Moderated Steel structures cannot globally collapse due to gravity alone

[Ratas]

Heiwa, please do as I asked. The photo by Bell that comes up in this thread was too difficult, try with one floor hitting another. Include all the appropriate loads. Calculate the stresses. Don't distort the question, If you have some credentials whatsoever this won't take you too long.

As for your paper, I again got stuck at the first analogy with them boats. Maybe if you printed it in some soft paper I'd find some use for it.

 

[GlennB]

1. Why would anyone drop a pig's head on you? Carry a safety helmet! It diverts impacts.

You hated the question so much you create a diversion? Answer the question please. Can the smaller/lighter/more fragile object damage my skull or not? Does it help me to be standing on the shoulders of many other people? It seems to me that the impulse of the falling object may have fractured my skull well before the people at the bottom of the pyramid get stressed. IMPULSE. Have you studied this concept?

2. When object C impacts object A, C applies a force ...

I asked whether a lighter/softer object can ever penetrate a heavier/harder object. I gave you two examples to consider and you ignored them. Answer the questions please.

Remember that if C is at 100% free fall it cannot apply any force F on A. F = 0. And when F = 0 nothing happens.

I believe you have misunderstood Newton's third law. Dramatically.
In Newton's own words:

"If a horse draws a stone tied to a rope, the horse (if I may so say) will be equally drawn back towards the stone".

According to your interpretation, the horse can never move the stone. In reality, the maximum force the horse can exert may be greater than the stone's maximum resistance. In this case the horse wins according to F_horse - F_stone and the stone slides along. The horse could, also, haul this much extra before being stopped.

 

[Seymour Butz]

1- Only two outer walls of upper and lower parts A and C slice floors on the inside. Similar happens at the core.

2-The part A columns then do not carry any load and are still braced by the spandrels.

3- They will thus remain undamaged.

4- Only local failures of some floors take place, the floors hinge and get entangled. The failures are not symmetrical. Upper part C gets jammed. The drop is arrested.

1- fairly accurate, but in the cores, all columns will slice into lower floors. The lowers columns will also slice into the uppers.

2- No, the descending columns will punch through the lower floors, and the lower columns will punch through the descending floors. And the descent will continue.

3- no, the descent will continue, columns will have long unbraced lengths, and they will either buckle, or break at the welds from side impacts.

4- pure insanity to suggest that the floors can arrest the weight of so many stories worth of weight. The floors can support 6/11 floors of weight, not 6/11 stories of building.

 

[Architect]

So, STILL no competent structural calculations from Heiwa. What a surprise!

 

[George 152]

But what if the ships are carrying lemmons?

Some-one would go to their ade ?

 

[Christopher7]

The core columns did not snap instantly and simultaneously, they would have buckled which takes a little time.

You're right, it took 52 minutes for the south tower, and 102 minutes for the north tower before the structural integrity was catastrophically impaired. The exterior columns were reportedly bowing inward long before the collapse of both buildings,

That does not explain how the core columns buckled fast enough to cause a near free fall collapse.

The collapse itself was sudden. i.e. The top section was not falling and then it suddenly was. The beginning of the near free fall drop was virtually instantaneous.

reports from aerial observers have noted that the north tower above the impact point was leaning, seems like a straight forward warning sign that the stability of the building is in question.

This also destroys Bazant's theory. His theory requires all the accumulated weight to be distributed evenly. This is especially relevant in the south tower which was leaning at about 22 degrees.

Bazant's theory requires all the accumulated weight be applied evenly to each successive floor.

Which ironically is as biased against collapse progression.

Quite the opposite.

He intentionally tries to offer the most ideal conditions that would have the best likely hood of collapse arrest

Quite the opposite.

his figures demonstrated that even in the most optimal scenario biased against collapse, the building still would have.

Double talk.
His figures demonstrated that even only in the most optimal scenario biased against for collapse, the building still would have [collapsed].

Where did you arrive at your figures?

I was quoting estimates I have seen. An OCT supporter estimated 95% but I think that is too high. It would be impossible to calculate how much debris was ejected up to 600 feet laterally but it was more than enough to destroy Bazant's theory.

 

[A W Smith]

Math, Data, Calculus, All strangers to Chris Sarns.

Double talk.
His figures demonstrated that even only in the most optimal scenario biased against for collapse, the building still would have [collapsed].

Yes that is double talk you are spewing there. Chris, why not get out your carpenters square and show us the rafter tables that tell you why as a carpenter you are more qualified than thousands of engineers who conclude that collapse was inevitable?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

That does not explain how the core columns buckled fast enough to cause a near free fall collapse.

Quite frankly the majority of the core was the last part to collapse in either structure. Outside of the failures which initiated the collapse most failures that progressed it were connections which were not designed for the loads they were subjected to, particularly dynamic loads which were far from typical of what they were able to carry.

The collapse itself was sudden. i.e. The top section was not falling and then it suddenly was. The beginning of the near free fall drop was virtually instantaneous.

I'm not sure what else one should expect when gravity finally overwhelms a structure that was significantly weakened by such an event. Regardless of which I've already stated, the reports of gradually worsening conditions, from both areal observation, and those looking up from ground level seeing the degradation of both the floors and the exterior structural members. When you see either it's generally a sign that you don't want to be near it.

This also destroys Bazant's theory. His theory requires all the accumulated weight to be distributed evenly. This is especially relevant in the south tower which was leaning at about 22 degrees.

The leaning actually adds another dynamic to the collapse, which is why Bazant's work should be considered relative to being done in favor of collapse arrest. When he assumes that the structure is falling square on itself; columns hit in perfect alignment it only applies a vertical component to the loads which conceptually would be taken by the lower section.

On the contrary, the real collapse wasn't so lenient -- the tilting of the upper section particularly with the south tower added a horizontal component to the loading, and in general the columns were never designed to take the force a building sideways. If you don't understand what I mean then you can use the aircraft impacts as a case in point; although they supported the vertical loads of the buildings without problems, the planes both managed to slam into them hard enough to dislodge them. You can apply this same example when talking about the collapse progression as well. The general principal I'm speaking of is the same.

Quite the opposite.

Quite the opposite.

Double talk.
His figures demonstrated that even only in the most optimal scenario biased against for collapse, the building still would have [collapsed].

See above

 

[NobbyNobbs]

Heiwa and Christopher7, may I please refer you to this thread?

 

[Christopher7]

Yes that is double talk you are spewing there. Chris, why not get out your carpenters square and show us the rafter tables that tell you why as a carpenter you are more qualified than thousands of engineers who conclude that collapse was inevitable?

I doesn't require any expertise to recognize that his theory requires all the accumulated weight to be applied evenly and the fact that most of the weight was ejected outside the building.

His theory does not work.

 

[Heiwa]

1- fairly accurate, but in the cores, all columns will slice into lower floors. The lowers columns will also slice into the uppers.

2- No, the descending columns will punch through the lower floors, and the lower columns will punch through the descending floors. And the descent will continue.

3- no, the descent will continue, columns will have long unbraced lengths, and they will either buckle, or break at the welds from side impacts.

4- pure insanity to suggest that the floors can arrest the weight of so many stories worth of weight. The floors can support 6/11 floors of weight, not 6/11 stories of building.

I am glad that you realise that upper part C does not impact lower part A as suggested by NIST, Bazant & Co.

I am also happy to see that you understand that part A structure will destroy part C structure. NIST, Bazant & Co suggest that part C remains intact on top of a layer of rubble and is destroyed in a crush up later.

It seems you do not understand the amount of energy is required to slice a floor. Asssuming a 0.5 m drop of part C (PE = 0.29 GJ) and that part C contacts, say, floor 97 and part A contacts floor 98, i.e. two floors must be sliced for part C to continue descending, in my view the local failures end there! Too little PE available. Just do proper structural damage analysis and you will find out yourself.

If you disagree and suggest there is enough PE available to slice 26 floors (13 in part C and 13 in part A - floors 84-97), after that part C is sliced in two, etc. and two outer walls of part C would have dropped down to ground outside WTC 1.

However, if you look at any video of WTC1 destruction you see that part C is completely destroyed prior to any destruction below floor 90 of part A. Read my paper!

 

[Christopher7]

Quite frankly the majority of the core was the last part to collapse in either structure. Outside of the failures which initiated the collapse most failures that progressed it were connections which were not designed for the loads they were subjected to, particularly dynamic loads which were far from typical of what they were able to carry.

That still does not explain how the core columns all failed fast enough to create a sudden, near free fall collapse.

The collapse itself was sudden. i.e. The top section was not falling and then it suddenly was. The beginning of the near free fall drop was virtually instantaneous.

I'm not sure what else one should expect when gravity finally overwhelms a structure that was significantly weakened by such an event. Regardless of which I've already stated, the reports of gradually worsening conditions, from both areal observation, and those looking up from ground level seeing the degradation of both the floors and the exterior structural members. When you see either it's generally a sign that you don't want to be near it.

It's the sudden transition from support to near free fall that we disagree on. There is no point in carrying this particular argument further. There are other points that are a mater of record.

The leaning actually adds another dynamic to the collapse,

Yes, only this 'dynamic' is incompatible with his theory.

Bazant's work should be considered relative to being done in favor of collapse arrest.

That is the result but not the original intent.

When he assumes that the structure is falling square on itself; columns hit in perfect alignment it only applies a vertical component to the loads which conceptually would be taken by the lower section.

That is a critical component without which his theory does not work.

the tilting of the upper section particularly with the south tower added a horizontal component to the loading, and in general the columns were never designed to take the force a building sideways.

You are ignoring the fact that the leaning top section is applying much more weight to one side than the other. This is not compatible with Bazant's theory which REQUIRES that the weight to be distributed evenly.

Bazant's theory REQUIRES that all the accumulated weight be applied evenly.

That is NOT what happened!

 

[KreeL]

Bazant does not appear to be much of a scientist.

I learned in the 5th grade that mass cannot fall through itself. What's his problem?

Edited to add if Bazant has discovered some new physics, then please let him show us his model for everyone to see.

Of course, he can't.

A closed model progressive global collapse is impossible. Of course NIST already knows this because all their physical models FAILED.

 

[R.Mackey]

Bazant does not appear to be much of a scientist.

I learned in the 5th grade that mass cannot fall through itself. What's his problem?

Dr. Bazant's bio includes elected chairmanships to prestigious engineering societies in the United States and abroad, and he has over 500 refereed articles to his credit. Yes, five hundred.

I retract the welcome I offered to you in a previous thread. I normally give three strikes, but I'll make an exception in your case. If you want to learn, stick around, but I have no patience for ignorant troublemakers.

 

[GlennB]

I learned in the 5th grade that mass cannot fall through itself.

I, for one, have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Can you explain?

 

[Hokulele]

I, for one, have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Can you explain?

Maybe it means supernovae are impossible? I am puzzled as well.

 

[GlennB]

Bump for Heiwa. You seem to be avoiding the questions.

You hated the question so much you create a diversion? Answer the question please. Can the smaller/lighter/more fragile object damage my skull or not? Does it help me to be standing on the shoulders of many other people? It seems to me that the impulse of the falling object may have fractured my skull well before the people at the bottom of the pyramid get stressed. IMPULSE. Have you studied this concept?


I asked whether a lighter/softer object can ever penetrate a heavier/harder object. I gave you two examples to consider and you ignored them. Answer the questions please.


I believe you have misunderstood Newton's third law. Dramatically.
In Newton's own words:

"If a horse draws a stone tied to a rope, the horse (if I may so say) will be equally drawn back towards the stone".

According to your interpretation, the horse can never move the stone. In reality, the maximum force the horse can exert may be greater than the stone's maximum resistance. In this case the horse wins according to F_horse - F_stone and the stone slides along. The horse could, also, haul this much extra before being stopped.

 

[KreeL]

Mackey, I must assume since you put up Bazant's bio, that you realize that Bazant is very familiar with nano-thermite research and applications? Wouldn't someone that was trying very hard to come up with new physics look to something he is more familiar with? Something, like perhaps, spray on nano-thermite that he was privy to in the nineties? Come to think of it, weren't the cores sprayed with 'fireproofing' not too long before 9/11? Couldn't the fireproofing had been something else? Something that would still be reacting with the steel beams in the debris piles for days, or even weeks afterwards?

The towers were deceptively destroyed. So find the deception.

 

[Baylor]

Someone's way too far down the rabbit hole.

ETA: If you're ripping off Kevin Ryan's nonsense......bad move.

 

[R.Mackey]

Mackey, I must assume since you put up Bazant's bio, that you realize that Bazant is very familiar with nano-thermite research and applications?

Nope. He's a structural engineer, not a metals chemist.

Wouldn't someone that was trying very hard to come up with new physics look to something he is more familiar with?

Nobody is trying to come up with new physics, except the folks on your side.

Something, like perhaps, spray on nano-thermite that he was privy to in the nineties?

"Spray-on nano-thermite" makes absolutely no sense, and he had no reason to study it.

You're a very strange person. In your last post, you say he's no scientist, which is utterly ridiculous. Now you appear to be blaming him for the nonexistent mysterious plot that you imagine. What do you have against the guy? Did he trample your fantasy and make you bitter, or what?

Come to think of it, weren't the cores sprayed with 'fireproofing' not too long before 9/11?

Nope. Only select locations, and only one of two towers saw an overlap with the collapse zone.

Couldn't the fireproofing had been something else? Something that would still be reacting with the steel beams in the debris piles for days, or even weeks afterwards?

"Nano-thermite" reacts very, very fast. It cannot be what you're looking for.

The towers were deceptively destroyed. So find the deception.

No, they weren't. Bare Assertion Fallacy. Sorry, you've been misled.