Moderated Steel structures cannot globally collapse due to gravity alone

[twinstead]

This is Bazant's theory. He has to come up with the numbers and justify how he arrived at those numbers. Posting a formula isn't proof of anything.
How many tons of steel was ejected? Provide a number.
How far was it ejected? Provide a number.
How do you get all that kinetic energy to make a 90 degree turn?

Until Bazant answers these questions, his hypothesis is incomplete.

No, you mean until Bazant answers those questions, in your opinion his hypothesis is incomplete. Sadly for you but thankfully for rational people, in the real world your opinion is an ABJECT minority and not worth the paper it's printed on.

 

[A W Smith]

• Yea, a bunch of sheep that will believe anything their government tells them.

all the worlds engineers are sheep? and you assert this because you are,, an old carpenter??

This is Bazant's theory. He has to come up with the numbers and justify how he arrived at those numbers. Posting a formula isn't proof of anything.

Yes, Yes it is.

How many tons of steel was ejected? Provide a number.
How far was it ejected? Provide a number.
How do you get all that kinetic energy to make a 90 degree turn?
Until Bazant answers these questions, his hypothesis is incomplete.

you have no evidence that such a 90 degree turn occurred, False assertion noted. As has been explained to you many times before and is clearly visible in scores of videos, The perimeter peeled away. It is logical and expected that some sections of a perimeter wall a quarter mile high will collapse and tumble outward up to 5 or 6 hundred feet away when all connections to the interior structure are sheared off. this surprised no one and was not needed to be explained by calculations.

 

[Heiwa]

Heiwa, Are you expecting all the steel to drop straight down?

Yes, steel, wood, everything. Only one way! Down! It is not what I expect. It's just like that. Don't blame me. Drop is fall by gravity and as far as Newton is concerned, it is in the down direction. I like Newton. Of course, in NWO physics you and loose steel pieces fall in line with what is politically correct. It may be anywhere. Hollywood will assist, if you are in doubt. Then you have to consider national security. But that's secret. And social security, if you have it. Bazant's paper is a typical result of NWO gravity. It presents what's politically correct for the moment. That's why Bazant has changed his paper three times under some sort of peer review. He is working on the fourth one right now and it will soon be dropped. Where?

 

[GStan]

• Yea, a bunch of sheep that will believe anything their government tells them.

Translation: I have no refutation to offer so I'll name call. Nice.

True

This is Bazant's theory. He has to come up with the numbers and justify how he arrived at those numbers. Posting a formula isn't proof of anything.
How many tons of steel was ejected? Provide a number.
How far was it ejected? Provide a number.
How do you get all that kinetic energy to make a 90 degree turn?

Until Bazant answers these questions, his hypothesis is incomplete.

Translation: I don't feel like/I'm incapable of doing any work so I'll pretend like the burden of proof is not on me. Nice.

 

[Christopher7]

Ever shattered something with a hammer? bits go in all directions.

A hammer big enough to send 4 ton 'bits' up to 600 feet in all directions the top of the tower was not.

Ever hammered a wedge in between 2 blocks? blocks move 90 degrees to the applied force.

Yes, but I've never been able to get a 4 ton steel framing section to even budge, much less fly 600 feet.

Ever played on a see saw when you were a kid? oops, that's a 180 degree turn.

No that's the fulcrum-leverage principle which does not apply here.

You ask how a force/movement/momentum or whatever in one direction can give rise to movement in other directions, there you go but i guess in your world none of those things happen.

I have seen not an elephant, a pig or 4 ton steel framing section fly.

Silly simile central!

Get serious.

There is NO mechanism that can account for numerous 4 ton framework sections traveling up to 600 feet laterally except explosives.

No one here has provided anything that can explain this "anomaly".
Bazant did not explain how this occurred.
Greening did not explain how this occurred.
Because they and you preclude to only possible answer from the get go.

 

[alexi_drago]

Hmmm, how would Newton explain this Heiwa?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kl0d06dQPgE

 

[Heiwa]

The force imparted by the falling upper block accounts for both air and steel ejection.

Stop! According Bazant, opus III, 2008, the force is applied by a thick layer of rubble, part B! The upper part C, not block, is just riding the rubble! The rubble has density 1.025 according Bazant (if you do it 3-D)! Part C has density 0.255.

Can anyone explain how rubble can (1) compress air and (2) eject steel? I can't.

But do not worry! Bazant opus IV is on its way. Enjoy the music. It is terrible but Kapellmeister Obama is now waving the stick!

 

[e^n]

• Yea, a bunch of sheep that will believe anything their government tells them.

Degreed and experienced engineers. If you want to believe these are sheep then you better explain why the non US ones are also subservient to the US Government.

True

If this is true, why are your next questions these:

How many tons of steel was ejected? Provide a number.
How far was it ejected? Provide a number.

The answers to these questions are different for each section of steel which was ejected. Bazant does not address each individually as this would be a monumental amount of work with no hope of accuracy which has no place in a limiting case scenario.

This is Bazant's theory. He has to come up with the numbers and justify how he arrived at those numbers. Posting a formula isn't proof of anything.

READ THE PAPER.

How do you get all that kinetic energy to make a 90 degree turn?

How did the energy from your weight 'turn' 90 degrees and push out sandwich spread? The answer is the same for the towers.

Until Bazant answers these questions, his hypothesis is incomplete.

I don't think you've understood what I have written. Do you understand what a limiting case is?

Stop! According Bazant, opus III, 2008, the force is applied by a thick layer of rubble, part B! The upper part C, not block, is just riding the rubble! The rubble has density 1.025 according Bazant (if you do it 3-D)! Part C has density 0.255.

This is true, but irrelevant to the discussion I was having.

Can anyone explain how rubble can (1) compress air and (2) eject steel? I can't.

It is perfectly capable of applying force to an object it hits. Ever poured something like gravel? That's essentially rubble, and apples a hell of a lot of force.

A hammer big enough to send 4 ton 'bits' up to 600 feet in all directions the top of the tower was not.

[citation-needed]

 

[Quad4_72]

Stop! According Bazant, opus III, 2008, the force is applied by a thick layer of rubble, part B! The upper part C, not block, is just riding the rubble! The rubble has density 1.025 according Bazant (if you do it 3-D)! Part C has density 0.255.

Can anyone explain how rubble can (1) compress air and (2) eject steel? I can't.

But do not worry! Bazant opus IV is on its way. Enjoy the music. It is terrible but Kapellmeister Obama is now waving the stick!

Why do you say such silly things Heiwa?

 

[NobbyNobbs]

Without this critical information their theories are incomplete and they don't work.

His theory is therefore incomplete and is not an explanation for the collapse of the towers.

First of all, a theory does not need to be complete to be correct. Newton's theory of gravity was not complete. It took Einstein to fill it out. But with the exception of some extreme cases, it explains things very well.

"incomplete" <> "wrong".

What makes it go sideways instead of down?

Where does it explain how downward energy is converted into horizontal energy?

You left out one little detail, how do you get all that energy to make a 90 degree turn?

I'm a little amazed you haven't figured this out. I've known how to turn a vertical force into a horizontal movement since I was about 4 years old.

 

[Wolrab]

What is the big deal about ejections? A hunk of steel that is falling hits something else that causes the falling piece to have a horizontal element to its fall. Doesn't it fall the rest of the way down in a parabola that will take it some distance from were it would have hit if it fell unimpeded? It is not like it was blown out 600 feet then fell straight down. Is it?

 

[GStan]

A hammer big enough to send 4 ton 'bits' up to 600 feet in all directions the top of the tower was not.

Appeal to ignorance, and not even a good one. Yes a buidling section weighing fifty thousand tons makes a good hammer against a 4 ton bit of column. Fail.

Yes, but I've never been able to get a 4 ton steel framing section to even budge, much less fly 600 feet.

Appeal to ignorance, and not even a good one. Do you really try to regularly move 4 ton sections of steel framing like this? Did your wedge/axehead weigh 50,000 tons? No? Ok. Fail again.

No that's the fulcrum-leverage principle which does not apply here.

I have seen not an elephant, a pig or 4 ton steel framing section fly.

You haven't? How did they get 600 feet away from the building then? Your self contradiction, even with simple analogies is embarrassing.

Silly simile central!

Get serious.

There is NO mechanism that can account for numerous 4 ton framework sections traveling up to 600 feet laterally except explosives.

No one here has provided anything that can explain this "anomaly".
Bazant did not explain how this occurred.
Greening did not explain how this occurred.
Because they and you preclude to only possible answer from the get go.

It is self explanatory by the energy released. You are completely unqualified to claim otherwise. Further, your own claim is completely unsupported by anything other than the fact that you made it up. Do you have any examples that you can point to of explosives from inside a building ejecting a section of steel framing an equivalent distance away from a structure? Was this the first time in history this happened? Aren't you on record in another thread using a "first time in history argument" in support of a claim? Have you calculated how much explosives would be required to eject the pieces this far? Would the explosives have to have been placed on EVERY column tree that landed outside the footprint of the building? If yes, how much is the total? If no, why not, and how did those particular column sections get outside the footprint without the aid of explosives?

If one accepts the premise that you are correct, and that even a carpenter who knows absolutely nothing about skyscraper engineering or demolition can figure out that explosives are absolutely the ONLY explanation for these ejections, why the **** would the conspirators explode them in the only manner possible that gives away the plot? WTF? Why not strategically place the explosives so the columns fall inside the footprint? It's not like they don't know how, given that EVERY CD IN HISTORY HAS BEEN DONE THIS WAY. I can't figure out which is more retarded, these claims of evidence of the conspiracy or the alleged conspirators who carried them out.

 

[GlennB]

What is the big deal about ejections? A hunk of steel that is falling hits something else that causes the falling piece to have a horizontal element to its fall. Doesn't it fall the rest of the way down in a parabola that will take it some distance from were it would have hit if it fell unimpeded? It is not like it was blown out 600 feet then fell straight down. Is it?

Exactly. And it doesn't even need to start with an entire 90° change of direction.

Seems like months ago that Chris7 and Heiwa were spouting the same nonsense. They were invited to drop pencils, knives or whatever on the edge of a table and look for a horizontal component to the resulting fall. Seems like they haven't had time since then to try a 10 second experiment that would instantly disprove their other-wordly claims.

Bizarre. Utterly bizarre.

 

[Wolrab]

Thanks. Case closed.

 

[Furcifer]

This was true in the UK (after the Ronan Point collapse), and in some other countries, but not in the US, where codes requiring "structural integrity" were in place, but progressive collapse wasn't specifically addressed. The principle, of course, was well known and studied by engineers around the world. There's a section with papers about engineering to resist progressive collapse at my website.

Here in Canada it was discussed in the 1995 or 1996 Vancouver building code, as well as the National Building Code of Canada 1995, if I remember correctly. As you've pointed out the principle was well known even if not reflected in US building code at the time.

 

[RevDisturba]

Just for the sake of accuracy, Rev: The jet fuel burnt out rather quickly; estimates are as low as 4 and as high as 14-some minutes. The source of heat that's responsible for the thermal expansions and sagging has been demonstrated to be the office contents and flammable building components (drywall, etc.) burning.

But yes, I do see your point. It's ridiculous to propose some external element like thermite being present where there were already myriad other fuels available.

Yes I agree. I have seen a wood fire melt a steel I beam into a U shape over a heavy wood beam. The temps don't have to exceed a thousand three hundred degrees to severely damage the steel superstructure.

; {>

 

[Sunstealer]

all the worlds engineers are sheep? and you assert this because you are,, an old carpenter??

I'm sorry but I had to rip this off. Took 5 mins, but it amused me (oh such a small mind).

If I Were a Carpenter

If I were a carpenter
And you were a sheeple,
Would you marry me anyway?
Would you have my people?

If a tinker were my trade
would you still find me,
Carrying the thermite I made (up),
Following behind me.

Save my love through stupidness,
Save my love for sorrow,
I'm given you my online-address,
Come give your tomorrow.

If I worked my hands in wood,
Would you still love me?
Answer me shill, "Yes I would,
I'll put reason above me."

If I were a miller
at a mill wheel grinding,
would you miss your reasoning skill,
and your soft shoe shining?

If I were a carpenter
and you were a debunker,
Would you marry me anyway?
Would you wake from your slumber?
Would you marry anyway?
Would you add to our number?

Massive apologies to Tim Hardin.

This in no way reflects my thoughts regarding Carpenters or the pop group "The Carpenters" or carpentry in general.

 

[Christopher7]

Degreed and experienced engineers. If you want to believe these are sheep then you better explain why the non US ones are also subservient to the US Government.

Please list the engineers who have endorsed Bazant's paper.

How many tons of steel was ejected? Provide a number.
How far was it ejected? Provide a number.

The answers to these questions are different for each section of steel which was ejected. Bazant does not address each individually as this would be a monumental amount of work with no hope of accuracy which has no place in a limiting case scenario.

He does not address the ejected material at all. [except in the air pressure section]

READ THE PAPER.

I read the paper. It is theoretical, not factual. It proves nothing.

How do you get all that kinetic energy to make a 90 degree turn?

How did the energy from your weight 'turn' 90 degrees and push out sandwich spread? The answer is the same for the towers.

That is not a serious answer.

Until Bazant answers these questions, his hypothesis is incomplete.

I don't think you've understood what I have written. Do you understand what a limiting case is?

Theoretical, incomplete, does not consider all the relevant factors, dose not actually "do the math" and provide data that can be verified, just provides equations.

 

[KreeL]

Personally, I'm just waiting on the Great Bazant's model to prove to the world that indeed a closed model total progressive collapse is possible....MINUS the foot of God, of course.

 

[e^n]

Please list the engineers who have endorsed Bazant's paper.

It was recently published in (if I get the title right) the Journal of Engineering Mechanics. Surely this suffices?

He does not address the ejected material at all. [except in the air pressure section]

So he does address the ejected material then? In fact he addresses it in a section entitled "Resisting Forces Due to Ejecting Air and Solids" (bolding mine). Why must you mislead us?

I read the paper. It is theoretical, not factual. It proves nothing.

What a silly response, and characteristic of someone who is unable to accept a reality. I'm sure to you, Newton, Einstein and Hawking produce only theoretical papers which say nothing about reality. Of course this is not true and in all cases the theory describes a physical reality which can be tested.

For example, the equation for Kinetic Energy is [latex]K_e = \frac{1}{2} m v^2[/latex] .. Can you remember the equation i showed you for mass shedding before? Do you understand now why it is so simple to understand for someone with even a small amount of experience?

That is not a serious answer.

Because it is not a serious question. If you cannot explain to me how you can cause a soft material to eject at 90 degrees from two solid plates, how in the world do you expect me to explain to you how mass was ejected in a large progressive collapse?

I gave you an experiment to do to verify that this occurs, did you do it?

Theoretical, incomplete, does not consider all the relevant factors, dose not actually "do the math" and provide data that can be verified, just provides equations.

You are in denial. Seek help.