Moderated Continuation - Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

[aggle-rithm]

This post is addressed to any concerned vitizens who may be reading this thread.

By now you will be aware that bobody in the over 3,000 posts that have been made in this thread and it's predecessor has been able to disprove the statement that the top one tenth of a structure cannot crush the other 90% of the same structure down to the ground using gravity alone. Neither has anybody managed to come up with a single example of this happening in the entire world history of construction on the planet Earth.

However controlled demolition can do this with ease. Many examples are available.

Give us one example of a controlled demolition that was successfully carried out in secret. Keep in mind that no rubble from a destroyed building has ever been examined with greater scrutiny than that of the WTC buildings.

So you must ask yourself which is the more likely scenario. The example that has proved to be impossible to model or explain by calculation and that has had no precedent in world history either before or after 9/11 or the proposition (which is backed up by considerable amounts of evidence)that Controlled Demolition was the culprit.

Explain how a huge building, much larger than any building that has ever been imploded before, can be wired for explosives while fully occupied without anyone noticing. Explain how the explosives were detonated without creating shock waves. Explain how the meticulously examined rubble showed no trace of the usual evidence left by controlled demolition.

Even though it's admittedly hard to face the horror of such a scenario being true it must be faced.

Remember that crazy guy on the subway ? You don't want to look him in the eye but you know that you will eventually have to look him in the eye.

Not if he doesn't exist.

 

[Dave Rogers]

But understanding that "there is no official story" requires a certain level of subtlety of thought. An appreciation of complex socio-political nuances.

Do you REALLY think that Bill is up to this task??

No government explanation ?

There is a vacuum.

The nearest thing to a government explanation was the NIST report.

Good call, tfk. Bill is so totally unable to cope with the fact that there is no official story, that he has to invent one.

Dave

 

[Heiwa]

The official story in basic physics is that a part C of a structure A (C<1/10A) cannot one-way crush down A when dropped by gravity on A. Little C cannot apply the energy required without destroying itself first. Normally C just bounces on A or there are some local failures and arrest of local failures.

However, tfk thinks otherwise and suggests in some posts above that C first destroys something of A or C, not really clear, that becomes rubble, part B (B as in Box), and that this rubble then compacts itself someway or another - not really clear either as most of the tfk posts - and then - the miracle - one-way crushes A down to ground.

I really look forward to hearing how this is possible!

Actually I don't but tfk produces LOL so I make an exception.

 

[Newtons Bit]

The official story in basic physics is that a part C of a structure A (C<1/10A) cannot one-way crush down A when dropped by gravity on A. Little C cannot apply the energy required without destroying itself first.

However, tfk thinks otherwise and suggests in some posts above that C first destroys something of A or C, not really clear, that becomes rubble, part B (B as in Box), and that this rubble then compacts itself someway or another - not really clear either as most of the tfk posts - and then - the miracle - one-way crushes A down to ground.

I really look forward to hearing how this is possible!

The static load just from the rubble of the upper block is more than sufficient to overload the static capacity of the floors.

You've been told this many, MANY MANY times. Find a new subject.

 

[stateofgrace]

The official story in basic physics is that a part C of a structure A (C<1/10A) cannot one-way crush down A when dropped by gravity on A. Little C cannot apply the energy required without destroying itself first. Normally C just bounces on A or there are some local failures and arrest of local failures.

However, tfk thinks otherwise and suggests in some posts above that C first destroys something of A or C, not really clear, that becomes rubble, part B (B as in Box), and that this rubble then compacts itself someway or another - not really clear either as most of the tfk posts - and then - the miracle - one-way crushes A down to ground.

I really look forward to hearing how this is possible!

Actually I don't but tfk produces LOL so I make an exception.

Who are you hoping to fool by keep repeating the same rubbish over and over ?

 

[bill smith]

The official story in basic physics is that a part C of a structure A (C<1/10A) cannot one-way crush down A when dropped by gravity on A. Little C cannot apply the energy required without destroying itself first. Normally C just bounces on A or there are some local failures and arrest of local failures.

However, tfk thinks otherwise and suggests in some posts above that C first destroys something of A or C, not really clear, that becomes rubble, part B (B as in Box), and that this rubble then compacts itself someway or another - not really clear either as most of the tfk posts - and then - the miracle - one-way crushes A down to ground.

I really look forward to hearing how this is possible!

Actually I don't but tfk produces LOL so I make an exception.

In the interests of this important new scientific principle T. has introduced I have taken the liberty of reposting this comment of yours on several forums to ensure a wide readership and disbursement of the information. Complete with links.

 

[newton3376]

The official story in basic physics is that a part C of a structure A (C<1/10A) cannot one-way crush down A when dropped by gravity on A. Little C cannot apply the energy required without destroying itself first.

Wrong.

See the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 for further information.

 

[newton3376]

In the interests of this important new scientific principle T. has introduced I have taken the liberty of reposting this comment of yours on several forums to ensure a wide readership and disbursement of the information. Complete with links.

Bill....you have zero science and engineering training and no background or experience in either....your opinions about Toms posts are irrelevent.

Sorry...you just aren't qualified.

 

[DavidJames]

In the interests of this important new scientific principle T. has introduced I have taken the liberty of reposting this comment of yours on several forums to ensure a wide readership and disbursement of the information. Complete with links.

Excellent. Many more readers will now see that his claims are made without a shred of technical detail to support them. They will see his words are the empty, hollow musings of a fraud and intellectual midget.

Thanks BillSmith for continuing to show the world that 9/11 conspiracy theories are the dominion of trolls charlatans and the mentally ill.

 

[bill smith]

Excellent. Many more readers will now see that his claims are made without a shred of technical detail to support them. They will see his words are the empty, hollow musings of a fraud and intellectual midget.

Thanks BillSmith for continuing to show the world that 9/11 conspiracy theories are the dominion of trolls charlatans and the mentally ill.

You surprise me David but I can't say I don't sgree wholeheartedly with you about T.

 

[tfk]

Heiwa,

I am still eagerly awaiting your evidence that ...

.
All right, all right. If you're gonna pitch a fit ...
.

... broken structural elements, like IKEA book case parts, produced by a force F1 at an impact, compact themselves to solid rubble

.
The first thing that I INSIST that you do, is to STOP inserting your words into my sentences. You are woeful at paraphrasing. So don't do it.

I did not say "broken structural elements".
I did not say "compact themselves to SOLID rubble"

If you are going to attempt to restate what I say, please use MY words. Not yours.

What I did say was:

"I claim that, dropped from the same height, a complex, 3 dimensional structure, like multiple stories of a building, (i.e., something that is not a solid block) will generate a HIGHER peak force in the components of whatever structure on which they fall AFTER the dropped parts have been broken up & compacted than they would generate in their original, "pre-broken" state. As compacted rubble, it will also deliver a higher pressure, resulting in a higher stress and more damage in the impacted part."

See how easy that is...?

.

in contact with something and that this compacted rubble in turn impacts and/or applies a force F2 on something ... that is bigger than the initial force F1.

.
"compacted rubble". That's better. That what I said.

That wasn't so hard, was it?

A simple energy balance would help, you know, energy is applied, energy breaks loose elements, energy is used to compact the elements, etc, etc.

.
AGAIN, you weren't paying attention.

I am comparing the impacts of, e.g., a 3 story segment of the towers can generate on a lower structure BEFORE they get crushed to the same impact that that 3 story segments mass can deliver AFTER it gets crushed.

I am not the slightest bit interested here in HOW it gets crushed. That's for later.

.

Spend your energy on that and not on more stupid questions.

.
They were not "stupid questions".

They were "silly, verbose sarcasm".

It probably took you all of about 3 minutes to read them. It took me the better part of 6 months to learn how rude & unresponsive you typically are. You got the FAR better end of that deal.
___

Now, as for crushed & compacted layers of rubble delivering greater blows, forces & impacts compared to the impacts that they would have delivered prior to crush down...

This will be informal, because I don't have much time.

We're gonna use Greg Ulrich's numbers.

On the 90th - 95th floors of WTC1, the total weight of the various components were:

Live Load: 43%
Concrete: 27%
Dead Load (Construction & Superimposed Dead Load, excluding steel): 17%
Steel: 13% (tk estimate: 6% core, 4% peripheral, 3% cross trusses & other.

We're gonna model the WTC with a horizontal analogy, in spite of its weaknesses: a football team.

Each player weighs 1 unit. There are 100 players per floor. Over the length of the 3 floors being considered, the total weight doesn't change significantly.

At a given signal, all the players are going to start running towards the end zone in unison. They are going to run into a wall that is placed at the goal line that represents the ground (in my example). The wall is instrumented with load cells to measure the horizontal force applied at any given instant.

The set ups:

Fig 1
3 stories, As Built
​

Set up #1: The Intact structure

We are going to set up the 100 players per floor in locations on the field that represent their true locations in the towers. The concrete floor will be placed at every incremental 10 yard line. (1st floor at the 10 yard line, 2nd at the 20, etc.)

So, of the 100 players on the first floor:
27 (concrete players) of them are right on the 10 yard stripes. [Grey circles]
43 (Live load) are scattered from the 11 to the 16 yard line (weighted towards the bottom) [Green circles]
17 (CDL) are fairly uniformly scattered from the 11 yard line to the 20 yard line. [Blue circles]

And now, we carefully place the steel. [Black circles]
3 (steel trusses) are spread across the field at about the 9 yard line (i.e., below the concrete).
6 (core columns) are placed on the 12.5, 15 & 17.5 yard lines, 3 on each side, aligned with the "hash marks".
4 (peripheral columns) are placed side lines, 2 on each side..

Since - according to my thought experiment - we are dropping the building from a fixed height (10 yards), there will be nothing placed between the goal line & the 10 yard line.

Once everything is set, the coach blows the whistle & everyone starts running, fast. For simplicity, we'll run them at 10 yard per second. (That's a 4.0 40 yard time. These suckers are fast!!)

After 0.9 seconds, the whole group has run 9 yards, & the 3 steel truss players run into the wall.

0.1 second later, the 27 concrete players hit.

Over the next 0.5 seconds, about 55 players hit spread out in time. (40 live load, 9 CDL, 4 core column & 2 peripheral column players).

Over the next 0.4 seconds, the remaining 15 players hit.

The cycle repeats again from 1.9 to 2.9 seconds
And again from 2.9 to 3.9 seconds.

Those are the impacts from the "as built structure" as it is dropped to the ground.

Now, if I were modeling the WTC towers, I'd stretch long poles across the field in the hands of the cross truss players, and have the concrete, live load and dead load players push against these poles as they ran, as shown by the heavy black dashed lines. And I'd stretch poles between each floor at the core & peripheral column locations & attach them to the truss poles. And I'd have several more floors of players pushing on these core & peripheral columns. Ultimately, it will turn out that these beams are just about inconsequential to the crushing weight.

But I'm not simulating the WTC towers at this point. I'm just simulating the simplified conditions of the thought experiment.
___

The Crushed (but not compacted) Structure:

Fig. 2
3 Stories, Crushed
​

Now, I'm going to reset all those players. But just before the whistle blows, I'm gonna call ALL of them to the 10 yard line. I'm going to line them ALL up, not spread over 30 yards, but over 6 yards. (Representing a crush ration of 0.2).

Now, all 300 of them are going to run at the wall in unison, just as before.

You tell me, Anders.

Will the force measured at the wall in the second case be equal to, less than or greater than the first case?

If the wall is suspect, just able to withstand the force that the players inflicted on it in the first case, do you think that it is likely to be able to withstand the blow delivered by the players in the second case?
___

All of the above represents simply the effect of crushing down 3 stories of a structure into one 0.6 story high concentration of mass. I have not introduced in the slightest the added effects of compacting the mass.

Awaiting your reply...

But I'll be busy and won't get to it right away.

Tom

 

[tfk]

David...

Yooo Hooooo!!!

Dave...!!

Remember my "Is Bill equipped to handle your 'no official story'?" question...?

[cough, cough ... Ahem...]

Excuse me. If it pleases the court, I'd like to present the Persecution's Exhibit number 34,463, Your Honor."

There is so much meat here now that I hardly know where to start.
So it seems that Bazant is gone and the government explanation is said not to exist.

No government explanation ?

There is a vacuum.

Well we HAVE an explanation and we demand an opportunity and the means to publicly and officially test it.

"Damn. Shoulda laid a 6-pack on that one. Easy money..."


Tom

 

[Heiwa]

The static load just from the rubble of the upper block is more than sufficient to overload the static capacity of the floors.

You've been told this many, MANY MANY times. Find a new subject.

Yes, one floor may be staticly overloaded for any reason or many reasons but what reason(s). Rubble being loaded on it? Where would it come from? Upper part C being blown apart?

Anyway, an overloaded floor would just deform or fail locally, like any element in the structure, which cannot produce, e.g. a one-way crush down of the complete structure, which is the topic of this thread. Please try to keep to the subject/topic.

 

[Heiwa]

Heiwa,


.
All right, all right. If you're gonna pitch a fit ...
.

.
The first thing that I INSIST that you do, is to STOP inserting your words into my sentences. You are woeful at paraphrasing. So don't do it.

I did not say "broken structural elements".
I did not say "compact themselves to SOLID rubble"

If you are going to attempt to restate what I say, please use MY words. Not yours.

What I did say was:


See how easy that is...?

.

.
"compacted rubble". That's better. That what I said.

That wasn't so hard, was it?


.
AGAIN, you weren't paying attention.

I am comparing the impacts of, e.g., a 3 story segment of the towers can generate on a lower structure BEFORE they get crushed to the same impact that that 3 story segments mass can deliver AFTER it gets crushed.

I am not the slightest bit interested here in HOW it gets crushed. That's for later.

.

.
They were not "stupid questions".

They were "silly, verbose sarcasm".

It probably took you all of about 3 minutes to read them. It took me the better part of 6 months to learn how rude & unresponsive you typically are. You got the FAR better end of that deal.
___

Now, as for crushed & compacted layers of rubble delivering greater blows, forces & impacts compared to the impacts that they would have delivered prior to crush down...

This will be informal, because I don't have much time.

We're gonna use Greg Ulrich's numbers.

On the 90th - 95th floors of WTC1, the total weight of the various components were:

Live Load: 43%
Concrete: 27%
Dead Load (Construction & Superimposed Dead Load, excluding steel): 17%
Steel: 13% (tk estimate: 6% core, 4% peripheral, 3% cross trusses & other.

We're gonna model the WTC with a horizontal analogy, in spite of its weaknesses: a football team.

Each player weighs 1 unit. There are 100 players per floor. Over the length of the 3 floors being considered, the total weight doesn't change significantly.

At a given signal, all the players are going to start running towards the end zone in unison. They are going to run into a wall that is placed at the goal line that represents the ground (in my example). The wall is instrumented with load cells to measure the horizontal force applied at any given instant.

The set ups:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=176&pictureid=1390[/qimg]
Fig 1
3 stories, As Built
​

Set up #1: The Intact structure

We are going to set up the 100 players per floor in locations on the field that represent their true locations in the towers. The concrete floor will be placed at every incremental 10 yard line. (1st floor at the 10 yard line, 2nd at the 20, etc.)

So, of the 100 players on the first floor:
27 (concrete players) of them are right on the 10 yard stripes. [Grey circles]
43 (Live load) are scattered from the 11 to the 16 yard line (weighted towards the bottom) [Green circles]
17 (CDL) are fairly uniformly scattered from the 11 yard line to the 20 yard line. [Blue circles]

And now, we carefully place the steel. [Black circles]
3 (steel trusses) are spread across the field at about the 9 yard line (i.e., below the concrete).
6 (core columns) are placed on the 12.5, 15 & 17.5 yard lines, 3 on each side, aligned with the "hash marks".
4 (peripheral columns) are placed side lines, 2 on each side..

Since - according to my thought experiment - we are dropping the building from a fixed height (10 yards), there will be nothing placed between the goal line & the 10 yard line.

Once everything is set, the coach blows the whistle & everyone starts running, fast. For simplicity, we'll walk them at 10 yard per second. (That's a 4.0 40 yard time. These suckers are fast!!)

After 0.9 seconds, the whole group has run 9 yards, & the 3 steel truss players run into the wall.

0.1 second later, the 27 concrete players hit.

Over the next 0.5 seconds, about 55 players hit spread out in time. (40 live load, 9 CDL, 4 core column & 2 peripheral column players).

Over the next 0.4 seconds, the remaining 15 players hit.

The cycle repeats again from 1.9 to 2.9 seconds
And again from 2.9 to 3.9 seconds.

Those are the impacts from the "as built structure" as it is dropped to the ground.

Now, if I were modeling the WTC towers, I'd stretch long poles across the field in the hands of the cross truss players, and have the concrete, live load and dead load players push against these poles as they ran, as shown by the heavy black dashed lines. And I'd stretch poles between each floor at the core & peripheral column locations & attach them to the truss poles. And I'd have several more floors of players pushing on these core & peripheral columns. Ultimately, it will turn out that these beams are just about inconsequential to the crushing weight.

But I'm not simulating the WTC towers at this point. I'm just simulating the simplified conditions of the thought experiment.
___

The Crushed (but not compacted) Structure:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=176&pictureid=1389[/qimg]
Fig. 2
3 Stories, Crushed
​

Now, I'm going to reset all those players. But just before the whistle blows, I'm gonna call ALL of them to the 10 yard line. I'm going to line them ALL up, not spread over 30 yards, but over 6 yards. (Representing a crush ration of 0.2).

Now, all 300 of them are going to run at the wall in unison, just as before.

You tell me, Anders.

Will the force measured at the wall in the second case be equal to, less than or greater than the first case?

If the wall is suspect, just able to withstand the force that the players inflicted on it in the first case, do you think that it is likely to be able to withstand the blow delivered by the players in the second case?
___

All of the above represents simply the effect of crushing down 3 stories of a structure into one 0.6 story high concentration of mass. I have not introduced in the slightest the added effects of compacting the mass.

Awaiting your reply...

But I'll be busy and won't get to it right away.

Tom

What are you trying to prove here? A new way of controlled demolition of a building? Put plenty of funny people up top ... and a one-way crush down takes place? Sorry, you are supposed to drop the complete upper part C on lower part A and then demonstrate that part C can one-way crush down A.

I have already shown (post #1 of original thread, etc) that it is not possible. You are supposed to prove me wrong.

 

[bill smith]

David...

Yooo Hooooo!!!

Dave...!!

Remember my "Is Bill equipped to handle your 'no official story'?" question...?

[cough, cough ... Ahem...]

Excuse me. If it pleases the court, I'd like to present the Persecution's Exhibit number 34,463, Your Honor."



"Damn. Shoulda laid a 6-pack on that one. Easy money..."


Tom

Jeepers T. That's a merry dance. lol. I hope there is something actually in there.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Yes, one floor may be staticly overloaded for any reason or many reasons but what reason(s). Rubble being loaded on it? Where would it come from? Upper part C being blown apart?

Anyway, an overloaded floor would just deform or fail locally, like any element in the structure, which cannot produce, e.g. a one-way crush down of the complete structure, which is the topic of this thread. Please try to keep to the subject/topic.

Bazant has already provided proof of one limit case of collapse: the upper block is a rigid block which impacts the lower block. Collapse ensues (as proved by math).

The other limit case is the upper block has absolutely no structural capacity. It breaks apart until the debris on the upper most floor (floor 90) exceeds the capacity of the floor. This floor fails and dumps all of the debris load and its own weight (dead and live) unto floor 89.

Floor 89 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 88
Floor 88 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 87
Floor 87 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 86
Floor 86 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 85
Floor 85 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 84
Floor 84 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 83
Floor 83 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 82
Floor 82 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 81
Floor 81 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 80
Floor 80 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 79
Floor 79 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 78
Floor 78 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 77
Floor 77 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 76
Floor 76 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 75
Floor 75 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 74
Floor 74 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 73
Floor 73 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 72
Floor 72 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 71
Floor 71 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 70
Floor 70 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 69
Floor 69 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 68
Floor 68 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 67
Floor 67 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 66
Floor 66 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 65
Floor 65 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 64
Floor 64 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 63
Floor 63 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 62
Floor 62 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 61
Floor 61 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 60
Floor 60 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 59
Floor 59 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 58
Floor 58 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 57
Floor 57 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 56
Floor 56 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 55
Floor 55 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 54
Floor 54 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 53
Floor 53 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 52
Floor 52 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 51
Floor 51 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 50
Floor 50 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 49
Floor 49 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 48
Floor 48 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 47
Floor 47 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 46
Floor 46 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 45
Floor 45 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 44
Floor 44 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 43
Floor 43 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 42
Floor 42 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 41
Floor 41 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 40
Floor 40 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 39
Floor 39 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 38
Floor 38 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 37
Floor 37 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 36
Floor 36 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 35
Floor 35 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 34
Floor 34 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 33
Floor 33 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 32
Floor 32 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 31
Floor 31 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 30
Floor 30 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 29
Floor 29 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 28
Floor 28 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 27
Floor 27 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 26
Floor 26 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 25
Floor 25 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 24
Floor 24 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 23
Floor 23 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 22
Floor 22 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 21
Floor 21 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 20
Floor 20 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 19
Floor 19 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 18
Floor 18 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 17
Floor 17 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 16
Floor 16 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 15
Floor 15 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 14
Floor 14 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 13
Floor 13 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 12
Floor 12 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 11
Floor 11 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 10
Floor 10 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 9
Floor 9 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 8
Floor 8 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 7
Floor 7 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 6
Floor 6 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 5
Floor 5 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 4
Floor 4 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 3
Floor 3 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 2
Floor 2 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 1
Floor 1 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to the ground


Your inability to understand this simple concept does not absolve your "Axiom" from being debunked. I consider this matter settled, your axiom disproved theoritically, your challenge met by WTC 1&2 and am placing you back on ignore.

 

[newton3376]

What are you trying to prove here? A new way of controlled demolition of a building? Put plenty of funny people up top ... and a one-way crush down takes place? Sorry, you are supposed to drop the complete upper part C on lower part A and then demonstrate that part C can one-way crush down A.

He is getting to it Heiwa....but he is slowly and methodically building up a case showing very clearly why you are not only wrong, but dead wrong.

He is starting with the general concepts first and will eventually go into detail once the basic principles have been established.

Instead of always whining and crying "one- way crush down blah blah blah" why don't you just sit down, shut up, and LISTEN for a change.

Use your head man....THINK about what Tom is saying. THINK about his posts....he is trying to teach you some basic concepts before getting into the finer details....

I have already shown (post #1 of original thread, etc) that it is not possible. You are supposed to prove me wrong.

No you haven't....that is the whole point. You have SAID it isn't possible but you haven't SHOWN or DEMONSTRATED anything.

Aren't you the least bit curious why your "obvious" startements do not convince most engineers or physicists?

Be quiet and pay attention and maybe.....just maybe.....you might learn something.

 

[bill smith]

Heiwa,


.
All right, all right. If you're gonna pitch a fit ...
.

.
The first thing that I INSIST that you do, is to STOP inserting your words into my sentences. You are woeful at paraphrasing. So don't do it.

I did not say "broken structural elements".
I did not say "compact themselves to SOLID rubble"

If you are going to attempt to restate what I say, please use MY words. Not yours.

What I did say was:


See how easy that is...?

.

.
"compacted rubble". That's better. That what I said.

That wasn't so hard, was it?


.
AGAIN, you weren't paying attention.

I am comparing the impacts of, e.g., a 3 story segment of the towers can generate on a lower structure BEFORE they get crushed to the same impact that that 3 story segments mass can deliver AFTER it gets crushed.

I am not the slightest bit interested here in HOW it gets crushed. That's for later.

.

.
They were not "stupid questions".

They were "silly, verbose sarcasm".

It probably took you all of about 3 minutes to read them. It took me the better part of 6 months to learn how rude & unresponsive you typically are. You got the FAR better end of that deal.
___

Now, as for crushed & compacted layers of rubble delivering greater blows, forces & impacts compared to the impacts that they would have delivered prior to crush down...

This will be informal, because I don't have much time.

We're gonna use Greg Ulrich's numbers.

On the 90th - 95th floors of WTC1, the total weight of the various components were:

Live Load: 43%
Concrete: 27%
Dead Load (Construction & Superimposed Dead Load, excluding steel): 17%
Steel: 13% (tk estimate: 6% core, 4% peripheral, 3% cross trusses & other.

We're gonna model the WTC with a horizontal analogy, in spite of its weaknesses: a football team.

Each player weighs 1 unit. There are 100 players per floor. Over the length of the 3 floors being considered, the total weight doesn't change significantly.

At a given signal, all the players are going to start running towards the end zone in unison. They are going to run into a wall that is placed at the goal line that represents the ground (in my example). The wall is instrumented with load cells to measure the horizontal force applied at any given instant.

The set ups:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=176&pictureid=1390[/qimg]
Fig 1
3 stories, As Built
​

Set up #1: The Intact structure

We are going to set up the 100 players per floor in locations on the field that represent their true locations in the towers. The concrete floor will be placed at every incremental 10 yard line. (1st floor at the 10 yard line, 2nd at the 20, etc.)

So, of the 100 players on the first floor:
27 (concrete players) of them are right on the 10 yard stripes. [Grey circles]
43 (Live load) are scattered from the 11 to the 16 yard line (weighted towards the bottom) [Green circles]
17 (CDL) are fairly uniformly scattered from the 11 yard line to the 20 yard line. [Blue circles]

And now, we carefully place the steel. [Black circles]
3 (steel trusses) are spread across the field at about the 9 yard line (i.e., below the concrete).
6 (core columns) are placed on the 12.5, 15 & 17.5 yard lines, 3 on each side, aligned with the "hash marks".
4 (peripheral columns) are placed side lines, 2 on each side..

Since - according to my thought experiment - we are dropping the building from a fixed height (10 yards), there will be nothing placed between the goal line & the 10 yard line.

Once everything is set, the coach blows the whistle & everyone starts running, fast. For simplicity, we'll run them at 10 yard per second. (That's a 4.0 40 yard time. These suckers are fast!!)

After 0.9 seconds, the whole group has run 9 yards, & the 3 steel truss players run into the wall.

0.1 second later, the 27 concrete players hit.

Over the next 0.5 seconds, about 55 players hit spread out in time. (40 live load, 9 CDL, 4 core column & 2 peripheral column players).

Over the next 0.4 seconds, the remaining 15 players hit.

The cycle repeats again from 1.9 to 2.9 seconds
And again from 2.9 to 3.9 seconds.

Those are the impacts from the "as built structure" as it is dropped to the ground.

Now, if I were modeling the WTC towers, I'd stretch long poles across the field in the hands of the cross truss players, and have the concrete, live load and dead load players push against these poles as they ran, as shown by the heavy black dashed lines. And I'd stretch poles between each floor at the core & peripheral column locations & attach them to the truss poles. And I'd have several more floors of players pushing on these core & peripheral columns. Ultimately, it will turn out that these beams are just about inconsequential to the crushing weight.

But I'm not simulating the WTC towers at this point. I'm just simulating the simplified conditions of the thought experiment.
___

The Crushed (but not compacted) Structure:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=176&pictureid=1389[/qimg]
Fig. 2
3 Stories, Crushed
​

Now, I'm going to reset all those players. But just before the whistle blows, I'm gonna call ALL of them to the 10 yard line. I'm going to line them ALL up, not spread over 30 yards, but over 6 yards. (Representing a crush ration of 0.2).

Now, all 300 of them are going to run at the wall in unison, just as before.

You tell me, Anders.

Will the force measured at the wall in the second case be equal to, less than or greater than the first case?

If the wall is suspect, just able to withstand the force that the players inflicted on it in the first case, do you think that it is likely to be able to withstand the blow delivered by the players in the second case?
___

All of the above represents simply the effect of crushing down 3 stories of a structure into one 0.6 story high concentration of mass. I have not introduced in the slightest the added effects of compacting the mass.

Awaiting your reply...

But I'll be busy and won't get to it right away.

Tom

T.Personally I am mostly interested in the compaction- how the fores that did the compscting were represented on both sides of the compaction and why a compacted mass of rubble will have more breakng-power than the intact Part C. It would also be nice to know if it was parts of parts A and part C that were compacted and if they were being broken into rubble nd compacted at the same time.
So this particular post of ypurs is is basically just useless verbiage and distraction. You have not addressed the compaction issue at all and that is the problem you are supposed to be addressing. So please directly address these issues on your return. People are waiting.

Note: Please do not mix the vertical with the horizontal epresentations as that could be confusing. Also let's forget the football players and return to steel and concrete.

 

[newton3376]

T.Personally I am mostly interested in the compaction- how the fores that did the compscting were represented on both sides of the compaction and why a compacted mass of rubble will have more breakng-power than the intact Part C. It would also be nice to know if it was parts of parts A and part C that were compacted and if they were being broken into rubble nd compacted at the same time.
So this particular post of ypurs is is basically just useless verbiage and distraction. You have not addressed the compaction issue at all and that is the problem you are supposed to be addressing. So please directly address these issues on your return. People are waiting.

Bill.....you aren't getting it.....he is trying to keep things more general and simple for starters. He will get to the details after he has gone over the basic principles and concepts.

If he wanted to he could explain it to you using basically all math...all equations...but you wouldn't understand any of it because you don't have the background knowledge.

You don't have the background knowledge to even understand the math behind the physics, much less the actual physics or engineering....so he is keeping it in as simple of terms as possible. Try closing your mouth for a change and trying to LEARN something.

Note: Please do not mix the vertical with the horizontal epresentations as that could be confusing. Also let's forget the football players and return to steel and concrete.

You just aren't getting it Bill.

Maybe it's because you are too stubborn....
Maybe it's because you lack the fundamental education and training....
Maybe it's because you just aren't intelligent enough....
Maybe it's because you are delusional....

Who knows why you aren't getting it.....you just aren't. Put your questions and theories aside for a few minutes and READ HIS POST. Read it and THINK about what he is saying....

The analogies and illustrations are for YOUR BENEFIT....to make it easier to understand what is going on. But you would rather just keep repeating sound bites than trying to actually learn something.

It's too bad that you can't just shut up and try to learn instead of talking about things you have zero business talking about.

 

[bill smith]

Bazant has already provided proof of one limit case of collapse: the upper block is a rigid block which impacts the lower block. Collapse ensues (as proved by math).

The other limit case is the upper block has absolutely no structural capacity. It breaks apart until the debris on the upper most floor (floor 90) exceeds the capacity of the floor. This floor fails and dumps all of the debris load and its own weight (dead and live) unto floor 89.

Floor 89 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 88
Floor 88 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 87
Floor 87 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 86
Floor 86 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 85
Floor 85 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 84
Floor 84 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 83
Floor 83 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 82
Floor 82 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 81
Floor 81 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 80
Floor 80 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 79
Floor 79 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 78
Floor 78 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 77
Floor 77 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 76
Floor 76 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 75
Floor 75 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 74
Floor 74 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 73
Floor 73 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 72
Floor 72 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 71
Floor 71 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 70
Floor 70 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 69
Floor 69 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 68
Floor 68 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 67
Floor 67 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 66
Floor 66 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 65
Floor 65 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 64
Floor 64 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 63
Floor 63 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 62
Floor 62 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 61
Floor 61 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 60
Floor 60 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 59
Floor 59 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 58
Floor 58 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 57
Floor 57 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 56
Floor 56 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 55
Floor 55 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 54
Floor 54 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 53
Floor 53 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 52
Floor 52 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 51
Floor 51 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 50
Floor 50 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 49
Floor 49 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 48
Floor 48 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 47
Floor 47 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 46
Floor 46 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 45
Floor 45 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 44
Floor 44 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 43
Floor 43 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 42
Floor 42 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 41
Floor 41 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 40
Floor 40 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 39
Floor 39 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 38
Floor 38 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 37
Floor 37 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 36
Floor 36 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 35
Floor 35 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 34
Floor 34 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 33
Floor 33 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 32
Floor 32 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 31
Floor 31 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 30
Floor 30 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 29
Floor 29 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 28
Floor 28 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 27
Floor 27 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 26
Floor 26 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 25
Floor 25 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 24
Floor 24 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 23
Floor 23 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 22
Floor 22 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 21
Floor 21 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 20
Floor 20 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 19
Floor 19 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 18
Floor 18 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 17
Floor 17 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 16
Floor 16 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 15
Floor 15 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 14
Floor 14 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 13
Floor 13 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 12
Floor 12 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 11
Floor 11 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 10
Floor 10 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 9
Floor 9 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 8
Floor 8 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 7
Floor 7 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 6
Floor 6 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 5
Floor 5 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 4
Floor 4 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 3
Floor 3 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 2
Floor 2 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 1
Floor 1 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to the ground


Your inability to understand this simple concept does not absolve your "Axiom" from being debunked. I consider this matter settled, your axiom disproved theoritically, your challenge met by WTC 1&2 and am placing you back on ignore.

Maybe somebody will make a jpeg of a 47 column core with all it's lateral bracing and then superimpose the lines of text you have posted on top. I think that could be a very very effective image.