Moderated Steel structures cannot globally collapse due to gravity alone

[tfk]

bill,

Maybe it was the thicker 3/8'' thick steel. Even more amazing hat the plane cpould fly through 33 of those wasn't it ?

Maybe your guesswork is still wrong.

Maybe you ought to learn to be the slightest bit rigorous.

Maybe the exercise of putting out a little bit of effort and finding out the actual dimensions would give you a bit of appreciation of the effort involved for people who provide ANSWERS. Rather than the pompous ease with which some pompous idiots ask inane questions. And then petulently demand answers.

Even more amazing hat the plane cpould fly through 33 of those wasn't it ?

Is EVERYONE misdirected by bill's change of subject away from his failure to provide the dimensions of the parts in question?

tk

 

[GlennB]

... If you cannot then we can assume that 'springing out' played little or no part in the powerful ejection of columns at up to 70mph....

The initial speed calculations are not so difficult, Bill. Microsoft Excel is your friend here. For a first approximation you can ignore air resistance.

Consider various heights when the object was ejected. Put them in your spreadsheet.
Calculate the time it would take to hit the ground for each starting height (some very basic physics required here. You can look it up easily.).
Calculate what initial horizontal speed it would then require to travel various horizontal distances from its original height during its fall. You could use, say, 200', 300', 400', 500' for the horizontal 'range'. You won't even need to fret about acceleration here, as we're just considering the horizontal component of its travel.

Let us know what you find.

p.s. "up to 90mph" is like a shop sale claiming "up to 50% off all prices". This clearly includes 0% and shouldn't impress anybody.

 

[bill smith]

There is no implied apology. You've made it perfectly clear that you're arguing from a basis of utter ignorance of any engineering principles, and that your response to being called upon to justify your statements is to refer them to an incompetent liar. Any statement you make that turns out to be correct is therefore only so by coincidence, just as a stopped watch is right twice a day. You're a fraud, and not worth anyone's attention.

Dave

I have never seen you debunk Heiwa once despite your efforts to do so.. So who is the incompetent ?

I am a layman but I am not especially impressed by engineers who I suspect of having an agenda. I find Heiwa manages to keep things pretty much in layman's terms. Many people including myself understand basic engineering principles and frequently that is all that's needed. Having Heiwa on hand is useful as you have just experienced and the rest of us have seen and noted..

 

[Dave Rogers]

I have never seen you debunk Heiwa once despite your efforts to do so.

Then you haven't been looking.

ETA: I just realised why this statement is absurd. You've made it perfectly clear that you have no engineering understanding of your own, but that you regard Heiwa as a reliable authority on engineering matters . Therefore, if anyone disagrees with Heiwa, you'll believe them to be wrong because they disagree with Heiwa. In the circumstances, everything Heiwa says could be wrong, and you'd be incapable of recognising it. Therefore, your statement is a circular argument.

I am a layman but I am not especially impressed by engineers who I suspect of having an agenda.

Heiwa has the self-confessed agenda of convincing people that the Twin Towers were demolished by a conspiracy within the US government. Didn't you really mean "I am not especially impressed by engineers who I suspect of not sharing my agenda"?

Dave

 

[tfk]

Dave,

Allow me to introduce the REAL "bill smith".

Well, as Teddy knows I'm not one to rub salt in the wounds. Your withdrawal and implied apology iis accepted and we'll say no more about it.

So box-column-springing is ruled out- Anyone for tiddley-winks ?

He's actually been on his "good boy" behavior up until this post. Now the strutting begins...

Bill might actually be convinced that "he showed you!". I can't really say whether he is stupid enough to really believe that. Or simply dishonest enough to claim it while not believing it.

After awhile, it doesn't matter, of course.

But this whole discussion is a perfect example of what he portrays as "just asking questions and honestly looking for answers".

Demonstrating his real allegiance to the truth, billy's other tactics include the rampant use of sock-puppetry, his adamant refusal to read what NIST or MIT or Purdue engineers say about any subject (they are ALL shills), and a constant reliance on YouTubeology, internet polls and political arguments to arrive at engineering conclusions.

They call it a "Truth Movement"...??

tk

 

[GlennB]

I have never seen you debunk Heiwa once despite your efforts to do so.. So who is the incompetent ?
..

Isn't Heiwa the bloke who claimed that even if the top WTC sections had fallen 2 miles onto the lower sections, then collapse would still have been arrested? Ah yes. That's the fellow.

 

[bill smith]

Dave,

Allow me to introduce the REAL "bill smith".



He's actually been on his "good boy" behavior up until this post. Now the strutting begins...

Bill might actually be convinced that "he showed you!". I can't really say whether he is stupid enough to really believe that. Or simply dishonest enough to claim it while not believing it.

After awhile, it doesn't matter, of course.

But this whole discussion is a perfect example of what he portrays as "just asking questions and honestly looking for answers".

Demonstrating his real allegiance to the truth, billy's other tactics include the rampant use of sock-puppetry, his adamant refusal to read what NIST or MIT or Purdue engineers say about any subject (they are ALL shills), and a constant reliance on YouTubeology, internet polls and political arguments to arrive at engineering conclusions.

They call it a "Truth Movement"...??

tk

Not the sock puppets again Teddy surely ? What will people think ? You will bring shame on the folks back home . It's true that I only use NIST or Purdue for figures and ignore their pronouncements mostly.

If I clearly succeeed in an argument I rarely put the knife in afterwards when I could easily do so. You know this better than anybody having been brought down yourself many many times. (I may even have examples filed somewhere)

 

[tfk]

bill,

I have never seen you debunk Heiwa once despite your efforts to do so..

You are neither competent enough nor honest enough to make that judgment.

So who is the incompetent ?

You are.

I am a layman but I am not especially impressed by engineers who I suspect of having an agenda.

Please name me ONE engineer who does not subscribe to twooferism, that you do NOT suspect of "having an agenda".

Name me ONE of the engineers that DO believe in twooferism (such as the folks at ae911t) who you DO suspect of "having an agenda".

Do you see a pattern...?

I find Heiwa manages to keep things pretty much in layman's terms. Many people including myself understand basic engineering principles and frequently that is all that's needed. Having Heiwa on hand is useful as you have just experienced and the rest of us have seen and noted..

... including yourself, who "understands engineering principles"...?? Again, billy, I've longgiven up any attempt to determine whether or not you really believe this. Be WELL assured: You don't.

"Having Heiwa on hand is useful as you have just experienced..." Well, since he has been utterly absent from our recent "experiences", we can say with assurance that he has made far fewer errors than he normally does.

"... the rest of us have seen and noted." Under normal circumstances, billy would step back at this point, and a legion of "billy supporters" would magically appear. And in one clamorous voice, proclaim him the victor in this recent debate. He would then step forward and gratefully acknowledge and accept the accolades and admiration of the throngs of ... well, of himself.

Fortunately, JREF requires registration, which limits this sock-puppet spectacle. Trust me, the contortions that bill executes as he lovingly smooches his own butt put the Cirque de Soleil to shame.

tk

 

[bill smith]

bill,



You are neither competent enough nor honest enough to make that judgment.



You are.



Please name me ONE engineer who does not subscribe to twooferism, that you do NOT suspect of "having an agenda".

Name me ONE of the engineers that DO believe in twooferism (such as the folks at ae911t) who you DO suspect of "having an agenda".

Do you see a pattern...?



... including yourself, who "understands engineering principles"...?? Again, billy, I've longgiven up any attempt to determine whether or not you really believe this. Be WELL assured: You don't.

"Having Heiwa on hand is useful as you have just experienced..." Well, since he has been utterly absent from our recent "experiences", we can say with assurance that he has made far fewer errors than he normally does.

"... the rest of us have seen and noted." Under normal circumstances, billy would step back at this point, and a legion of "billy supporters" would magically appear. And in one clamorous voice, proclaim him the victor in this recent debate. He would then step forward and gratefully acknowledge and accept the accolades and admiration of the throngs of ... well, of himself.

Fortunately, JREF requires registration, which limits this sock-puppet spectacle. Trust me, the contortions that bill executes as he lovingly smooches his own butt put the Cirque de Soleil to shame.

tk

When I said 'having an agenda' I was being polite. You should see it more as a euphemism in this context.

 

[GStan]

Not the sock puppets again Teddy surely ? What will people think ? You will bring shame on the folks back home . It's true that I only use NIST or Purdue for figures and ignore their pronouncements mostly.

If I clearly succeeed in an argument I rarely put the knife in afterwards when I could easily do so. You know this better than anybody having been brought down yourself many many times. (I may even have examples filed somewhere)

Please provide evidence of the implied claim that you have ever succeeded in an argument.

 

[bill smith]

Please provide evidence of the implied claim that you have ever succeeded in an argument.

Follow todays posts between Dave and me and you will get the picture....or not, according to your orientation.

 

[DGM]

Then you haven't been looking.

ETA: I just realised why this statement is absurd. You've made it perfectly clear that you have no engineering understanding of your own, but that you regard Heiwa as a reliable authority on engineering matters . Therefore, if anyone disagrees with Heiwa, you'll believe them to be wrong because they disagree with Heiwa. In the circumstances, everything Heiwa says could be wrong, and you'd be incapable of recognising it. Therefore, your statement is a circular argument.



Dave

Why do you think Heiwa produces his "papers" for children? (that was a rhetorical question)

 

[GStan]

Follow todays posts between Dave and me and you will get the picture....or not, according to your orientation.

I have. The fail is dripping so heavily from every sentence you type that it is leaking out of my monitor onto the desk. Any other examples?

ETA: you don't have to respond, it's off-topic anyway.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Follow todays posts between Dave and me and you will get the picture....or not, according to your orientation.

Since you were never aware at any point what the argument was even about, your implication that you won something is amusing. What you've done so far is (a) demonstrate that you're incompetent to make an informed judgement on engineering matters, and (b) openly and proudly proclaim your explicit confirmation bias. You're now adding to that a public demonstration of your lack of self-awareness.

Now, on to debunking Heiwa. His calculations of the potential energy transferred to elastic deformation energy in the lower structure, as presented on his website, are incorrect even with the assumptions he himself makes about the elastic deformation of the lower structure. Firstly, he claims that half the potential energy of the falling block is lost to friction and inelastic deformation of the collapsed storey. He makes no attempt to calculate the loss to friction, and in his assumptions the storey has already collapsed and so cannot absorb potential energy. He then claims that the elastic energy stored in the spring is equal to the kinetic energy of the upper block at the moment of impact, ignoring the fact that the upper block continues to release potential energy as it compresses the spring, which must also be transferred into elastic energy. As a result, he underestimates the energy transferred into structural deformation by at least a factor of two. Putting the correct numbers into the calculations results in the strain of the entire structure exceeding the elastic limit of steel. When this was pointed out to Heiwa, he initially lied about his calculation of the spring energy, then claimed that nobody had made any adverse comments on his paper by e-mail, then that he would not reply to any comment except a request for clarification, then claimed that he had never seen the criticism despite the fact that he had replied to the post in which it was made, editing it as he did so.

This is your never-debunked source with no agenda.

Dave

 

[bill smith]

I have. The fail is dripping so heavily from every sentence you type that it is leaking out of my monitor onto the desk. Any other examples?

ETA: you don't have to respond, it's off-topic anyway.

You wanna get one of those new drip-free monitors. Much less mess.

 

[GStan]

Since you were never aware at any point what the argument was even about, your implication that you won something is amusing. What you've done so far is (a) demonstrate that you're incompetent to make an informed judgement on engineering matters, and (b) openly and proudly proclaim your explicit confirmation bias. You're now adding to that a public demonstration of your lack of self-awareness.

Now, on to debunking Heiwa. His calculations of the potential energy transferred to elastic deformation energy in the lower structure, as presented on his website, are incorrect even with the assumptions he himself makes about the elastic deformation of the lower structure. Firstly, he claims that half the potential energy of the falling block is lost to friction and inelastic deformation of the collapsed storey. He makes no attempt to calculate the loss to friction, and in his assumptions the storey has already collapsed and so cannot absorb potential energy. He then claims that the elastic energy stored in the spring is equal to the kinetic energy of the upper block at the moment of impact, ignoring the fact that the upper block continues to release potential energy as it compresses the spring, which must also be transferred into elastic energy. As a result, he underestimates the energy transferred into structural deformation by at least a factor of two. Putting the correct numbers into the calculations results in the strain of the entire structure exceeding the elastic limit of steel. When this was pointed out to Heiwa, he initially lied about his calculation of the spring energy, then claimed that nobody had made any adverse comments on his paper by e-mail, then that he would not reply to any comment except a request for clarification, then claimed that he had never seen the criticism despite the fact that he had replied to the post in which it was made, editing it as he did so.

This is your never-debunked source with no agenda.

Dave

And that doesn't even mention the fact that he believes pizza boxes, scales, lemons, sponges and ships are all appropriate for analagous comparisions to the World Trade Center. Even a never-debunked source might just be a never-needed-to-be-debunked source in never-debunked source's clothing.

 

[bill smith]

Since you were never aware at any point what the argument was even about, your implication that you won something is amusing. What you've done so far is (a) demonstrate that you're incompetent to make an informed judgement on engineering matters, and (b) openly and proudly proclaim your explicit confirmation bias. You're now adding to that a public demonstration of your lack of self-awareness.

Now, on to debunking Heiwa. His calculations of the potential energy transferred to elastic deformation energy in the lower structure, as presented on his website, are incorrect even with the assumptions he himself makes about the elastic deformation of the lower structure. Firstly, he claims that half the potential energy of the falling block is lost to friction and inelastic deformation of the collapsed storey. He makes no attempt to calculate the loss to friction, and in his assumptions the storey has already collapsed and so cannot absorb potential energy. He then claims that the elastic energy stored in the spring is equal to the kinetic energy of the upper block at the moment of impact, ignoring the fact that the upper block continues to release potential energy as it compresses the spring, which must also be transferred into elastic energy. As a result, he underestimates the energy transferred into structural deformation by at least a factor of two. Putting the correct numbers into the calculations results in the strain of the entire structure exceeding the elastic limit of steel. When this was pointed out to Heiwa, he initially lied about his calculation of the spring energy, then claimed that nobody had made any adverse comments on his paper by e-mail, then that he would not reply to any comment except a request for clarification, then claimed that he had never seen the criticism despite the fact that he had replied to the post in which it was made, editing it as he did so.

This is your never-debunked source with no agenda.

Dave

Very interesting Dave. But do you assume that the core columns holding up Part C were severed or intact ? If severed what force severed them ? If not where did its kinetic energy come from ?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Very interesting Dave. But do you assume that the core columns holding up Part C were severed or intact ? If severed what force severed them ? If not where did its kinetic energy come from ?

Evasion noted.

(1) Obviously, at some point they were severed, because the Twin Towers are no longer standing. I'd like to see a hypothesis by which the upper block could have fallen while the core columns supporting it remained intact. Simple geometry suggests that this is a stupid question.
(2) Gravity. This isn't an answer to the question "By what process were they severed," but since you haven't asked that, I won't bother addressing it yet
(3) Meaningless, as they were severed.

Dave

 

[bill smith]

Evasion noted.

(1) Obviously, at some point they were severed, because the Twin Towers are no longer standing. I'd like to see a hypothesis by which the upper block could have fallen while the core columns supporting it remained intact. Simple geometry suggests that this is a stupid question.
(2) Gravity. This isn't an answer to the question "By what process were they severed," but since you haven't asked that, I won't bother addressing it yet
(3) Meaningless, as they were severed.

Dave

So the core columns were severed ? Like in cut or in torn ? If torn then the columns must have knelt to apply the appropriate force to tear them surely ? Would that kneeling not have walked block C out of alignment with the lower columns and walls as well as causing all the walls to visibly buckle prior to collapse initiation ?

 

[Christopher7]

You are ignoring the point which is:
Bazant does NOT explain what ejected the large steel pieces or how much energy it took.

I have already given you an answer for both,

No, you have not

Bazant says large steel pieces were ejected at velocity z˙.

He does NOT say what ejected them.

He does not give a value for z˙.

The BLBG paper clearly examines a wide range of criteria for mass ejected and energy used.

The wide range does not specify how far the large steel pieces were ejected. It only explains how the absence of that material affected the crushing mass.

Bazant admits that his 1 dimensional model does NOT explain the collapse of the south tower.

Pg 13
The high tilt seen on the South Tower top (about 25_ after 4 seconds of fall, NIST 2005) would call for a three-dimensional model of progressive collapse. Why does the one dimensional model give nonetheless a reasonably good match? Probably because the crushing front of compacted debris tends to develop a flat front once it becomes thick enough (Fig. 6e). However, to answer this question fully, a three-dimensional analysis would be required.




NIST did NOT explain how the towers collapsed.


Bazant did NOT explain how the towers collapsed.