Can 15 floors crush one floor?

[femr2]

What you and several others here either fail to or do not want to understand is that the buckling columns were part of a connected frame with massive lateral inertia.

What happened to the numerous questions I've asked you Tony ?

Why do you insist on ignoring them and trying to change track ?

Nothing I've said has much effect on (core) lateral bracing. Obviously that's affected by IB, possibly disconnected internal OOS floor regions, ...but whatever. It's quite possible that core and perimeter motion don't match up. Say what you like about it after...

You know there was tilt.


Step 1: Recalculate with 1 degree tilt, resulting in a series of separate impacts over a period of 200msec. Minimum number of "impacts"...58 (perimeter) + 8 (core rows) + 3 (OOS regions). 69 minimum.

Each of the 69 separate (virtual) impacts should occur from South to North, and an estimation of how each impact would traverse the structure to present at the NW corner.


If you want to save yourself some wasted effort, remove the perimeter-perimeter impacts. It can be shown that few (if any) perimeter columns came into contact with each other, instead passing either inside or outside each other.

That leaves you (in simplistic terms) with half the perimeter inside hitting OOS flooring (the other half the "other" floor above/below) the OOS floor regions impacting each other, and the core lattice and floor pan...all at an angle.

So, what impacts what, again ?

OOS region can be sheared from both the perimeter and core with a measley ~73MJ (as per your earlier calc)

Core-on-core (sounds dodgy) sure, why not.

Core column on core column ? Hmm. With your suggested 3-point buckle in a column...what is it that you think is going to meet up ?

No flat column ends to be found Tony.

And what makes you think a three storey column length will deform over a single storey ? Jus'Curious...

The part of the frame that would have been buckling, in any natural collapse, wouldn't all of a sudden vanish and the lateral inertia of the building would cause it to fall straight down without an enormous lateral force involved.

Yet the upper section started moving laterally even before release.
And the thing rotated upon release.

Whatever you thought was going to keep it from moving laterally, or deforming the frame...didn't work.

Lateral motion, yes. Rotation, yes.

It isn't surprising that all you can do is throw around hyperbole and no actual science to back your claims that the columns would have missed each other.

I can show you perimeters missing each other. I do suggest you begin to be more forthcoming though.

 

[ozeco41]

What you and several others here either fail to or do not want to understand is that the buckling columns were part of a connected frame with massive lateral inertia. The part of the frame that would have been buckling, in any natural collapse, wouldn't all of a sudden vanish and the lateral inertia of the building would cause it to fall straight down without an enormous lateral force involved.

Some of you here act like the upper section of the building was re-entering from outer space...

Wrong again Tony. Your claim is the one "coming from outer space" OR at least far enough away in the direction of outer space that you can imagine a gap between the two parts of columns that gap which then needs to close.

Nonsense.

Stop coming at the problem from the perspective which allows you to twist reality to support your false pre-conceived outcome. Remember that at some stage the top block was falling. How it got to that status is not what we are discussing. What "we" (you really) need to take into account is/are the consequences which follow from "the top block was falling". "Top block falling" must be common ground and therefore a defined stage from which we can reason forward. If it isn't "common ground" that the top block fell then count me out of here - you have already used it as input to your argument and denying your own chosen premise is more than my patience would stand for.

Take it step by step:
1) The top "block" was falling. True or false? Stay here till you see why - and remember that you have already used it as one of your premises. THEN
2) If the top block was falling - you shouldn't be here unless you have accepted that allowing you to move from step "1)" - so the column ends were not in axial aligned opposition. True or false? Stay here till you see why. THEN
3) So where are the columns ends relative to each other? There are three possibilities:
a) They have already missed each other;
b) Because of the way they failed due to cascade failure overload they are displaced and will not come back into axial contact; OR
c) Some evil perpetrator removed a section by explosive, incendiary or other means. In which case they will either
(i) Miss each other therefore no different to "1)" and "2)" above OR
(ii) They will land and cause either a measurable biggish jolt or an unmeasurable little jolt. And we know the former didn't happen and the latter is irrelevant in the discussion we are currently having.

4) AND it is not an acceptable step to assume that the "top block" has somehow moved upwards to create the gap you so avidly desire. Even though "top block must have moved upwards" may be the only logical explanation for your false presumptions about timing and spatial relationships of the pairs of column ends.

Now let's see why you disagree with those. And none of the truther trickery of starting at the wrong end. Start with "1)" then "2)" - if we get that far we may be able to progress.

...It isn't surprising that all you can do is throw around hyperbole and no actual science to back your claims that the columns would have missed each other.

Sorry but using correct reasoning is better science than using inappropriate maths and denying reason.

 

[000063]

Most buildings have a 1.67 to 2.00 factor of safety against vertical collapse, and based on a look at their construction the Verinage demolished buildings fit the average building construction criteria.

1. Source this claim.
2. And what was the tolerance on the Twin Towers, specifically?
3. 1 and 2 are largely irrelevant, seeing as a collapse of even a few feet would provide a dynamic load more than twice the weight of the falling section.

You know it would be somewhat impossible to get sources for this information.

Did you just admit you're talking out of your rear?

However, one can draw a conclusion based on averages and classic construction, so your attempt to subvert my point by disingenuously asking for sources is meaningless.

You're not drawing a conclusion, you're making up crap. You're piling guesses on I-thinks. You are building a house of cards on a house of cards. And it is not some sort of trick to ask for sources. That's standard for debate.

Still none of those calculations I asked for.

...

It isn't surprising that all you can do is throw around hyperbole and no actual science to back your claims that the columns would have missed each other.

Says the man who has avoided my repeated requests to back up his claims with actual calculations.

Femr has shown you how much of the floors the columns took up. Many, noticeably Ozeco, have pointed out that the buildings collapse meant the columns had failed by definition. I've personally pointed out that there was no way in heaven or hell or God's green earth the collapse would've been arrested even in your scenario. You've ignored both these points.

You've also successfully derailed the thread onto your jolt nonsense.

 

[atavisms]

the upper sections were destroyed first. There was no 'block'.
You see one?

1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSApOavkHg8
2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JnZbYXcbqw
7: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqbUkThGlCo&lr=1

 

[tfk]

It isn't surprising that all you can do is throw around hyperbole and no actual science to back your claims that the columns would have missed HIT each other.

ftfy.

Oh, the irony...

Sauce for the Goose, Tony.

First question: if you have a 9 story high stack of 3 story columns, joined with small bolts in plates as in the towers, flexed to just before buckling, where is the stack going to buckle? In the middle of one of the columns or at the joints?

Next: Give us 3 sketches. 5 min/sketch.

Sketch 1: a stack of columns, flexed to just before buckling.

Sketch 2: same columns after buckling & upper column descent by about 1 foot. Please provide realistic spring back in the columns.

Sketch 3: same column pair after upper column descent by one story. (i.e., as upper column end is approaching ... 1/3 the way down the height of the lower column.

Please indicate in sketch 3 how the bottom end of the upper column is supposed to hit the top end of the lower column, when that top end is about 24' further down.

Or ignore this post, as you do every inconvenient one that proves your nonsense to be nonsense.

The end result will be the same.

 

[LSSBB]

the upper sections were destroyed first. There was no 'block'.
You see one?

1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSApOavkHg8
2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JnZbYXcbqw
7: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqbUkThGlCo&lr=1

A "Drive-by" tubing.

 

[twinstead]

the upper sections were destroyed first. There was no 'block'.
You see one?

1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSApOavkHg8
2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JnZbYXcbqw
7: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqbUkThGlCo&lr=1

Mass. What a concept.

 

[leftysergeant]

the upper sections were destroyed first. There was no 'block'.
You see one?

1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSApOavkHg8

Fails to allow that floors did not have to be falling away ata uniform rate, that extremely dense objects, such as columns, might be falling through floors faster than the wave of collapse moved downward.

2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JnZbYXcbqw

This just shows floor collapsing in sequence, ejecting dust a little more energeticly as collapse progresses.

7: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqbUkThGlCo&lr=1

Notice that, with all the other noises the camera picks up, it does not pick up the sound of any sort of demolition charges.

Was this crap supposed to prove something?

 

[tfk]

the upper sections were destroyed first. There was no 'block'.
You see one?

1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSApOavkHg8
2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JnZbYXcbqw
7: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqbUkThGlCo&lr=1

Apparently you do not understand that a compacted mass of debris has a capacity to deliver a HIGHER force on impact that the non-compacted (i.e., as built) structure.

The reason is that a non-compacted structure, in a collision, will bring the various elements in the upper structure to a stop sequentially, as each element breaks and then impacts the debris zone from above, one at a time. Whereas a compacted mass has to bring all of its mass to a halt at once.

Your misconception is what you get when you listen to amateurs.

 

[tfk]

Tony Szamboti,

Could you please address this post above.

 

[Robrob]

You know it would be somewhat impossible to get sources for this information.

The lack of evidence is evidence?

 

[Carlos]

1. Source this claim.

Bump for Mr Szamboti