Split Thread Was global collapse of WTC inevitable?

[willhaven]

You're a little late to the game, Will.

So you agree that a top driven collapse will not necessarily arrest? Good to know.

 

[Oystein]

If the trucks are parked, then they're not in first gear. You describe 30 trucks hitting "the last". Are they coming from above or below? You say you'd get "a total mess". Which trucks are damaged? If you could clear this analogy up, I'd be interested in looking at it.



No they don't. My example described the third law of motion in collisions. Gravity is replaced by engine acceleration.

The impact force is caused by gravity. They are not two different forces here. Gravity was already taken care of, and then there was the impact of the upper portion slumping (if we accurately follow NIST) into the damage zone. That impact force is shared between upper and lower. Fifteen floors hit 90, and 90 floors hit 15. The lower has greater reserve strength.

Replace gravity with engine acceleration? So we are looking at truck that can accelerate from 0 to 65mph in 3 seconds, and they are all already applying that engine acceleration, right? Even the parked trucks, right? Even the trucks that are already destroyed by crashing, right? Ok so we have 10 trucks pushing at full engine force into each other and a wall. I'd venture a guess that real trucks would crumble bottom-up from that alone, but lets suppose they are each reinforced to handle that.
Then an 11th truck crashes into the last. Will it crash? Yes.

You had your truck going on autopilot at constant speed. You forgot to mention that you meant constant acceleration.
You need to carefully differentiate between the two.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Preserving for sheer jaw-dropping incredibility.

Sadly, it's true. Another poster here (I forget who it was) suggested the example of a pyramid made up of fine glass champagne flutes as a structure which might appear to the layman to be extraordinary fragile, yet which has a far greater reserve strength capacity, even when all the glasses are full, than a multi-storey, steel-framed skyscraper.

Dave

 

[Adolph]

Ronan point?

When presented with Ronan Point Heiwa suggested that the collapse initiated low in the building and that it was impossible that the collapse of a single floor was capable of progressing all the way down to the ground level for even one corner of the building. Is this something you agree with?

Didn't Ronan Point's failure start near the top or even the top when a small gas explosion blew out the wall which was load bearing and then the rest unzipped to the bottom?

When they did the post mortem on the building, one problem was the cement between panels only covered barely 1/2 of the entire joint.

 

[alienentity]

You're a little late to the game, Will.

Never too late when you're correct. Unfortunately for your little charade.

 

[alienentity]

bump for Ergo. The last thing Ergo is going to do is to respond intelligently to this post..

 

[ergo]

Sadly, it's true. Another poster here (I forget who it was) suggested the example of a pyramid made up of fine glass champagne flutes as a structure which might appear to the layman to be extraordinary fragile, yet which has a far greater reserve strength capacity, even when all the glasses are full, than a multi-storey, steel-framed skyscraper.

Oh, I'm sure this is true. That's why we build things out of fine glass champagne flutes.

 

[ergo]

bump for Ergo. The last thing Ergo is going to do is to respond intelligently to this post..

You already have the opportunity to not only quantify the rubble, but to model a rubble-driven crush down. It's your ridiculous theory, not mine. Get going.

 

[Architect]

Ergo

I suggest that you read this - lengthy - thread before you keep digging that hole for yourself.

There are other similar ones too.

Architect

 

[excaza]

He's been digging the same hole for 2 months, he was making the exact same posts then as he is now. He has no interest in learning why his assertions are incorrect.

 

[Architect]

Oh, I'm sure this is true. That's why we build things out of fine glass champagne flutes.

Ergo

Can I ask - and it's not a trick question - how you believe that WTC1 and 2 were actually designed to perform structurally? I don't mean loads, I mean how the overall structural system worked? How were loads distributed throughout the building? I'm worried about what you believe was incorporated thought, and it makes it difficult to answer your queries.

Rather than keep you hanging, let me give you a starter for 10:

The structure of both towers is composite in nature. i.e. it relies on 4 key elements working together for overall stability; outer loadbearing envelope, inner core, floors, and the hat trusses. Think of it as a big girder beam and you'll be in the right ball park.

Collapse occured when failure of the floor beams - which were themselves lightweight girder beams - led to deformation and failure of the outer envelope. The hat trusses redistributed some of the load to the core, which also failed.

One of the first things we have to be clear on is the very different, rapidly changing load paths within the tower during this sequence. Beams, trusses, and columns are being asked to do things they just weren't designed to do. Design loads were massively exceeded, and failure occured. In other words, global collapse became inevitable.

This was, of course, compounded by damage caused to the core structure by the aircraft impact. If you read through the main report - and there are several of us here who have - then you'll see that there are a range of internal damage assessments, all of which assume some compromising of interior structural elements.

This is one of the reasons that you're concerns and hypotheses appear so far off the mark. You seem to argue that the lower structure should have had sufficient capacity to arrest failure of the upper section, but at no time does he carry out any meaningful analysis of the very complex structural inter-relationships. So, for example, the hat trusses help stop sway and stabilise the structure. The floors help prevent deformation of the outer loadbearing envelope. if these are damaged, then what is the overall impact on stability.

If you wish to be taken seriously, remembering that the likes of Ove Arup have also looked at the collapse, then you'll have to produce a very compelling structural analysis. Gregory Ulrich was working on this basis, although I didn't always agree with his conclusions.

 

[excaza]

Ergo

Can I ask - and it's not a trick question - how you believe that WTC1 and 2 were actually designed to perform structurally? I don't mean loads, I mean how the overall structural system worked? How were loads distributed throughout the building?

I know the answer. I'm worried about what you believe was incorporated thought, and it makes it difficult to answer your queries.

Like a cinder block, obviously.

 

[ergo]

I suggest that you read this - lengthy - thread before you keep digging that hole for yourself.

Why? How does it differ from the official collapse theory? I don't have time to read threads that are 80% crap. Just point me to the significant posts if you think they are saying something different or new.

 

[Architect]

You should read it because it debunks the same sad old material you're trying to present here as if it were fresh. I'm not sure why you expect us to pander to your own laziness, frankly.

Anyway I was just browsing through old threads, and I came across this message I posted to Heiwa and I which I think should be offered to you, Ergo:

Only a fool would think that they, and they alone, had identified a mistake overlooked (complicitly or otherwise) by every other expert in the world.

This would be especially the case where, as at the towers, the results of the investigation and underlying cause had been circulated widely - globally - and formed the basis for a significant body of further research work.

I note, for example, the studies done by Arup and Edinburgh University regarding fire modelling and collapse initiation causes, both of which were reported widely (for example in NCE).

So, if you want me to take your opinion seriously, find me a credible engineer with expertise in tall structures who supports your case. Not someone who designs gym halls, or retired 30 years ago, but a solid name. Someone from Arup, or Mott MacDonald, or Jacobs Babtie, or Atkins, and so on.

Find me a paper in any of the mainstream engineering journals - NCE might be a good starting point - which casts significant doubt on the NIST structural analysis or actively supports those issues raised in your own paper.

Now, just to stresss, I'm quite happy with non-US sources and given your clear concerns about USG manipulation of the construction community I'm sure you would prefer to bring forward European or even Far East expertise. I will, however, be looking for fully detailed studies and not - to coin a phrase - half-arsed generalisations.

If you can't produce this kind of background, then tell me why you - and you alone - are able to see the glaring errors and obvious lies which every other respected engineer in the world has missed. Tell me why you, a naval architect with limited expertise in standing buildings work and apparently no grasp of tall structures, picked it up.

Granted, you're not a naval architect as far as we know. But the rest of the challenge seems perfectly reasonable.

 

[Furcifer]

You already have the opportunity to not only quantify the rubble, but to model a rubble-driven crush down. It's your ridiculous theory, not mine. Get going.

Why would you want him to build the model? You continue to say his way of thinking is flawed compared to yours. He can't see whats so obvious to you. You know the saying "If you want something done right you've got to do it yourself"

 

[Adolph]

Too funny

Why? How does it differ from the official collapse theory? I don't have time to read threads that are 80% crap. Just point me to the significant posts if you think they are saying something different or new.

Look up irony.

 

[A W Smith]

I haven't seen a "cinder" block in about 35 years, In my geographic region, they are all two core or "weighlites" or three core concrete blocks. What Truthers seem to hand wave away is momentum. With a truss depth of about 32 inches and a slab of 4 inches, given a FF to FF height of 12 feet, The floors had nine feet to accelerate during a gravitational collapse before the bottom chord of the trusses would impact the slab below. So no, its nothing like a single cinder block impacting a stack of cinder blocks. And its even less like a series of tractor trailers parked end to end on a horizontal plane. Next time you are at a box store like a lowes or home depot or warehouse club. Look up at the bar joist truss roof and think to yourself, would this truss roof collapse if a snow load of about a foot and a half was suddenly dropped on it from the the equivalent of the clear height you are standing in? And if you were on a mezzanine of similar design would that survive and arrest the collapse?

hey while we are all posting about concrete masonry units, lets watch a guy butter and lay some 12 inch block with one hand.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

For a minute there, I thought you were "rule 36'ing" the concept of concrete masonry.

 

[willhaven]

He's been digging the same hole for 2 months, he was making the exact same posts then as he is now. He has no interest in learning why his assertions are incorrect.

In other words(pictures)...

 

[ergo]

You should read it because it debunks the same sad old material you're trying to present here as if it were fresh. I'm not sure why you expect us to pander to your own laziness, frankly.

Anyway I was just browsing through old threads, and I came across this message I posted to Heiwa and I which I think should be offered to you, Ergo:


....

If you can't produce this kind of background, then tell me why you - and you alone - are able to see the glaring errors and obvious lies which every other respected engineer in the world has missed. Tell me why you, a naval architect with limited expertise in standing buildings work and apparently no grasp of tall structures, picked it up.

Granted, you're not a naval architect as far as we know. But the rest of the challenge seems perfectly reasonable.

I guess this is the common misconception among pretend-debunkers: you like to think you are addressing lone quacks rather than simple and obvious physical observations. Your movement hasn't "debunked" anything as far as I've seen (please correct me if I'm wrong), and moreover you are making often absurd statements against the combined knowledge and expertise of now hundreds and hundreds of professionals in relevant fields. You don't have those numbers on your side. You have mostly confusion and inertia on your side.

Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but if you're going to list your spokespeople, make sure they've actually spoken. Okay?

Oh, and I'm sorry that Newton's Third Law is so stale for you. I guess it's one of those things that got left behind after 9/11 "changed everything". Sorry.