Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

[Heiwa]

Both. You can see, in the collapse of the south tower, that the upper structure is already becoming massively deformed as it shifts slightly toward the camera. This would almost as a natural law deform the floor slabs above the breaking point, so that we have a great deal more rubble than just the floor slab from the 98th floor hitting the 97th.you also have the upper perimeter columns exerting an outward force on the tops of the lower columns.

The safety factor even for the static weight is out the window. There are TWO processes, not just one, occuring at each floor-to-perimeter connection.



No. They are banging each other into rubble.



They helped wedge open the perimeter walls.

Topic is WTC 1 and you see something in WTC 2! OK, upper part C of WTC 2 is massively deformed! When? Before or after impact? It cannot be before so it is deformed after impact!

But why would a whole top section/part C of WTC 2 become deformed by a small impact with part A?

Maybe your observation confirms controlled demolition of WTC 2 upper part?

Anyway, topic is my model of WTC 1. Part C is assumed to drop on part A. What happens? What failures take place first? Solve that one first!

 

[911kongen]

Hei! Du kan norsk? Jeg lurer meg på, hvorfor er ikke det mulig med en dominoeffekt rett ned? Vi vet det er mulig rett til siden!

 

[bill smith]

I fixed that for you so you many have a better understanding of what actually happened.

A quick question for you bill. If two identical particles or pieces or things collide, one stationary and the other travelling with a velocity (v), which one is damaged damaged more, the stationary one or the one travelling with velocity (v) and why? Or are they equally damaged?

In the future I would be obliged if you would restrict yourself to the boldng of my written words and not to go changing them. Some would see that as common forgery. If you hve something to say about what I've said then just post in the expected manner.

 

[Heiwa]

If two identical ... things collide, one stationary and the other travelling with a velocity (v), which one is damaged damaged more, the stationary one or the one travelling with velocity (v) and why? Or are they equally damaged?

Let's call the things C and A. They are identical = equal mass, equal structure, equal size, &c. I like that. Scale does not matter. Just C and A. Equal! And C has velocity v and A has velocity 0 = no velocity.

Let's assume A is a thing on a kitchen table and that C collides with it horizontally.

Now C contacts A. BANG! What happens? Well, if C is an egg, like A, many things may happen. Egg C sends off egg A at velocity v and egg C's velocity becomes 0. Why is that? The eggs C and A were very hard boiled!

If, on the other hand egg C crushes egg A or vice versa or both eggs C and A are crushed, then your kitchen table is covered in broken eggs' parts. Why is that? Eggs C and A were not boiled at all.

Both results confirm that C cannot crush down A as per the Björkman Axiom.

 

[Heiwa]

Hei! Du kan norsk? Jeg lurer meg på, hvorfor er ikke det mulig med en dominoeffekt rett ned? Vi vet det er mulig rett til siden!

Me et par drammer i byxen snakker jej alle spràk - helst med pene pier. Nyfinsk, gammeldansk, linjenorsk, friisk och flamsk, platttysk, gotländska, tromsk, you name them.
Answer to your question - a small part C cannot crush a bigger part A of itself in any position. But it is fun to try!

 

[bill smith]

I fixed that for you so you many have a better understanding of what actually happened.

A quick question for you bill. If two identical particles or pieces or things collide, one stationary and the other travelling with a velocity (v), which one is damaged damaged more, the stationary one or the one travelling with velocity (v) and why? Or are they equally damaged?

Whatever downwards force the moving body exerts on the stationary body fixed in the ground is reciprocated by the stationary body equally and oppositely. After that it depends which is used up first. Think of WTC1 and what should have happened. You can also correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[phunk]

Let's call the things C and A. They are identical = equal mass, equal structure, equal size, &c.

Actually, they are not identical. In between A and C is the part of the building damaged in the impact, let's call it D. All of the parts of D that have broken loose and fallen prior to the collapse have landed on the top floor of A. So A has been damaged by falling debris and is carrying extra load before C even starts to move.

As C starts to move, it is crushing the already heavily damaged and fire weakened section D. D is being compacted between A and C, and is the first thing to impact A. This 'buffer' of material between A and C never magically disapears. It is damaging A before C gets there, all the way down, and is a major reason the crush up and crush down are NOT symmetrical (besides the obvious bias of gravity pulling in 1 direction).

I like that. Scale does not matter.

I don't believe you are an engineer of any kind if you can make a statement like that.

 

[tfk]

Heiwa,

And, again, the errors are too numerous to count. The following are just a few of the more glaring ones that stand out on a first scan.

1. Fire & damage on only one floor.
2. Wrong failure mode (columns vs. joints)
3. Wrong failure criteria. (Shear or tensile failure of screws and welds, not "energy of displacing elements".)
4. Wrong stress conditions on beams ("... pure compression..."?? Failure generating loads on beams are bending, not compression.)
5. Improper description of columns. They are not 1 story, but 3 story.
6. No stagger to columns. Errors 5 & 6 play a critical role in Error 7.
7. When examining impact between floors 97 & 98, you fail to account for the fact that virtually ALL of the columns between floors 96 & 97, and between 98 & 99, have been severely compromised.
8. Amateurish assumption of "perfect impact".
9. Hand-waving amateurish "averaging" of stresses. Ignoring stress concentrations due to lost supports, lost alignments, non-axial loads, etc.
10. Ignorance of asymmetric consequences of gravity, leading to ...
11. turning building on its side, and believing that meaningful principles can be learned from this. (It can be accepted as axiomatic that "no steel framed building lying on its side has ever subsequently suffered complete progressive collapse to the ground".)
12. Wrong FoS. The NIST report did an extensive review of the FOS's used in the WTC. Why are you guessing at "3"?
13. Confirmation of conclusions by reference to a Quack axiom.

Given the above, the conclusion is meaningless.


tom

 

[bill smith]

Heiwa,

And, again, the errors are too numerous to count. The following are just a few of the more glaring ones that stand out on a first scan.

1. Fire & damage on only one floor.
2. Wrong failure mode (columns vs. joints)
3. Wrong failure criteria. (Shear or tensile failure of screws and welds, not "energy of displacing elements".)
4. Wrong stress conditions on beams ("... pure compression..."?? Failure generating loads on beams are bending, not compression.)
5. Improper description of columns. They are not 1 story, but 3 story.
6. No stagger to columns. Errors 5 & 6 play a critical role in Error 7.
7. When examining impact between floors 97 & 98, you fail to account for the fact that virtually ALL of the columns between floors 96 & 97, and between 98 & 99, have been severely compromised.
8. Amateurish assumption of "perfect impact".
9. Hand-waving amateurish "averaging" of stresses. Ignoring stress concentrations due to lost supports, lost alignments, non-axial loads, etc.
10. Ignorance of asymmetric consequences of gravity, leading to ...
11. turning building on its side, and believing that meaningful principles can be learned from this. (It can be accepted as axiomatic that "no steel framed building lying on its side has ever subsequently suffered complete progressive collapse to the ground".)
12. Wrong FoS. The NIST report did an extensive review of the FOS's used in the WTC. Why are you guessing at "3"?
13. Confirmation of conclusions by reference to a Quack axiom.

Given the above, the conclusion is meaningless.


tom

`
Hello there again.

Is the following correct ?

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

Did WTC1 follow this principle ?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Me et par drammer i byxen snakker jej alle spràk - helst med pene pier. Nyfinsk, gammeldansk, linjenorsk, friisk och flamsk, platttysk, gotländska, tromsk, you name them.

Wi nøt trei a høliday in Sweden this yër ?

See the løveli lakes

The wøndërful telephøne system

And mäni interesting furry animals...

 

[johnny karate]

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.

I will give Heiwa $1 million dollars if anything he has written about the WTC collapses ends up in a legitimate engineering journal.

 

[tfk]

Here is the dreaded spaghetti model gain. Assume it is six feet tall.

bill,

In case you hadn't noticed, nobody (that I've seen) has taken your spaghetti model seriously in the slightest. It is not "dreaded" in the slightest, except in your fertile imagination.

It lacks ALL of the pertinent features that need to be modeled.

In other words, the spaghetti is cooked.

 

[tfk]

Let's call the things C and A. They are identical = equal mass, equal structure, equal size, &c. I like that. Scale does not matter. Just C and A. Equal! And C has velocity v and A has velocity 0 = no velocity.

Let's assume A is a thing on a kitchen table and that C collides with it horizontally.

Now C contacts A. BANG! What happens? Well, if C is an egg, like A, many things may happen. Egg C sends off egg A at velocity v and egg C's velocity becomes 0. Why is that? The eggs C and A were very hard boiled!

If, on the other hand egg C crushes egg A or vice versa or both eggs C and A are crushed, then your kitchen table is covered in broken eggs' parts. Why is that? Eggs C and A were not boiled at all.

Both results confirm that C cannot crush down A as per the Björkman Axiom.

A running back A, weighing 220 lbs, collides with defensive back B, weighing 220 lbs. Running back gets carried off the field, while defensive back goes on to play.

Five minutes later, running back A is back in the game, gets the call and collides again with defensive back B. This time, defensive back B is carried off the field.

Your glossed over averages don't mean squat.

ALL of the significant information is in the DETAILS.

The specific details that you strip out of every so-called "analysis" that you offer.

tom

 

[Heiwa]

Heiwa,

And, again, the errors are too numerous to count. The following are just a few of the more glaring ones that stand out on a first scan.

1. Fire & damage on only one floor.
2. Wrong failure mode (columns vs. joints)
3. Wrong failure criteria. (Shear or tensile failure of screws and welds, not "energy of displacing elements".)
4. Wrong stress conditions on beams ("... pure compression..."?? Failure generating loads on beams are bending, not compression.)
5. Improper description of columns. They are not 1 story, but 3 story.
6. No stagger to columns. Errors 5 & 6 play a critical role in Error 7.
7. When examining impact between floors 97 & 98, you fail to account for the fact that virtually ALL of the columns between floors 96 & 97, and between 98 & 99, have been severely compromised.
8. Amateurish assumption of "perfect impact".
9. Hand-waving amateurish "averaging" of stresses. Ignoring stress concentrations due to lost supports, lost alignments, non-axial loads, etc.
10. Ignorance of asymmetric consequences of gravity, leading to ...
11. turning building on its side, and believing that meaningful principles can be learned from this. (It can be accepted as axiomatic that "no steel framed building lying on its side has ever subsequently suffered complete progressive collapse to the ground".)
12. Wrong FoS. The NIST report did an extensive review of the FOS's used in the WTC. Why are you guessing at "3"?
13. Confirmation of conclusions by reference to a Quack axiom.

Given the above, the conclusion is meaningless.


tom

My full scale model is very simple - just horizontal elements of mass m with vertical supports below included in m. And part C (14 m) impacts part A (97 m) after a drop. Just answer the question: What elements fail first after impact and compression?
Then we can discuss.

 

[tfk]

`
Hello there again.

Is the following correct ?

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

Did WTC1 follow this principle ?

"Force" is irrelevant.

You exert 2 lbs of force on a steak using a steak knife, and the steak cuts.
You exert 2 lbs of force on a steak using a spoon, and the steak does not cut.

STRESS matters, force does not.

And even stress is not the ONLY criteria.
A steak exerts exactly the same stress (& force) on the knife that the knife exerts on the steak. The knife is stronger.

A column stub hitting a concrete floor produces equal & opposite forces in the concrete & in the steel column. That is irrelevant to which part fails.

Don't think that I'm going to get drawn into your word-games, bill. You don't understand. You don't listen. You don't process information. And you aren't honest about it.

 

[Heiwa]

A running back A, weighing 220 lbs, collides with defensive back B, weighing 220 lbs. Running back gets carried off the field, while defensive back goes on to play.

Five minutes later, running back A is back in the game, gets the call and collides again with defensive back B. This time, defensive back B is carried off the field.

Your glossed over averages don't mean squat.

ALL of the significant information is in the DETAILS.

The specific details that you strip out of every so-called "analysis" that you offer.

tom

A and B? My parts are C and A! Regardless, it seems A and B have only same mass but not same structure so YAOT.

 

[bill smith]

A running back A, weighing 220 lbs, collides with defensive back B, weighing 220 lbs. Running back gets carried off the field, while defensive back goes on to play.

Five minutes later, running back A is back in the game, gets the call and collides again with defensive back B. This time, defensive back B is carried off the field.

Your glossed over averages don't mean squat.

ALL of the significant information is in the DETAILS.

The specific details that you strip out of every so-called "analysis" that you offer.

tom

How about this then.

Running back C collides with running backs A,B,D,E,F.G and H . As it happens they are stuck together. The day is 9/11 and though each individual running back weighs 220 lbs, A,B,D,E,F.G and H are carried off the field. lol

You chose a poor analogy Teddy.

 

[Heiwa]

I will give Heiwa $1 million dollars if anything he has written about the WTC collapses ends up in a legitimate engineering journal.

Thanks!

 

[Furcifer]

In the future I would be obliged if you would restrict yourself to the boldng of my written words and not to go changing them. Some would see that as common forgery. If you hve something to say about what I've said then just post in the expected manner.

No one changed your words, although I corrected the spelling of "mation" to "motion". I interjected. There's a difference bill, in the future I would be obliged if you refrained from making false accusations of me commiting illegal actions. There's no reason to be petty.

from BS-
"Whatever downwards force the moving body exerts on the stationary body fixed in the ground is reciprocated by the stationary body equally and oppositely. After that it depends which is used up first. Think of WTC1 and what should have happened. You can also correct me if I'm wrong."

You and Heiwa have stated the lower section was more rigid. Do you think the coefficient of restitution (or coefficient of elasticity) was the same for the upper and lower sections? What effect do you think rigidity has on the coeffcient of restitution? Would it be higher or lower? If during the collision, additional mass was added to the collision (by way of additional falling debris), what effect does it have on the duration of deformation? Does this change the impulse momentum equation of these two identical pieces?

I'll give you a hint, the additional falling debris changes the impulse momentum equation. Instead of an exoergic collision you end up with and endoergic collision.

 

[Thunder]

my prediction? this thread will end up like all others. the truthers will get frustrated and resort to calling the debunkers: "government loyalists", "bush lovers", or even "traitors".

any bets?