Merged Core-led collapse and explosive demolition

jaydeehess said:
Apparently you do not understand what I am referring to by 'dynamic forces'.

I am referring NOT to horizontal forces that would cause a building to sway(i.e. wind). I am referring in this case (and it should have been pretty damned obvious for anyone with English as a native language) to the focre of impact of the falling mass upon the floor trusses which would have to be transferred to columns via the truss seats.

Further more your query concerned how the 'pristine' lower portion could have been destroyed. I answered that. Now you shift and dodge and want to know how the heating caused the initial collapse.

OK, fine.

Aircraft impact severs or damages most perimeter columns on one side, a few on the far side and several core columns. Some floor panels are also dislodged by impact. The structure thus begins the fire phase with these structural elements no longer effective.

Impact also removes large amounts of passive fire protection thus increasing the speed of heat transfer to those areas of structural elements that are now unprotected against fire.


Impact spreads liquid accelerant throughout several floors and ignites immediate large area fires on several levels. This is a condition that has never occured in any office structure. This is a condition (large area multi-level fires) that in more common fire situations takes hours to develop. In the towers it took literally seconds.

Fires continued to spread both to previously uninvolved areas on the initial fire floors and to higher floors as well.

As columns heated they lost strength and with a load on them were constrained from linear expansion. This caused them to 'creep', which in turn caused adjacent columns to have more load on them. As the fires spread and more columns experienced heat weakening the increasing load caused perimeter columns to buckle. A point was the reached when loads being redistributed put some columns into complete failure requiring another load redistribution which caused more column failures in a very rapid sequence.

Initial collapse occured.
Global collapse ensued as in my above post.

In other words, no , simple strategic heating of the steel would not cause the structure to fail.
It required that passive fire protection be compromised alowing faster heating of the steel
AND
thousands of gallons of liquid accelerant spread out on several floors to ignite large area fires within seconds(as opposed to hours)
AND
it was aided by the initial removal of structural elements by the impact of the aircraft.

Clear now?
Click to expand...

Clear of all sensibility. You'd better lay down you seem to be confabulating.
 
leftysergeant said:
Problem is that the collapse had little to do with the vertical supports. Just dump enough heavy crap onto one floor all at once and they will all pop loose to the ground floor.

This is, of course, removing the structure that held up the outer was, so those unpeel likea banana skin. Then there is nothing to hold up the core, which shivers a bit, breaking connections and falls mstly straight down or leaning over a bit.

The fact that it broke apart from top-down kept it from falling sideways.
Click to expand...

So this cuckoo theory tops the others by a long shot. Pee-delta, pancaking, gravity collapsing, softened steel.

The outside of the building was supporting/holding up the core columns. Who woulda thunk?
 
Clayton Moore said:
So this cuckoo theory tops the others by a long shot. Pee-delta, pancaking, gravity collapsing, softened steel.

The outside of the building was supporting/holding up the core columns. Who woulda thunk?
Click to expand...
The shell of the building is why the WTC could withstand hurricane forces, and the core can't stand by itself. The shell was responsible for almost half the load bearing. Anyone who studies the WTC would not make the failed statements you have been making constantly; I suggest you study for a few weeks before posting more nonsense.
 
Clayton Moore said:
So this cuckoo theory tops the others by a long shot. Pee-delta, pancaking, gravity collapsing, softened steel.

The outside of the building was supporting/holding up the core columns. Who woulda thunk?
Click to expand...

I can assume you know nothing about column slenderness.

BTW, almost every building structure is interdependent with other building structures. The WTC core could not solely support itself.
 
Clayton, you dodge questions. Many.


Let me rephrase one of mine that you dodged earlier.

To remind you, you had doubted that the debris piles was high or large enough for a 110-story building. This implies that you
A have an expectation of how much debris there should be (height of pile, or volume) and
B how much debris there actually was

You can only claim that A>B if you know both A and B. And thus the question:

- How much debris (height of pile, or volume) would you expect?
- How much debris was observed?




Another question you dodged in that context was
- Do you believe that the basement floors did not collapes?
 
Oystein said:
Clayton, you dodge questions. Many.


Let me rephrase one of mine that you dodged earlier.

To remind you, you had doubted that the debris piles was high or large enough for a 110-story building. This implies that you
A have an expectation of how much debris there should be (height of pile, or volume) and
B how much debris there actually was

You can only claim that A>B if you know both A and B. And thus the question:

- How much debris (height of pile, or volume) would you expect?

About 500,000 tons + contents


- How much debris was observed?




Another question you dodged in that context was
- Do you believe that the basement floors did not collapes?
Click to expand...

I believe that the basement floors did NOT collapes.
 
Clayton Moore said:
About 500,000 tons + contents
Click to expand...

Clayton, I asked this:
  • - How much debris (height of pile, or volume) would you expect?
"Tons" does not measure height or volume of pile.
(Besides, the 500,000 tons are probably an overestimate. That would put the potential energy of the tower available for self-destruction nearer to 250 tons of TNT equivalent; the best analysis of the mass of the towers that I have seen is a little below 300,000 metric tons).
Please estimate height and or volume of expected debris pile!

I also asked:
- How much debris was observed?​
You forgotz to reply to this. Without an estimate of observed debris amount, you can't compare to your estimation.


Clayton Moore said:
I believe that the basement floors did NOT collapes.
Click to expand...

Is this believe based on any evidence? Do you maybe have photos taken shortly after 9/11 that show basemnent offices and parking areas dusty, but intact? How many cars did they pull out undamaged?
 
Oystein said:
Clayton, I asked this:
  • - How much debris (height of pile, or volume) would you expect?
"Tons" does not measure height or volume of pile.
(Besides, the 500,000 tons are probably an overestimate. That would put the potential energy of the tower available for self-destruction nearer to 250 tons of TNT equivalent; the best analysis of the mass of the towers that I have seen is a little below 300,000 metric tons).
Please estimate height and or volume of expected debris pile!

I also asked:
- How much debris was observed?​
You forgotz to reply to this. Without an estimate of observed debris amount, you can't compare to your estimation.

I never forgotz. I observed exactly what you observed.


Is this believe based on any evidence? Do you maybe have photos taken shortly after 9/11 that show basemnent offices and parking areas dusty, but intact? How many cars did they pull out undamaged?
Click to expand...

Wake up. Actual collapse is a floor falling 10 or so feet then being slowed down by a lower floor. There is no speeding up by "gravity collapse."
There is no pulverizing into dust. There is no ejecting steel beams into buildings 400 to 600 feet away.

As I quoted earlier.
In physics, gravitational acceleration is the acceleration on an object caused by gravity. Neglecting friction such as air resistance,
Click to expand...
 
Clayton Moore said:
Wake up. Actual collapse is a floor falling 10 or so feet then being slowed down by a lower floor. There is no speeding up by "gravity collapse."
Click to expand...

As you quoted earlier, gravitational acceleration is the acceleration of an object caused by gravity. If it speeds up in the 10 or so feet more than it slows down when it hits a lower floor, then overall there is speeding up by gravity collapse. If it slows down more than it was speeded up, then it stops. Therefore, saying that "There is no speeding up by gravity collapse" is about as wrong as it's possible to be; either there is speeding up, or there isn't a collapse. And, as a result of the speeding up, things hit each other at very high speeds, and some of those things are very fragile, like - for example - plasterboard and sheetrock, the source of the majority of the dust produced by the collapse. Therefore,

Clayton Moore said:
There is no pulverizing into dust.
Click to expand...

...is utterly wrong too; things falling from a thousand feet get pretty badly broken. And, because not everything hits everything else perfectly squarely, some things will get knocked sideways, so that,

Clayton Moore said:
There is no ejecting steel beams into buildings 400 to 600 feet away.
Click to expand...

...is wrong as well.

I'm not saying this to you, by the way. You've made it clear that you're unable to think rationally, that you fix on a belief then deny everything, however obvious, that disagrees with it. After all, if you can say in the same post that gravity accelerates things yet it doesn't speed them up, there's hardly any point expecting you to respond to reason from someone else; clearly, you can't even respond to your own reasoning. But there are sane and reasonable people reading this, and every now and then they delurk and mention how helpful it was that, when a belief-driven idealogue spouted absurdities, there was someone pointing out exactly how absurd they were.

Dave
 
Clayton Moore said:
Wake up. Actual collapse is a floor falling 10 or so feet then being slowed down by a lower floor. There is no speeding up by "gravity collapse."
There is no pulverizing into dust. There is no ejecting steel beams into buildings 400 to 600 feet away.
Click to expand...

This is absolutely, incredibly, monumentally, breathtakingly wrong, yet you say it like you think you're some kind of sage talking to the ignorant rabble.

Ignorant arrogance ROCKS!
 
Clayton Moore said:
Wake up. Actual collapse is a floor falling 10 or so feet then being slowed down by a lower floor. There is no speeding up by "gravity collapse."
Click to expand...

That is close enough to correct to make this into a simple model and apply some physics and math. Shall we?

So if a floor falls 10 feel...
...what direction does move to? (Answer: vertically down)
...what velocity does it pick up during that fall?

Now it hits the next floor and gets slowed down by it. Correct. By how much can it be slowed down - in other words, what acceleration in which direction does it experience?
What happens to the floor below? Does it move, too? How much? What happens to the supporting structure of that lower floor when the upper floor impacts? Forces, movements, energy dissipation...

Clayton Moore said:
There is no pulverizing into dust. There is no ejecting steel beams into buildings 400 to 600 feet away.
Click to expand...

None at all? When a floor slab that contains many tons of concrete falls 10 feet on another floor slab with tons of concrete, you expect no dust?
What if light-weigh gypsum wallboard gets caught between the floor slabs - no dust whatsoever?




You dodged three questions when you moved goal posts in the above post. I must repeat them:

  • - How much debris (height of pile, or volume) would you expect for a 110-story building?
  • How much debris (volume and/or pile height) did you observe?
  • Do you have any evidence to support your belief that the twin tower basements didn't collapse?

You see, you must answer tose questions, or else your contention that there was less debris than expected is moot.

You see, everybody here notices how you dodge and evade and run away from your own claims like a chicken from the fox. It must be a bit embarrassing for you...
 
jaydeehess said:
Are you questioning the cause of initial collapse or of continued, global collapse?

If its the later and we take this up After initial collapse then its quite obvious that the upper and lower sections of columns are no longer in line. If they were then they would have to be falling through themselves.


Given then that they are not in line then all but a small percentage of dynamic forces from falling mass is going to impinge upon the floorspace, NOT the columns.

The ONLY way for forces to be transferred to columns from floorspace is via the trusses and their seats on the columns. These elements were never designed to hold the dynamic forces, nor the static load, of a dozen or more storeys of the structure and thus fail quickly barely slowing the falling mass and indeed adding mass to that falling debris.

No floors and trusses for several floors = no lateral support for core columns = long column failure (not to mention severe buffeting and the violent tearing away of said lateral support)
Click to expand...

All reasons I explained to him here, here, and here. They're reasons that Newton's bit has now gone into. Ergo fixated on one element when several influence the way the collapse takes place. To date not a single engineer I've spoken to has ever referred to structural integrity in the manner ergo made up. They don't say "well 75% of this is intact so that's okay!" It doesn't work like that.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom