Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

[FineWine]

Rest assured what he is suggesting is more than possible; unfortunately it bears zero resemblance to what actually happened to the towers.

Truthers like to play up this imaginary scenario whereby the section above the plane crash simply fell and crushed the rest of the building. In crazytown they will compare the towers to pizza boxes, lemons, eggs and match boxes and it all makes perfect sense, in reality it is simply laughable.

I mean it doesn't seem possible in the context of what happened on September 11. He seems to be saying that a floor designed to hold up one floor should hold up all the floors that are falling on it.

 

[stateofgrace]

I mean it doesn't seem possible in the context of what happened on September 11. He seems to be saying that a floor designed to hold up one floor should hold up all the floors that are falling on it.

Finewine, the floors of the WTC did not hold up the floors above them. It was a floor truss system. The floor truss system meant that individual floors literally braced the external columns to the inner core. This was the tube in tube design, whereby an inner and outer tube took the weight of individual floors but relied on the bracing of the floors to actually hold them together.

This bracing could not stop the massive falling dynamic weight once the upper section started to fall.

 

[WildCat]

The article was sent to ASCE Journal of Mechanical Engineering on 3 February 2009 and is still under peer review, I am told. Editor Ross Corotis has informed he will publish it.

It will be published just as soon as Ultima receives his FOIA request that shows Flight 93 was shot down.

 

[Mel Odious]

FineWine:

Welcome to the forums.

Mark Roberts, who posts as Gravy on these forums, has compiled an extensive list of links documenting Heiwa's gross incompetence and wildly flawed reasoning. Please visit Mark's website and scroll down to the "What's New?" section (February 2009). Heiwa is Anders Bjorkman, who was featured by ae911truth as their "New Petitioner of the Month."

And if you're wondering why pizza boxes come up so often in conversations with Heiwa, here's the reason.

 

[Heiwa]

As someone brought up before in another thread, once the top fails the next floor it impacts, It does not arrest. This is the point where truthers throw out gravity and attempt to make their survivability case by using a model of impact on a horizontal plane. (VW bugs and school bus for example) But both the top and the floors it collects are constantly gaining momentum due to gravity and have now passed the initial floor of acceleration. They continue to gain momentum as they impact the second and third floor and fail them. The very fact that it failed the first floor during the first 12 feet of acceleration makes global collapse inevitable. Otherwise that first floor would not have failed to begin with because at that point it had the best case scenario for survivability. Once the event moves past that threshold and gathers the mass of that floor collapse arrest becomes impossible. If you notice with every one of heiwas models. the first unit (lemon, sponge, pizza box, whatever) always survives. That behavior alone tells us his modeling examples are meaningless.

Energy available is a good measure why one-way crush down of WTC 1 is not possible. Take the first storey crush down. How much energy is available? Say it is 606 kWh, when upper part C drops free fall >3.7 m! How much energy is used first to compress the building and then to crush various material in the impact zone into rubble? And how much is used to accelerate this rubble to same speed as the upper part?

One storey has mass 3760 tons. To accelerate it to 20 m/s requires 209 kWh.
So there is only 397 kWh left to compress a top storey structure and to to crush things.

Say that 209 kWh was used to compress the building structure parts C and A elastically after drop and at first impact until something breaks. This compression (energy absorption) will evidently decelerate the upper part C.

So only 188 kWh remains to crush things (the uppermost storey of part A)

We know a good car recycling factory requires abt. 36.8 kWh/ton to shred a car. Thus the energy available to crush one upper storey of WTC corresponds to the energy to shred 5.1 cars!

However one WTC storey has the mass of 3 760 one ton cars!

If you think you can crush 3 760 tons of steel and concrete using only 188 kWh or only 0.05 kWh/ton, then just prove that.

In all may calculations and models (pizza boxes, lemons, sponges, &c) it would appear that there is too little energy by gravity just to initiate any destruction. The same result applies to WTC 1.

This is THE reason why a part C of any structure cannot crush down the remainder part A of same structure by gravity (C<1/10A).

But as I always say! Suggest a structure, e.g. a composite one, where a little part C can one-way crush down bigger part A due to gravity only. If you can do that you will win a prize.

Re incompetence or being unqualified or not able to to something correctly, yes, many politicians and civil servants display such qualities, like many JREF posters.

 

[OneRedEye]

That was actually brilliant, ORE.

Thank you. That simulation was a bit chaotic due to a low setting for material friction, but notable because the single upper block connection survives through the entire crush-down, only to break at the end. Here's one (with high static and dynamic friction properties) where the upper block doesn't survive long but it does destroy everything below:

http://i41.tinypic.com/15eq8z.gif

Point being, obviously, simple simulations based on Newtonian dynamics can give the result which "is not possible under any circumstances." Nothing more than that, but that seems to be issue enough here.

I think twoofers are twoofers because they just cannot hold two concepts in their field of vision of their minds' eyes at the same time, nor imagine two processes combining to produce the same end result.

It's a pretty complex subject and, the closer you look, the more complex it gets. In all fairness, most folks don't have a good feel for this sort of catastrophic phase transition and who can blame them - it's so far outside ordinary experience. I'm still trying to get my mind around it.

 

[ozeco41]

It cannot, the floors braced the outside of the building (the external perimeters) to the inner core. Basically the floors simply held two of the massive support elements together, the inner core and the external columns, they braced the towers together. This was actually reinforced by a massive steel structure at the top of each tower, the top hat.

The floors simply held their own weight and another weight that they were designed to take; they were not designed to take massive dynamic weights falling on top of them. The very simple action ,removed one floor, and the next and the next will and did continue all the way down. Simply remove the bracing, quickly and violently, and the entire building will collapse.

What is being suggested and promoted here is that the upper weight didn’t hit the floors but actually fell square onto of the support elements, the columns and core, rather than the bracing elements. What you are being asked to disprove is something that did not happen.Welcome to the forum, welcome to the world of the truthers

Well said - couldn't have put it simpler myself.

Needs a bit of detail to explain the core - the outer tube columns explained by this:

THey don't look very crushed do they?

 

[bill smith]

As someone brought up before in another thread, once the top fails the next floor it impacts, It does not arrest. This is the point where truthers throw out gravity and attempt to make their survivability case by using a model of impact on a horizontal plane. (VW bugs and school bus for example) But both the top and the floors it collects are constantly gaining momentum due to gravity and have now passed the initial floor of acceleration. They continue to gain momentum as they impact the second and third floor and fail them. The very fact that it failed the first floor during the first 12 feet of acceleration makes global collapse inevitable. Otherwise that first floor would not have failed to begin with because at that point it had the best case scenario for survivability. Once the event moves past that threshold and gathers the mass of that floor collapse arrest becomes impossible. If you notice with every one of heiwas models. the first unit (lemon, sponge, pizza box, whatever) always survives. That behavior alone tells us his modeling examples are meaningless.

I think we should examine the nature of the 'drop' more closely, maybe on another thread. Some people talk about a 0.5 m drop,others a 3.7 m drop and some suggest even more.

I think it is obvious that the two sections did not at any point lose most of their hundreds of connecting solumns, both core and perimeter. Therefore there is no actual 'drop'. There may have been a bending of columns but that would not have been instantaneous. It should be more like that the top part lowered itself onto the bottom part. The speed of that lowering is what has become known as 'the drop'.

 

[leftysergeant]

Say that 209 kWh was used to compress the building structure parts C and A elastically after drop and at first impact until something breaks. This compression (energy absorption) will evidently decelerate the upper part C.

What is the spring that is being compressed? Floor joints? Not veryt elastic, as far as I can see? Perimeter and core columns? They were not subject to crushing, so do not enter into the processes occuring vertically.

In all may calculations and models (pizza boxes, lemons, sponges, &c) it would appear that there is too little energy by gravity just to initiate any destruction. The same result applies to WTC 1.

You seem to still be treating this like the collision of two ships. All you need is the energy to stave in the floors on one level, and you suddenly have an increasing mass accelerating downward. The floors get over loaded an fail in succession. Nothing need crush any columns. Didn't happen to any significant extent. Most of the crushing of columns that did occur appears to have occurred in the tumbling of the parts as they fell.

The collapse of the floors creatred a blivet. It jammed ten tons of stuff into a five ton space. Something has to give. What happened was that the towerrs popped open like an over-loaded pipe.

 

[Heiwa]

1. What is the spring that is being compressed? Floor joints? Not veryt elastic, as far as I can see? Perimeter and core columns? They were not subject to crushing, so do not enter into the processes occuring vertically.

2. You seem to still be treating this like the collision of two ships. All you need is the energy to stave in the floors on one level, and you suddenly have an increasing mass accelerating downward. The floors get over loaded an fail in succession. Nothing need crush any columns. Didn't happen to any significant extent. Most of the crushing of columns that did occur appears to have occurred in the tumbling of the parts as they fell.

3. The collapse of the floors creatred a blivet. It jammed ten tons of stuff into a five ton space. Something has to give. What happened was that the towerrs popped open like an over-loaded pipe.

1. When part C contacts part A all structural elements compress due to energy applied. Joints between elements remain unaffected.

2. No, impact is due to gravity only; part C (52 m tall) accelerating vertically by gravity and then impacting on static part A (359 m tall) at velocity 8.52 m/s (16.56 knots in nautical terms).

3. Whatever part C does to part A (and part A to part C) at impact, your task is to show that part C, still only assisted by gravity, can proceed down 359 m through what is/was part A. Elements and joints anywhere may be broken, broken elements anywhere may assist in the process, &c.

The problem is that elements and joints in C break as easily as those in part A and that C is completely broken before A.

Please do not suggest that broken pieces of C or A can damage intact C and A structure. THAT is easy to prove! Just drop pieces of the structure on the intact structure and ... intact structure remains intact.

THAT's why a one-way Crush down is not possible.

But maybe you can present a structure that behaves differently? Try! It is fun!

 

[Heiwa]

I think we should examine the nature of the 'drop' more closely, maybe on another thread. Some people talk about a 0.5 m drop,others a 3.7 m drop and some suggest even more.

I think it is obvious that the two sections did not at any point lose most of their hundreds of connecting solumns, both core and perimeter. Therefore there is no actual 'drop'. There may have been a bending of columns but that would not have been instantaneous. It should be more like that the top part lowered itself onto the bottom part. The speed of that lowering is what has become known as 'the drop'.

In my model gravity drop is 3.7 m through vacuum just to speed things up to impact speed 8.52 m/s. Don't worry about the drop. More interesting is what always happens to upper part C after drop and impact. It seems that C always gets damaged! According NIST and Bazant (and NWO experts) this is not permitted to happen.

 

[Heiwa]

Well said - couldn't have put it simpler myself.

Needs a bit of detail to explain the core - the outer tube columns explained by this:
[qimg]http://conleys.com.au/webjref/002.jpg[/qimg]

THey don't look very crushed do they?

No, they look as if destroyed by controlled demolition from top down. Big, intact pieces of wall perimeter columns, &c!

 

[Fjolle]

In my model gravity drop is 3.7 m through vacuum just to speed things up to impact speed 8.52 m/s. Don't worry about the drop. More interesting is what always happens to upper part C after drop and impact. It seems that C always gets damaged! According NIST and Bazant (and NWO experts) this is not permitted to happen.

Just curious, do you have a quote where Bazant says that "C" doesn't get damaged?

 

[leftysergeant]

1. When part C contacts part A all structural elements compress due to energy applied. Joints between elements remain unaffected.

2. No, impact is due to gravity only; part C (52 m tall) accelerating vertically by gravity and then impacting on static part A (359 m tall) at velocity 8.52 m/s (16.56 knots in nautical terms).

You keep banging on about the height of the lower structure as though that meant something, so it would appear that the model you are trying to refute involves over-loading the perimeter and core columns vertically, which no one with any sense is suggesting here.

You're still trying to treat a building as two colliding ships.

 

[bill smith]

1. When part C contacts part A all structural elements compress due to energy applied. Joints between elements remain unaffected.

2. No, impact is due to gravity only; part C (52 m tall) accelerating vertically by gravity and then impacting on static part A (359 m tall) at velocity 8.52 m/s (16.56 knots in nautical terms).

3. Whatever part C does to part A (and part A to part C) at impact, your task is to show that part C, still only assisted by gravity, can proceed down 359 m through what is/was part A. Elements and joints anywhere may be broken, broken elements anywhere may assist in the process, &c.

The problem is that elements and joints in C break as easily as those in part A and that C is completely broken before A.

Please do not suggest that broken pieces of C or A can damage intact C and A structure. THAT is easy to prove! Just drop pieces of the structure on the intact structure and ... intact structure remains intact.

THAT's why a one-way Crush down is not possible.

But maybe you can present a structure that behaves differently? Try! It is fun!

I was thinking about your axiom Heiwa. If it is written in say two clear lines of text which absolutely defeat Bazant and the gvernment story, you could have it passed around among engineers in general with a request to only confirm the axiom and sign their name to it. No more thn that. In this way you would give them a way of saying that 9/11 was an inside job without them actually having to say he words. Richard Gage could pass these forms out at his lectures for instance. After a while you could have thousands of signed up engineers saying that Bazant is a fraud. Maybe you could write a counter-axiom that Bazant implies. Might be some mileage in this ?

 

[ozeco41]

In my model gravity drop is 3.7 m through vacuum just to speed things up to impact speed 8.52 m/s. Don't worry about the drop. More interesting is what always happens to upper part C after drop and impact. It seems that C always gets damaged! According NIST and Bazant (and NWO experts) this is not permitted to happen.

Ridiculous Heiwa. Neither NIST nor Bazant comment about your model. They refer to the actual collapses of the WTC Towers.

Why persist in conflating the two? Your model is artificially constructed to support your version of what you want to "prove". It does not represent or resemble the "collapse which actually happened" at WTC on 9/11.

 

[ozeco41]

No, they look as if destroyed by controlled demolition from top down. Big, intact pieces of wall perimeter columns, &c!

Yes, that is true. Of the three options on the table here those actual columns could be either:
1) What actually happened without demolition - as in fact they are; OR
2) The result of one of the possible demolitions - except they are not.

BUT they cannot be the result of:

3) the fantasy collapse of your "model" - the real WTC 9/11 collapse did not happen like your model.

And no amount of wishful thinking would cause the real WTC towers to act like you claim.

 

[bill smith]

Yes, that is true. Of the three options on the table here those actual columns could be either:
1) What actually happened without demolition - as in fact they are; OR
2) The result of one of the possible demolitions - except they are not.

BUT they cannot be the result of:

3) the fantasy collapse of your "model" - the real WTC 9/11 collapse did not happen like your model.

And no amount of wishful thinking would cause the real WTC towers to act like you claim.

Oz....do you confirm the following:-

''Whatever downwards force the moving body exerts on the stationary body of identical construction fixed in the ground is reciprocated by the stationary body equally and oppositely. After that it depends which is used up first.''

 

[bill smith]

That was actually brilliant, ORE. The forces were not being all applied in an orderly fashion. The flexibility that allowed the towers to withstand the winds sort of demanded that evertything move in unison.

The chaos of the falling floor slabs put unpredictable stresses on all other components, making them move in directions in which they were not meant to move.

I think twoofers are twoofers because they just cannot hold two concepts in their field of vision of their minds' eyes at the same time, nor imagine two processes combining to produce the same end result.

Sarge....do you confirm the following:-

''Whatever downwards force the moving body exerts on the stationary body of identical construction fixed in the ground is reciprocated by the stationary body equally and oppositely. After that it depends which is used up first.''

 

[ozeco41]

Oz....do you confirm the following:-

''Whatever downwards force the moving body exerts on the stationary body of identical construction fixed in the ground is reciprocated by the stationary body equally and oppositely. After that it depends which is used up first.''

On the surface that statement looks true bill, but it misses one important part as demonstrated by the WTC Towers on 9/11.

It is only true if the impact between the two puts like against like.

The "Top Block" on 9/11 did not contact column on column, floor on floor, core on core OR as I said "like on like".

The top bloc fell wedged inside the outer walls of the bottom section of tower - "C" inside "A" if we use HEiwa's letters.

The whole outer sections of the Top Block fell on the single floor beneath it. Also the core most probably had limited axial column on column contacts if any.

So, my answer, the only valid answer for me or anyone, is "No! I do not and cannot confirm the following. It is not always true." And in context of WTC 9/11 it is not true.