Moderated Steel structures cannot globally collapse due to gravity alone

[Furcifer]

Actually, you do not need math to prove it. Just common sense.

No, you need math. Without out it you have nothing. That's how things work.

 

[Architect]

So if that really happened, part C would be sliced in two parts by part A from below. No crush down of part A by part C. No, a real upper cut from below of part C by part A.

But, rest assured. There is to little potential energy involved. Part C will just get stuck up on top on part A.

Because - steel structures cannot globally collapse or, rather, be crushed down due to gravity alone when you drop a small part of the structure on the remainder below!

I just said it in message #1 of this thread and nobody seems to able to prove it is wrong.

With respect, this is just plain wrong.

Firstly - as has been pointed out to you many, many times - the towers employed a compiste structural system wherein the outer envelope, floors, inner core, and hat trusses acted together to ensure overall stability. A failure of any one of these therefore affects the stability of the overall structure. Your model assumes that each section is structurally stable (barring the fall itself and the immediate crush zone), which is patently not the case.

Secondly, and very closely linked to this, you continually refer to intact sections outwith the collapse and crush zones without ever demonstrating that the columns and beams - for this is what you focus on - are capable of accepting the loads without further failure.

Thirdly, you have been challenged numerous times to produce competent structural calculations in the face of what is best described as scathing criticism of your generalisations. You have failed to do so. That does not qualify as "not being able to prove you wrong". Rather, you have wholly failed to prove yourself correct.

 

[BigAl]

So you missed my paper at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm ? Actually, you do not need math to prove it. Just common sense.

Common sense fails for something that is several orders of magnitude larger than things people normally get to play with, pizza boxes for example, and where square laws and cube laws apply to the masses and forces involved in the full scale version.

 

[beachnut]

... Just common sense. ...

Because - steel structures cannot globally collapse or, rather, be crushed down due to gravity alone when you drop a small part of the structure on the remainder below!

I just said it in message #1 of this thread and nobody seems to able to prove it is wrong.

Einstein said,

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.”

Next time use physics and you will find your conclusion is false.

Your statement of no steel building collapsing was proven wrong on 911. You can't say common sense is your tool and state false statements of steel structures can't globally collapse as seen on 911. It is irony your ideas were proven wrong with a full-scale model WTC on 911 with real murdering terrorists flying two planes at 470 and 590 mph with impact energies of 2,800,000,000 joules and 4,380,000,000 joules. Reality of fire’s effects on steel make your common sense approach not very scientific.

Your use of common sense and kids jumping on beds as your model of the non-collapse of the WTC is fantasy as the rest of the world uses physics and engineering.

The reason your paper is not rational is due to your initial setup which is not even common sense but nonsense.
Try to compress a lemon with another lemon. What happens? Both lemons compress.

Heiwa says, as he lays the ground work for his logic?

Now you have learnt a little what can happen when you drop anything on something and try to compress something. This basic knowledge is used in this paper.

Due to the fact your paper was rejected for publication by all legitimate engineering journals around the world, what will you do next with your non-scientific paper?

 

[Christopher7]

Once the top section tipped enough it broke free - correct?

Or do the columns magically stay connected?

No they don't. They will no doubt offset somewhat. On one side the columns might move in a little and put the weight on the floor but the other side would move outside the perimeter and remove a great deal of weight from the impacted floor. The core columns would be applying almost all their weight inside the core.

The theory is all about floors impacting floors and that would not happen all at once.

 

[L The Detective]

A child can see WTC 7 fall straight down at near free fall [actual free fall for the first 105 feet].

Christopher, I have heard you use this expression several times. It's an expression I've heard other conspiracy theorists use, and I find that interesting. It seems like the point you are trying to make is that, if we just used common sense, we'd be able to see things your way. Have I got that right?

You've admitted that you are not an expert in engineering or physics, or any of these things... in this thread, there are actual experts in these things exerting a lot of energy trying to explain where your conclusions are in error. But you seem to feel like you have a better grasp of the science than they do.

Why are you so certain about your conclusions? Is it all because of "common sense?" Do you truly think that common sense is infallible? In your mind, is there any possiblity that common sense can be wrong?

(Please believe me when I say that I am not trying to make a fool out of you or corner you with logic. I am sincerely curious about the answer to this question.)

 

[Dave Rogers]

Because - steel structures cannot globally collapse or, rather, be crushed down due to gravity alone when you drop a small part of the structure on the remainder below!

Heiwa, since your common sense analysis doesn't refer in any way to the properties of steel, would you claim that this is true of any structure, or just of steel structures? If the latter, what's fundamentally different about steel structures that renders them immune to collapse when other structures aren't? Simple language and common sense analysis will do fine.

Dave

 

[tfk]

chris,

What I can do is present arguments that the 4 ton frame sections could not be ripped apart and hurled up to 500 feet laterally by a falling building or debris.

"... arguments ..."? Yes.

"... arguments that are the slightest bit convincing..."? Nope. Not in the least.

I feel I have done that by establishing that the spring idea would not work and the fact that the building was collapsing a 5 or more floors per second which would drive sections down as they were torn loose. There would be some lateral ejection but nothing close to 400-500 feet.

You have established none of those three things. "Stating" is not "establishing". Especially when one argument after another is so fundamentally flawed.

No one here has a feasible answer so they just say "yes it can" and have shift to "not loud enough".

You have a fascinating "perspective inversion". I've shown, with engineering calculations, that it is indeed feasible to store the energy necessary to toss those beams large distances thru multiple methods.

You keep saying "No, you can't". With ZERO argument except your personal incredulity.

YOU are the one simply saying "no, you can't."

 

[Wolrab]

The theory is all about floors impacting floors and that would not happen all at once.

Exactly how long do you think it should take? How long do the structural need to "think" about overwhelming loads suddenly shifted onto them before they fail?

 

[GStan]

So you missed my paper at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm ? Actually, you do not need math to prove it. Just common sense.

You should notify the engineering and physics departments at all of the world's institutions of higher learning, as they may want to re-evaluate their curriculum requirements.

The upper part C is evidently smaller than the lower part A and as both parts destroy each other at contact assuming part C is dropped on part A; upper part C will be destroyed before lower part A. However, upper part C can only apply potential energy on lower part A. When part C just rests on lower part A there is no problem - part A is just compressed a little as compressive stresses in part A are just 0.3 of permissible stresses. That's how the towers were built. Now, if you drop part C on part A (how? - using a crane), there will be an impact but what contacts what? Two perimeter walls of part C will no doubt miss part A below and the other two walls will just contact the top floor of part A. It will not crush down part A. Just damage the top floor. Part A perimeter walls on the other hand will destroy the bottom floor of part C - the upper part! .

So if that really happened, part C would be sliced in two parts by part A from below. No crush down of part A by part C. No, a real upper cut from below of part C by part A.

But, rest assured. There is to little potential energy involved. Part C will just get stuck up on top on part A.

Because - steel structures cannot globally collapse or, rather, be crushed down due to gravity alone when you drop a small part of the structure on the remainder below!

I just said it in message #1 of this thread and nobody seems to able to prove it is wrong.

Are you under the impression that simply because the components of the upper part are breaking into pieces that they lose all of their mass/energy? You like off-wall-experiments don't you? What do you think would be the outcome of releasing a few thousand pounds of sand (broken upper block) from a height of 3.7 meters onto your head? (Don't try this at home kids.)

Here is another one. What do you think would happen in a building of equivalent design and conditions present on 9/11, but the building is only 20 stories tall? Like WTC1 their are 11 stories in the upper block, and the upper block breaks through the damaged 9th floor down onto the 8th floor. What would your expected result be?

 

[Heiwa]

With respect, this is just plain wrong.

Firstly - as has been pointed out to you many, many times - the towers employed a compiste structural system wherein the outer envelope, floors, inner core, and hat trusses acted together to ensure overall stability. A failure of any one of these therefore affects the stability of the overall structure. Your model assumes that each section is structurally stable (barring the fall itself and the immediate crush zone), which is patently not the case.

Secondly, and very closely linked to this, you continually refer to intact sections outwith the collapse and crush zones without ever demonstrating that the columns and beams - for this is what you focus on - are capable of accepting the loads without further failure.

Thirdly, you have been challenged numerous times to produce competent structural calculations in the face of what is best described as scathing criticism of your generalisations. You have failed to do so. That does not qualify as "not being able to prove you wrong". Rather, you have wholly failed to prove yourself correct.

Firstly it is recognized that the towers consisted of perimeter walls, core structure, floors and a hat truss.

The perimeter walls are steel columns connected by steel spandrels. The core structure is steel columns connected by steel beams. The floors are steel trusses carrying a steel/concrete composite; trusses are bolted to the perimeter walls and the core structure;

The hat truss is simply steel beams connecting perimeter walls and core structure at roof level.

All steel structure is designed with FoS > 3.

Secondly, the towers have great redundancy. You can remove parts of perimeter walls, core structure and floors anywhere and nothing happens except local falures! Example - a plane slices a perimeter wall and damages core structure and floors.

Thirdly, if you read my articles carefully you find a fair amount of structural calculations to confirm above and the stability of the parts. Also is described the step by step method to do proper structural damage analysis, the latter which neither NIST nor Bazant & Co has done.

It is pointed out that the alleged destruction is not a collapse but a crush down! An upper part C is alleged to drop on a lower part A.

As the upper part C consists of perimeter walls, core structure, floors and a hat truss it is then described what these sub-parts can inflict on the lower part A, which is similar to part C except for the hat truss.

And the result is quite clear; the stronger sub-parts of C and A will damage the weaker sub-parts, i.e. columns will damage floors and the interface at contact changes, which you have to analyse in the second step.

NIST and Bazant & Co deny this. They suggest that the bottom floor of part C remains intact and is capable of crushing/compressing part A perimeter walls, core structure and floors from top to bottom only assisted by gravity. This is ridiculous. The bottom floors of part C is the first to be affected at contact. So it will be destroyed. And also the second floor of part C may be destroyed if there is enough energy available to do that.

However, the available potential energy of the first step is quite small - say 340 kWh or 1.22 GJ. It is hardly enough for walls and core structure to penetrate the bottom floor of part C and top floor of part A. Thus, further destruction will be stopped already then! As most structure remains intact part C will just bounce on part A and then get stuck up top.

Finally, if you read my articles carefully you see that I describe a completely different destruction of the towers! Part C is destroyed prior dropping on part A. Part C is destroyed by controlled demolition producing a smoke and dust screen that in turn hides - or try to hide - the controlled demolition of part A that follows.

The controlled demolition of parts C and A is quite obvious to the trained eye.
I wonder how NIST and Bazant & Co could have missed that?

 

[Heiwa]

Heiwa, since your common sense analysis doesn't refer in any way to the properties of steel, would you claim that this is true of any structure, or just of steel structures? If the latter, what's fundamentally different about steel structures that renders them immune to collapse when other structures aren't? Simple language and common sense analysis will do fine.

Dave

Yes, material of dropped part C and hit part A doesn't matter! It can be composite steel structures, pizza paper boxes, sponges of syntethic or natural fibres, lemons, etc. as described before. Part C can never crush down part A! There are two basic cases!

1. The energy applied is only sufficient to elastically deform parts A and C. Result - part C bounces on part A.

2. The energy applied is sufficient to cause failures of parts A and C. Then parts A and C are damaged at the contact area, the interface changes and the energy is consumed by local faulures of both parts A and C.

Quite basic actually. Part C can never destroy part A.

 

[funk de fino]

No they don't. They will no doubt offset somewhat. On one side the columns might move in a little and put the weight on the floor but the other side would move outside the perimeter and remove a great deal of weight from the impacted floor. The core columns would be applying almost all their weight inside the core.

The theory is all about floors impacting floors and that would not happen all at once.

So as the top section tilted none of the perimeter or core columns broke at the connections as they bent? They all stayed connected?

The top section tipped it did not skew horizontally.

The theory is about the "load" from the floors above hitting the uppermost floor below. Not the floors themselves. the top section only has to fall and hit the floor in one place for that load to be transferred.

 

[BenBurch]

No, you need math. Without out it you have nothing. That's how things work.

More to the point, the physical world behaves in ways that mathematics and only mathematics can actually describe.

Maths are a LANGUAGE OF DESCRIPTION.

If you don't speak that language, you don't have the nouns and verbs to even begin to talk about many things.

 

[Heiwa]

Are you under the impression that simply because the components of the upper part are breaking into pieces that they lose all of their mass/energy?

Good that you accept that the upper part may break up. Evidently the mass remains the same ... but it is then in smaller parts. Interface changes. So you have to analyse what the smaller parts can do. Part of structural damage analysis!

Energy is consumed when you break parts (it becomes heat). You get hot and sweat when you work or apply energy.

So if, as alleged part C drops due to gravity and impacts part A, energy is consumed and becomes heat. The result? Little C cannot destroy big A because there is too little energy available All energy is consumed by local failures in interface A/C. C stops on top of A. Happens everytime. Except WTC911. So how could C destroy A on 911? Consider evil CD.

 

[L The Detective]

Actually, you do not need math to prove it. Just common sense.

Heiwa, this is a simple question along the same lines as the one I posed to Chirstopher. Don't be offended; I just want to hear your honest answer.

Do you believe that common sense and math are equivalent, in the sense that if common sense tells you something, the math should check out? Do you believe common sense is absolutely trustworthy in all cases?

For example... with the JFK theories, one of the arguements that Ozwald couldn't have shot JFK is that his head jerked in the opposite direction of the bullet. That goes completely against common sense. Well, it turns out common sense was wrong, in this particular case. I've seen demonstrations (they do it on the P&T show) of a bullet going through an watermelon, turns out the force of the bullet pushes the object towards the bullet. Now, this has nothing to do with WTC, but it's the best example I can think of how common sense tells us something should happen, when in reality the complete opposite happens.

So, what I'm wondering is, do you agree with me that common sense can sometimes leads us to the wrong conclusions? If not, why not? I'm not trying to trap you, just looking for an honest answer.

 

[Gravy]

Christopher, I have heard you use this expression several times. It's an expression I've heard other conspiracy theorists use, and I find that interesting. It seems like the point you are trying to make is that, if we just used common sense, we'd be able to see things your way. Have I got that right?

L, here's a summary I assembled a couple of years ago of Christopher 7's belief that "common sense" trumps science, physical evidence, etc.

 

[tfk]

Heiwa

I've got a question for you.

It was evident in the "crush down" (your term, I'd be just as happy with the generic term "collapse") of the towers that the crushing happened successively at each floor as the rubble descended.

My question to you: how do you explain this. Do you believe that each floor was blown with demolitions as the upper block's debris arrived at that floor?

My ultimate question is going to be "why did each & every one of about 85 collapses happen at the upper story, and not at some lower floor?"

This phenomenon happened on both towers, for every story, after the crush down got established.

What is your explanation for this?

tom

 

[Heiwa]

Heiwa, this is a simple question along the same lines as the one I posed to Chirstopher. Don't be offended; I just want to hear your honest answer.

Do you believe that common sense and math are equivalent, in the sense that if common sense tells you something, the math should check out? Do you believe common sense is absolutely trustworthy in all cases?

For example... with the JFK theories, one of the arguements that Ozwald couldn't have shot JFK is that his head jerked in the opposite direction of the bullet. That goes completely against common sense. Well, it turns out common sense was wrong, in this particular case. I've seen demonstrations (they do it on the P&T show) of a bullet going through an watermelon, turns out the force of the bullet pushes the object towards the bullet. Now, this has nothing to do with WTC, but it's the best example I can think of how common sense tells us something should happen, when in reality the complete opposite happens.

So, what I'm wondering is, do you agree with me that common sense can sometimes leads us to the wrong conclusions? If not, why not? I'm not trying to trap you, just looking for an honest answer.

I like math! Math is a science of space and numbers; arithmetic, algebra, geometry, you know. I just use it as a tool. To verify physical events, e.g. ship collisions and structural failures. Math can translate them into an abstract form that can assist clarifying and understanding them.
Common sense is not a science. Nor is clear thinking. I would suggest that common sense is neutrality of estimation of facts and clear thinking promotes knowledge. And maths is a tool to verify the results. And problems are solved. I have worked in such manner for 40 years. So common sense will not lead you to the wrong conclusions.
But bad passions, ill will, malicious intent and confused thinking surely will. I have encountered plenty of those amongst unhappy people that produce disastrous enmities and hatred. I just feel sorry for them. They are a miserable lot.
I am just a happy guy that nobody can really stress. Common sense and maths work for me.

 

[Architect]

Firstly it is recognized that the towers consisted of perimeter walls, core structure, floors and a hat truss.

The perimeter walls are steel columns connected by steel spandrels. The core structure is steel columns connected by steel beams. The floors are steel trusses carrying a steel/concrete composite; trusses are bolted to the perimeter walls and the core structure;

The hat truss is simply steel beams connecting perimeter walls and core structure at roof level.

You disregard both the point to you and the understanding of a composite structure. As has been explained to you several times before, the various structural elements act together - the parallel would be a girder truss - in order to ensure overall stability. If one element is compromised then the entire building is at risk.

Moreover you disregard the role of the hat trusses. These do not simply connect the inner and outer structures, but rather serve to address issues such as the overturning moment. That the ultimately served to redistribute some of the external envelope load to the columns is of note, but not their design function.

If you fail to follow this fairly basic premise then I cannot understand how you can purport to analyse the failure sequence.

All steel structure is designed with FoS > 3.

Factors of safety have been dealt with at some considerable length before, are you sure you want to cover this one again? It'll be painful for you, trust me.

Secondly, the towers have great redundancy. You can remove parts of perimeter walls, core structure and floors anywhere and nothing happens except local falures! Example - a plane slices a perimeter wall and damages core structure and floors.

Evidence? Calculations?

Thirdly, if you read my articles carefully you find a fair amount of structural calculations to confirm above and the stability of the parts. Also is described the step by step method to do proper structural damage analysis, the latter which neither NIST nor Bazant & Co has done.

Actually, you don't. These aren't competent structural calculations of the type required to analyse a complex building of this type or indeed the failure mode. You've been asked to provide real calculations many, many times but have singularly failed to do so.

It is pointed out that the alleged destruction is not a collapse but a crush down! An upper part C is alleged to drop on a lower part A.

As the upper part C consists of perimeter walls, core structure, floors and a hat truss it is then described what these sub-parts can inflict on the lower part A, which is similar to part C except for the hat truss.

And the result is quite clear; the stronger sub-parts of C and A will damage the weaker sub-parts, i.e. columns will damage floors and the interface at contact changes, which you have to analyse in the second step.

NIST and Bazant & Co deny this. They suggest that the bottom floor of part C remains intact and is capable of crushing/compressing part A perimeter walls, core structure and floors from top to bottom only assisted by gravity. This is ridiculous. The bottom floors of part C is the first to be affected at contact. So it will be destroyed. And also the second floor of part C may be destroyed if there is enough energy available to do that.

You completely disregard a number of key issues, not least the loss of overall structural integrity as part of the composite "girder truss" design, above. You also fail to provide any meaningful structural calculations to show that the strength of the lower part of the building has sufficient redundancy to stand the additional and much changed load paths.

However, the available potential energy of the first step is quite small - say 340 kWh or 1.22 GJ. It is hardly enough for walls and core structure to penetrate the bottom floor of part C and top floor of part A. Thus, further destruction will be stopped already then! As most structure remains intact part C will just bounce on part A and then get stuck up top.

Bounce. Hmmm.

Finally, if you read my articles carefully you see that I describe a completely different destruction of the towers! Part C is destroyed prior dropping on part A. Part C is destroyed by controlled demolition producing a smoke and dust screen that in turn hides - or try to hide - the controlled demolition of part A that follows.

THat doesn't actually make sense, you know.

The controlled demolition of parts C and A is quite obvious to the trained eye.

How would you know? You're not trained in building structures or controlled demolition. Or fire engineering. Or architecture.