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

[bill smith]

Personally I find that I am reluctant to argue the upper block-lower block scenario these days. It is a complete waste of time considering that we know that the upper part C was no longer intact. It was more or less a collection of rubble by the time it contacted the lower part of the building.
So this is the standpoint we should be arguing from.

 

[beachnut]

Personally I find that I am reluctant to argue the upper block-lower block scenario these days. It is a complete waste of time considering that we know that the upper part C was no longer intact. It was more or less a collection of rubble by the time it contacted the lower part of the building.
So this is the standpoint we should be arguing from.

You should you use your hurricane delusion for this engineering stuff; it is matches the delusional posts you make on engineering. Heiwa has no clue about structures and post proof on a regular basis just as you do. You proved again in one short post you have no working knowledge of engineering or the purpose of models. You should be researching and trying to gain knowledge instead of posting delusional opinions on what you think engineering should be.

 

[bill smith]

You should you use your hurricane delusion for this engineering stuff; it is matches the delusional posts you make on engineering. Heiwa has no clue about structures and post proof on a regular basis just as you do. You proved again in one short post you have no working knowledge of engineering or the purpose of models. You should be researching and trying to gain knowledge instead of posting delusional opinions on what you think engineering should be.

I don't believe the upper block could have done it either. Heiwa has done sterling work of embarrassing you guys by proving that you can neither design a model that will perform as Bazant predicts nor can you provide a single example of a small fraction of a building crushing the rest of that building down level with the ground. This is not surprising considering that it has never before happened in the entire world history of construction on this planet.

Brave confident and empty talk is all you have.Models ?...zero. Precedent ?....zero. Common sense ?...zero.

 

[Z]

Personally I find that I am reluctant to argue the upper block-lower block scenario these days. It is a complete waste of time considering that we know that the upper part C was no longer intact. It was more or less a collection of rubble by the time it contacted the lower part of the building.
So this is the standpoint we should be arguing from.

Fine. What is the mass of upper part C intact, versus upper part C as a collection of rubble?

Does the mass reduce because it's no longer intact?

Does the impact of that mass reduce because it's no longer in tact?

If I drop one 50-lb weight on your foot, will it do more or less damage than if I drop a pile of ten 5-lb weights?

Which will cause more damage to a house - having a 3-ton boulder dropped on it from 50 feet, or having 3 tons of sand dropped on it from 50 feet?

Though, actually, there is a good point in analysing it in terms of rubble rather than as a rigid block: while some rubble may have had its progress arrested by impact with a sturdy structure, not all will have. Some beams will punch through floor plates, which clearly were NOT designed to hold up any weight. Some pieces of concrete will knock aside vertical support beams. And those arrested bits of rubble themselves will get hit with tons more rubble from above, which will eventually overcome the structural capabilities of whatever the rubble is resting on.

Think 'hundreds of thousands of small jolts'. Think of jackhammers.

 

[Z]

I don't believe the upper blozk could have done it either. Heiwa has done sterling work of embarrassing you guys by proving that you can neither design a model that will perform as Bazant predicts nor can you provide a single example of a small fraction of a building crushing the rest of that building down level with the ground. This is not surprising considering that it has never before happened in the entire world history of construction on this planet.

Brave confident and empty talk is all you have.Models ?...zero. Precedent ?....zero. Common sense ?...zero.

Common sense, huh?

OK, try this:

You have a mass - whatever the mass of block C was - and it can be anything you want. Feathers, rocks, bowling balls, a meteorite. Drop that mass C from twenty feet onto a single-story building A. Will it crush the building, yes or no?

Now how about a two-story building B. Will it crush both stories, yes or no?

Now, here's the thing: when it impacts with the upper story (building A), the mass of story A is added to C. So now B is being hit with A+C. Some momentum is lost, but mass is gained, which increases the force involved.

Now the third story is hit with A+B+C mass. And so on, and so forth.

As the mass increases, so does the impact force and hence the velocity.

Additionally, each impact from floor to floor acts as a mini-jolt along the entire structure, weakening joints and trusses and all those nasty engineering thingies that fall apart if you keep whacking them hard enough.

So sooner rather than later, those thingies are going to give, and give hard.

Collapse is emminent.

Maybe if the core had been made of steel-reinforced concrete, it MIGHT have stood... but even then, not bloody likely.

 

[bill smith]

Fine. What is the mass of upper part C intact, versus upper part C as a collection of rubble?

Does the mass reduce because it's no longer intact?

Does the impact of that mass reduce because it's no longer in tact?

If I drop one 50-lb weight on your foot, will it do more or less damage than if I drop a pile of ten 5-lb weights?

Which will cause more damage to a house - having a 3-ton boulder dropped on it from 50 feet, or having 3 tons of sand dropped on it from 50 feet?

Though, actually, there is a good point in analysing it in terms of rubble rather than as a rigid block: while some rubble may have had its progress arrested by impact with a sturdy structure, not all will have. Some beams will punch through floor plates, which clearly were NOT designed to hold up any weight. Some pieces of concrete will knock aside vertical support beams. And those arrested bits of rubble themselves will get hit with tons more rubble from above, which will eventually overcome the structural capabilities of whatever the rubble is resting on.

Think 'hundreds of thousands of small jolts'. Think of jackhammers.

Are you willing to admit that the 'rigid upper block'- part C was in an advanced state of disintegration by the time it impacted the lower pert A of the building ?

I don't really want to argue that case just to find that you have reverted to the rigid block if the going got tough.

 

[carlitos]

Are you willing to admit that the 'rigid upper block'- part C was in an advanced state of disintegration by the time it impacted the lower pert A of the building ?

I don't really want to argue that case just to find that you have reverted to the rigid block if the going got tough.

You may have missed this link, as it was posted on the topic where you bailed after being asked to explain the significance of hurricane news coverage as pertains to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Anyway, carry on. You were just about to actually answer the questions that Z posed, and you ignored.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Dave, this was obviously a rough back of the envelope calculation to show just why the core was self-supporting. I did not say it could support 37 billion pounds, just that that size column would need that kind of a load to buckle, meaning it would not. It would have failed by compressive rupture first and is out of the realm of buckling.

Here is a calculation for a 137 foot x 87 foot rectangular column x 1440 foot high with just 12 inch walls. The calculation is converted to inches with a 1,644 inch x 1,044 inch rectangular column x 17,280 inch high.

The moment of inertia I = 1/2bh^3. The hollow area MOI about the least radius of gyration is subtracted from that of the exterior dimensions to find the MOI of the hollow section with 12 inch walls and it is 12.628 x 10^9 in.^4.

The critical buckling load equation is F = (Pi^2 x E x I)/(K x L)^2

Since it is fixed at one end and free at the other K = 2.0. The modulus of elasticity is 29 x 10^6 psi for steel. In this case F = 3.02 billion pounds (which is at least 3 times and possibly 5 times the entire weight of a tower). This simply means it is out of the range of buckling, since it would obviously fail by compressive rupture first.

This is incorrect on a number of grounds.

1. The compressive strength equation that you provided is only accurate for elastic materials (KL/r > 4.71 * SQRT(E/Fy)). It does not apply less slender members. This was a concept that was discovered several hundred years ago. Please keep up with the times.

2. This general formulation of determining compression strength only applies to elements with compact or non-compact sections. Slender sections (not to be confused with slender elements) use a different formulation that includes local buckling.

The cut-off to use your approach is for elements with a flange to thickness ratio of 1.40 * SQRT(E/Fy), or 33.7. All common structural shapes meet this criteria. Your shape has a b/t ratio of 137. Any analysis of the strength of such a section must include local failures of the walls.

A method to analyze a shape such as this can be found in AISC Manual of Steel Construction Spec: E7. One could also analyze the shape using a plate fixed at it's base and pinned at the sides.

I seriously doubt it could support it's own self-weight, but I really don't care enough to analyze such a silly problem. The core lacked lateral stiffness. The individual elements were not braced. I doubt the bases were even rigid enough to be considered fixed. The individual elements would collapse under their own self-weight (which is what happened, we even have it on film).

 

[NobbyNobbs]

No, my numbers concern WTC 1 and are published in my paper at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm . Reason being that Bazant and Seffen also deal with WTC 1. Evidently I debunk them easily. Read my paper.

I seem to be having trouble navigating your paper. Would you please let me know in which sections I may find the calculations determining:

1) The PE of the upper block
2) How much of that PE was converted to KE before contact with the lower block
3) How much of that KE was converted to heat upon contact
4) How much energy was required to cause enough component failure sufficient to cause the collapse of the top floor of the upper block


Thanks.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Here we discuss why a one-way crush down is not possible by gravity alone.

And this is simply because you find that an interesting topic? There are no implications, political or otherwise, to this conclusion you've come to?


You've become very predictable, by the way. You could easily be replaced with an unsophisticated AI program, and no one would notice.

 

[boloboffin]

Oh, I think I saw it.

In the initial seconds of the plummet, any energy used to break pieces off the upper section wouldn't have caused a deceleration of the upper section, because the crushing of the leading edge would "absorb" all of that.

But when enough momentum is reached, and Bazant's layer of debris develops between the upper section and the lower section, then the overall rigidity of the upper section takes over, and it's down all the way for the upper section, crushing down the lower section. Then at the bottom, the upper section crushes up.

To further refine it, the core is then able to "stab" through the descending upper section (since it's designed for gravity loads, it manages to break through the vertically descending debris and upper section). But once it's left exposed, the slightest lateral movement snaps it off at the core and it crushes itself up.

 

[MIKILLINI]

You are a little off-topic! Here we discuss why a one-way crush down is not possible by gravity alone. It seems nobody is able to explain how a little top part C of a structure can one-way crush down the bottom part A, in particular when part C just consist of bolted together wall perimeter and floor sections and a rather solid core.

Actually, a one-way crush down by gravity alone is impossible. So controlled demolition is the only possible cause. How the perpetrators did it is another matter. But I have some ideas in my paper http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm . You know, plenty of gangsters also sink ships (to collect insurance) and there are many ways to do that. Same for WTC 1, 2 and 7.

Heiwa, let's agree A begins with damaged floor 97, ok? Aaaannnnd floor 97 takes the hit from the 13 floors above it. Oh My! Now floor 96 wants to know what floor 97 is gonna do? What is floor 97 going to do Heiwa?

 

[FineWine]

Personally I find that I am reluctant to argue the upper block-lower block scenario these days. It is a complete waste of time considering that we know that the upper part C was no longer intact. It was more or less a collection of rubble by the time it contacted the lower part of the building.
So this is the standpoint we should be arguing from.

Nonsense, the upper block--what am I saying? OF COURSE it's nonsense! I'm responding to Bill Smith!

Forget Heiwa's imaginary Parts A and C. He is an agenda-driven incompetent. You can never get past the observable FACT that the collapsing floors hit the floor immediately below, crushed it, and added it to the total mass. You have no idea what you mean by "intact"--thirteen floors start to fall; they hit the next floor; now the fourteen collapsing floors hit the next one, and so on.

Stop this foolish deception about hitting the "lower part of the building." Heiwa was exposed as a complete fraud on this point. The collapsing floors hit the next floor, NOT the rest of the building.

You have no standpoint to argue from. You are an unteachable fanatic who doesn't understand anything about science or engineering.

 

[FineWine]

I don't believe the upper block could have done it either. Heiwa has done sterling work of embarrassing you guys by proving that you can neither design a model that will perform as Bazant predicts nor can you provide a single example of a small fraction of a building crushing the rest of that building down level with the ground. This is not surprising considering that it has never before happened in the entire world history of construction on this planet.

Brave confident and empty talk is all you have.Models ?...zero. Precedent ?....zero. Common sense ?...zero.

Brave, confident talk supported by real science is what the sane side has. Models: all the ones dismissed with an uncomprehending wave by your incompetent guru.
Precedent: uh, the collapses of the twin towers on 9/11/01.
Common sense: irrelevant.
Real science: 100% on the side of the good guys.


Your side, an insane, hate-based lynch mob, has bogus science and endlessly recycled lies.

 

[Z]

Are you willing to admit that the 'rigid upper block'- part C was in an advanced state of disintegration by the time it impacted the lower pert A of the building ?

I don't really want to argue that case just to find that you have reverted to the rigid block if the going got tough.

I have no problem with that. Neither A nor C is a true 'rigid block'. Both are basically LEGO constructions with lots of empty space and plenty of vital interdependent supports.

Now, section C at the point it impacts with floor 97 would be 14 times the mass of floor 97 (more or less). It doesn't matter if it was a rigid block or ground down to small bits. Either way, it had 14 times the mass of floor 97.

That section C was not 'rigidly intact' is no more relevant than the fact that floor 97 was not 'a rigid block'. A one-pound piece of debris hitting a one-pound piece of furniture might cause limited damage; but a 14-lb piece of debris hitting a one-pound piece of furniture is likely to cause quite a bit more damage. Then consider that this one pound piece of furniture is bombarded with debris ranging from a few ounces to several hundred pounds, all in a few seconds, all dropped from quite a height.

This happens all over floor 97. Some bits might be fortunate and hold up under such pounding, but most are not. Floor plates will rupture and buckle. Cross-connection beams will snap and uncouple. Vertical supports will get knocked far out of alignment. Some damage will immediately carry to floor much farther below 97, as impacts cause vertical elements to receive massive stress below the impact floor. Structural integrity below 97 is weakened.

And at some point, 97 gives out, adding its own mass - now floor 96, partially weakened by what's going on up above, is struck by 15 times its own mass. Repeat.

Then floor 95 is hit by 16 times its own mass. Repeat.

And with each hit, vertical elements are being damaged below the impact floor, causing further damage to horizontal elements as they are deformed out of alignment.

Collapse is inevitable.

 

[tfk]

Dr. Bazant does have quite an impressive resume but that doesn't mean he can't err and that something like a covert controlled demolition couldn't fool him as it initially did most of us. His papers do have a couple of major errors. He is off on the axial stiffness of the columns by a factor of 10 to 1 and his energy absorption value is off by a factor of about 6 to 1. He should correct these errors as they have been pointed out to him in the last several months. He hasn't yet.

.
Of course it doesn't mean that he cannot err.

Now, how about you

1. copy & paste the names of the classes that he has taught over the last 39 years at Northwestern.

2. copy and paste a list of the title of books that he has authored.

That SHOULD give you a bit of pause, if you possess a sense of professional self-preservation.

tom

 

[tfk]

tfk Exposes Global Cabal Of 9/11 Engineers.
Conspirators Tally So Far Grows To 92% Of The World’s Population.
Truth Movement Awards tfk 10 cds “ Loose Change 12th Edition Recut TinyCut MinorSnip”, KFC Lunch With Richard Gage, Engraved Genuine Reproduction Nanothermite Chip.



Szamboti, Bill, Heiwa, Chandler Flee Dark Sided JREF Shills​

.
Basque,

You've got a career ahead of you writing farce for Hollywood. Or, at the very least, low budget 1950's Science Fiction. What a shame you didn't discover this talent in the 1950s, eh??



Tom

 

[tfk]

Do you think he'll ever address my question about the relative sizes of his Part C, the collapsing floors, and the floor immediately below? Will he acknowledge that his Part A is an imaginary concept?

.
No.

He clearly, intentionally will not discuss ANY particulars with anyone that he perceives sees his massive flaws.

He's not even a GOOD fraud.

A good fraud would address any & all questions. And go into his mumbo-jumbo while pretending to not understand the issues that the other person was raising. When this person is caught, they can pretend that they were just mistaken.

A BAD fraud gives away the fact that he KNOWS that he is wrong by virtue of the very questions that he chooses to NOT answer. He knows that he can not walk down that path, or his mistake will be revealed too easily.

Heiwa sees this coming, refuses to answer specific questions, and resorts to his Rainman "read my paper" speech.

We know he's wrong. He knows he's wrong. We know that he knows he's wrong. And yet, lacking professional dignity, he continues the charade.

Go figure...

tom

 

[tfk]

Personally I find that I am reluctant to argue the upper block-lower block scenario these days. It is a complete waste of time considering that we know that the upper part C was no longer intact. It was more or less a collection of rubble by the time it contacted the lower part of the building.
So this is the standpoint we should be arguing from.

.
GREAT!

Glad to hear it.

The REAL Smith's Law: "The less Smith talks, the more intelligent the conversations."

Tom

 

[Gravy]

I thought you said you retired from your 911 sophistry Mark. What happened?

Of course, all we see here are your normal disingenuous and tired attempts to discredit anyone who has brought up the fact that 911 was an inside job.

Oh, so you have spoken with the investigating engineers and you have brought your WTC 7/Silverstein evidence to a District Attorney, as you promised to do?

When did you do that, Tony? Go ahead and discredit me.

And when did you release the audiovisual records of the enormous, concrete-pulverizing, "pyroclastic" flow"-producing detonations that you insist happened, Tony?

Show us, and finally discredit me.

I'm out to discredit you? Um, Earth to Tony: I need no help with that. I merely use your words, in context.

Feel free to establish your credibility for the very first time, right now, or feel free to remain a laughing stock for people who aren't paranoid incompetents.

Do it, Tony Szamboti. We're still waiting.