???? What tells you that? I use wedges all the time, i.a. to align steel structures during assembly. Very useful. What are you aiming at now? To use a wedge to force your tilted square between two lines? Do you imply that wedges were used to bring WTC1 down? This discussion becomes weirder and weirder.
Split Thread Building Materials strength (split from: Bogus maintenance/ security men (for papasm)
- Thread starter papasmurf
- Start date
???? What tells you that? I use wedges all the time, i.a. to align steel structures during assembly. Very useful. What are you aiming at now? To use a wedge to force your tilted square between two lines? Do you imply that wedges were used to bring WTC1 down? This discussion becomes weirder and weirder.
You have been caught lying again. Michael Newman of NIST responded that you should read an elementary physics text. Your paper has been exposed as incompetent rubbish.
On the subject of clowns, Heiwa believes that dropping the top thirty floors of a 110-story building onto the the lower eighty from a height of two miles "establishes a new equilibrium." Other members of the human race understand that the entire structure gets completely destroyed.
You've been caught lying again. Jones was fired, of course, for his failure to maintain professional standards. Jones is an utter charlatan, a disgrace to science, and an agenda-driven fool. He is only somewhat better than you.
Any discussion you enter becomes weirder and weirder. Either you are putting us on or you are the clone of the fabulous idiot "Malcolm Kirkman."
350 kg of tnt, ok.
So the <500g was an honest calculating error and not an attempt to ridicule/write off the idea the a dropping building can cause damage.
Hey, what is <500g of tnt going to do to a building that size.
Maybe I meant <500 kg? But the energy of 41 kgs of diesel oil is right and it does not destroy buildings. TNT is not mentioned in my articles for obvious reasons. I have no idea why you introduced it in the discussion.
My bolding.
OK, point noted. But 41 kgs of diesel oil is correct. TNT seems to have 8.5 times less energy content than diesel oil.
Well ok, I got it to 38,some kg. Close enough.
There is something tricky between kinetic energy and momentum.
And it sounds wrong to me that you would get the same effect from setting off 350 kg of tnt and dropping a medium sized fully loaded containership on an building. (I sail for a living)
Perhaps it is because the 30000 tons stay there and still weigh 30000 tons, even after having done damage to whatever it lands on.
It could also be that momentum stuff, about heavy weights beeing hard to stop.
Anyway, do you expect that the top 1/3 of a building could drop on the rest and just stay there.
There is something tricky between kinetic energy and momentum.
And it sounds wrong to me that you would get the same effect from setting off 350 kg of tnt and dropping a medium sized fully loaded containership on an building. (I sail for a living)
Perhaps it is because the 30000 tons stay there and still weigh 30000 tons, even after having done damage to whatever it lands on.
It could also be that momentum stuff, about heavy weights beeing hard to stop.
Anyway, do you expect that the top 1/3 of a building could drop on the rest and just stay there.
Well ok, I got it to 38,some kg. Close enough.
There is something tricky between kinetic energy and momentum.
And it sounds wrong to me that you would get the same effect from setting off 350 kg of tnt and dropping a medium sized fully loaded containership on an building. (I sail for a living)
Perhaps it is because the 30000 tons stay there and still weigh 30000 tons, even after having done damage to whatever it lands on.
It could also be that momentum stuff, about heavy weights beeing hard to stop.
Anyway, do you expect that the top 1/3 of a building could drop on the rest and just stay there.
I like your analogy of dropping a 30 000 ton ship on WTC1, as safety at sea is my business (e.g. maintenance of ship structures, mainly tankers).
More realistic is however that your 30 000 ton ship collides with another ship. If you study my web page http://heiwaco.tripod.com/ce_collision.htm you get the idea! We analyzed 100s of collisions and the structural damages due to the energies involved and resulting oil spills. With some surprising results. IMO had to change their rules!! And then they approved my tanker design. A good step to safer seas. US protested as only member of the IMO and is no longer party to Marpol, Annex I. US created their own rules, funnily exactly as Marpol, Annex I + extra rules of course to confuse matter and with an addition that my tanker was not permitted in US ports. A step to unsafer seas.
We do not use kgs of tnt to express energy as it is confusing and people get the wrong ideas. We use Joule!
Happy sailing.
Gravity? Do you live in a 2d earth? The kids on the bed is your best analogy! Good WORK!
I don't want to disappoint you, because you have a lot of enthusiasm, but you should consider Heiwa's previous Stundie nominations:
April 2008:
Heiwa said:
February 2008:
Heiwa said:
January 2008:
Heiwa said:
Also January 2008:
Heiwa said:
Also January 2008:
Heiwa said:
Also January 2008:
Heiwa said:
etc. ad nauseum.
No, ships do not have the engine power to accelerate at one G. If they had and kept them running in a collision, the result would look very different.
Something dropping are subject to 1G, both before and after impact.
You sound more and more like the "SPEED 2" school of physics and ship construction.
Well - at the instant of contact of A 'WTC upper block/lower structure' or B 'two ships in collision', there is a certain momentum involved (mass times velocity) and energy (momentum times velocity divided by 2) and acceleration does not come into the picture! Local failures occur, energy is absorbed, friction between failed parts in contact develop, forces are re-distributed, etc.
And then you have to work from there. In A gravity is always at work and produces forces acting on the various parts and you have to include that, in B the propulsion force may still be active and you have to consider that.
If the upper block of WTC actually dropped on the structure below is a matter of semantics. Drop suggests that it was not being held at all. I prefer that it came into contact after local failures and downward displacement and that it was prevented from dropping by the connections between the two parts. Anyway, only the velocity at contact is of interest and it was not high in the WTC1 case. Assuming a 'drop' of 3.7 metres does not produce a big velocity that can be calculated (you can do that - is it around 3 m/s?). If the 'drop' is dampened by intermediate conenctions the velocity is less.
Assuming in A that the two parts acts as springs (disregarding local failures), the upper block would just bounce as described in one of my articles.
In B the contact velocity may be up to 10 m/s and the masses up to 200 000 tons, so you see that in B 20 times bigger momentums and 70 times more energies may be involved compared with A.
Bazant suggests that the energy involved in WTC1 was enormous but in a serious ships collision it can be up to 70 times bigger!! Food for thought. If you are a watch keeping seaman avoid collisions.
The structural damage analysises are quite similar for A and B. Very few engineers have studied the subject (99.9% concentrate on design of new, intact structures) but there is nothing new about it. No need to write scientific papers about it, as it was a new event that had never happened before and needed explanation. Structural damages occur every day.
This Bazant paper is therefore very suspect.
Do I sound like SPEED 2?? I think my web pages and articles are quite pedagogical - I try to explain in simple laymen's terms. I have no personal interest in 9/11 - only worried about the crazy GWB-sect.
Last edited:
Being strong enough to support a weight, and caching it from 3,7m is two very different things. (Try jumping just 3m down)
A building is made to hold itself up, with a good safety margin. When one or two floors give and the top part drop it looks perfectly likely to me that that safely margin is exceded.
I can´t do the relevant calculations of structural strenght, or check yours.
Why don´t you get someone else to check for decimal errors?
A building is made to hold itself up, with a good safety margin. When one or two floors give and the top part drop it looks perfectly likely to me that that safely margin is exceded.
I can´t do the relevant calculations of structural strenght, or check yours.
Why don´t you get someone else to check for decimal errors?