Moderated Steel structures cannot globally collapse due to gravity alone

KreeL said:
Do you have the blueprints?
Click to expand...

why would I need those to understand that the floor trusses braced the external columns to the inner core ? You do understand this, right? You do understand the importance of this bracing , right?
 
Is that all the bracing? Do you understand how much bracing there was in the towers? The redundancy? The load distribution?

What's your point?
 
Once we finally got rid of Homeland for a while, this guy pops up. It's like a revolving door of ignorance.
 
You must forgive me for trying to understand how anyone can actually think those towers came down like that sans explosives.

Pulling out something like Bazant's theory doesn't help anyone's case. True science would tell us that Bazant would be able to duplicate the phenomenon applying his theory.

My theory is that explosives were used. One form or another. My theory can be duplicated.
 
KreeL said:
Is that all the bracing? Do you understand how much bracing there was in the towers? The redundancy? The load distribution?

What's your point?
Click to expand...

My point? Is to ensure you understood that the floor trusses braced the inner core to the external columns. The top hat provided further bracing.

So now you understand this. Can you explain what happens when all this bracing is violently removed by having a very heavy weight drop on top of them?
 
KreeL said:
It's totally preposturous to believe the 10-15% of anything can obliterate the remaining 85-90% of itself. Please give us some examples of this phenomenon happening on planet earth.
Click to expand...

houseofcards.jpg


Regrettably I have no video of the event.

eta: I confidently predict KreeL will now move on to pulverisation of concrete and dustification of steel ...
 
Last edited:
Take the top 'tee-pee' and raise it about 6 inches and drop it on the bottom layers.

Oh, before you do, be sure the bottom layers are braced (simple popcicle sticks and glue might suffice).

Watch out! The experiment might surprise you.
 
State of grace - until you realize that the trusses weren't the only bracing, you don't have a point. Dropping a weight that has been supported by the lower 85% for decades a mere 10-15 feet won't get up enough speed to make a dent.
 
Well, let's experiment, hokulele. Take 10 cinderblocks and mortar eight of them together one on top of the other. Take the top two and mortar them together to form 'your block'. Raise the top two up about 10 feet and drop them down on the lower eight and observe what happens.

Do the lower eight turn to dust? Do the top two blocks fall straight through the others to the ground? Do they bounce off? Do they just stop with a little damage? This experiment is without any steel at all, but I think you get the idea.

Edited to add:

Where's Bazant? I'm sure he tried this!
 
Last edited:
KreeL said:
Well, let's experiment, hokulele. Take 10 cinderblocks and mortar eight of them together one on top of the other. Take the top two and mortar them together to form 'your block'. Raise the top two up about 10 feet and drop them down on the lower eight and observe what happens.

Do the lower eight turn to dust? Do the top two blocks fall straight through the others to the ground? Do they bounce off? Do they just stop with a little damage? This experiment is without any steel at all, but I think you get the idea.
Click to expand...

Your bottom 8 blocks constitute a monolithic structure. And the scale is dramtically different. Bad analogy. Although if you used cinder blocks each about 40 metres tall with the footprint of WTC, I strongly suspect they might even collapse under their own weight with no impact required. Dunno, a building engineer could maybe clear that up.

btw you have been given two examples of small %ages of falling material causing catastrophic collapse. Are you about to retract your claim this cannot happen on planet Earth?
 
Before I retire for the evening, I'm going to go wire up my lower eight. I'll bet you anything you want to bet that my top block falls right through them, and they turn to dust.
 
Oh my, glenn - you are trying way to hard with your house of cards. I already debunked that idea of yours. Besides - even with freestanding cards - none of them are obliterated.
 
KreeL said:
It's totally preposturous to believe the 10-15% of anything can obliterate the remaining 85-90% of itself. Please give us some examples of this phenomenon happening on planet earth.
Click to expand...

Nuclear weaponry. Back in your hole.
 
Nukes? Is THAT what it looked like to you? Strange of you to think that, from the appearance of the event and all.

Glenn, monolithic or not, mass will not fall through itself.

What you witnessed on 9/11 was demolition. What kind of demolition is what you should be trying to figure out. The pictures I've seen show steel beams being blown hundreds of feet outwards surrounded by huge clouds of pulverized concrete. Nothing was just 'falling down' from gravity. Haven't you read somewhere that the amount of energy expelled didn't equal the amount of energy present? No joke.
 
KreeL said:
State of grace - until you realize that the trusses weren't the only bracing, you don't have a point. Dropping a weight that has been supported by the lower 85% for decades a mere 10-15 feet won't get up enough speed to make a dent.
Click to expand...

The floor trusses did not support this weight for decades, though, did they ?
 
GlennB said:
Your bottom 8 blocks constitute a monolithic structure. And the scale is dramtically different. Bad analogy. Although if you used cinder blocks each about 40 metres tall with the footprint of WTC, I strongly suspect they might even collapse under their own weight with no impact required. Dunno, a building engineer could maybe clear that up.

btw you have been given two examples of small %ages of falling material causing catastrophic collapse. Are you about to retract your claim this cannot happen on planet Earth?
Click to expand...

Sorry - but Bazant assumes in his 2008 paper that WTC has homogeneous density in all parts A, B and C, i.e. each part is monolithic! Of course Bazant's model is just 1-D, so the density is in kg/m. Funny density but in 1-D it is like that. Very monolithic. The upper, part C, and lower part A has one density x and the part B in between - the rubble - has density 4x. All parts are just lines with cross area 0! 1-D, you know!

Strangely enough part C has no problems to compress part A into a part B at increasing velocity (from 0 to 50 m/s) that part B becomes only 1/4 the original height of part A. It is pure magic - fantasy - of course.

And when part A has become part B that contacts ground, part C - POUFF - disappears! Crush up. Magic.

So why could it happen? Well, parts A, B and C have no volumes! They are just lines on a paper.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom