way Crush down is not possible and I am curious if Robertson has any ideas about it?
Click to expand...

That's what your absurd "theory" needs... ideas!

And from someone actually qualified. Good plan!
 
Come clean, Mr. Bjorkman

Heiwa said:
Link, please.
Click to expand...

I've got the links Heiwa, and I'll post them, provided you come clean and tell the truth about your claim to have 1 million dollars.

Do you have 1 million dollars to award for your challenge?
And if yes, can you provide verification for its existence?

If you want to retract your claim, and simply say 'I don't have the money, and never did, and I'm sorry I misrepresented the situation' or something like that, I'll be happy to accept this and post the link as well.

Your call.
 
'??? Is Mr Robertson still alive? ' Hehe, if not, it'll make it all that more difficult to get his comments via email.

Although we could always hire Sylvia Browne or Yawn Hedgeword (John Edward). Yeah, that's it.
 
Last edited:
alienentity said:
Tony Szamboti wrote

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.
Click to expand...


A resistance of 0.3g is comparable to the material of the building moving through custard. But people like you say "oh, look there was resistance!", so it couldn't have been a demolition.

The 0.3g resistance is due to the lower structure having 10% of it's normal 300% plus resistance remaining.

This reply should also answer some of the other naysayers here, who said the same thing you did about this facet of the collapses.

How would you know about Hardfire?
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
Personlly I am slow to call anybody a liar but in certain cases it definitely applies. If this ever comes on top the people I mention here will be among the first to be arrested. Les Robertson, Shyam Sunder, Mark Loiseaux, and John Lloyd. There are many others of course but these are prime among them.
Click to expand...

Leslie Robertson has said some curious things since 911, as some of them seem to contradict things that John Skilling had previously said and even things Robertson said in the past himself.

It is a shame Skilling isn't alive.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom