Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

[bill smith]

Smith's Law

Yesterday I posted the statement below thinking that it paraphrased Newton's similar law. 'Every action has an equal and opposite reaction'. However several posters came back and told me that my statement is in fact incorrect. So thinking as I still do that it is applicable and immutable let it henceforth be known as 'Smith's Law'

Smith's Law
''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]

They say that the Winter Gardens (above) was destroyed by a 4-ton piece that came off WTC1 600 feet away. In that case WF2 must have been quite a distance off too. Why did IT fall down ?

WFC2 (World Finance Ceter 2) did not fall down - it was seriously damaged. I have no knowledge as to whether it was subsequently damaged.

A good single point reference is the FEMA report Chapter 7 available from http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch7.pdf

The Winter Garden was hit by far more than one 4 ton piece see these

http://conleys.com.au/webjref/wintgard1.jpg
http://conleys.com.au/webjref/wintgard2.jpg

Get yourself the pdf - I cannot do all the work for you.

Those pics come from page 7 - 7 There is a summary of the building damage at page 7-2.

WTC 1,2,3 and 7 collapsed, WTC 4,5 & 6 partially collapsed - that is ALL the WTC buildings plus major damage to 3 WFC, 3WFC and Winter Garden

 

[ozeco41]

Yesterday I posted the statement below thinking that it paraphrased Newton's similar law. 'Every action has an equal and opposite reaction'. However several posters came back and told me that my statement is in fact incorrect. So thinking as I still do that it is applicable and immutable let it henceforth be known as 'Smith's Law'

Smith's Law
''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.''

Sorry bill but it is still not correct. The first sentence is true in a trivial sense. The second only applies in the case of the upper part falling on the lower and it can only be correct if you specify that the falling part must land on the lower part with all the corresponding bits coming into contact at the same instant. In practice difficult to impossible to achieve.

Even under those circumstances the second sentence prediction is at best a "may" and will depend on the details of the failure mode of the first impacts.

Reason being that once debris from failing starts to accumulate it joins with the upper "block" to make a larger total load falling on the next level of the lower block. So from the 2nd stage on the forces cease to be equal and opposite. Even if you have achieved the impossible in practice and got them equal for the first impact.

Further elaboration if you wish and I don't become impatient or distracted by the 2 litre sachet of Sauvignon Blanc I am testing.

EDIT Rong spellin

 

[Heiwa]

So you admit "is the whole purpose of the model and this thread."

Whether it is "live" could be controversial. And it reveals nothing new.

GREAT to see your clarification. Can we therefore drop all references explicit or by inference to WTC and 9/11

Folks let us Rejoice, Heiwa confirms that his model is not representative of WTC on 9/11.

Discussion of WTC can now move to other threads.

PS Heiwa! What is there to be jealous of in a simple demonstration of basic physics?

No, model is very relevant to WTC 1 and 9/11. Part C cannot one-way crush part A only assisted by gravity, which is applicable to WTC 1. Your task is to prove the model wrong.

 

[bill smith]

Sorry bill but it is still not correct. The first sentence is true in a trivial sense. The second only applies in the case of the upper part falling on the lower and it can only be correct if you specify that the falling part must land on the lower part with all the corresponding bits coming into contact at the same instant. In practice difficult to impossible to achieve.

Even under those circumstances the second sentence prediction is at best a "may" and will depend on the details of the failure mode of the first impacts.

Reason being that once debris from failing starts to accumulate it joins with the upper "block" to make a larger total load falling on the next level of the lower block. So from the 2nd stage on the forces cease to be equal and opposite. Even if you have achieved the impossible in practice and got them equal for the first impact.

Further elaboration if you wish and I don't become impatient or distracted by the 2 litre sachet of Sauvignon Blanc I am testing.

[qimg]http://conleys.com.au/webjref/white.gif[/qimg]


EDIT Rong spellin

I pointed this out yesterday too.

If you look up at the bottom of block C in your minds eye you will see a pattern of column and other element locations.. Then if you look at the top of block A you wll see the same pattern of columns and elements in reverse. So when the two blocks engage the damages are equal.

Smith's Law still applies.

 

[ozeco41]

I pointed this out yesterday too.

If you look up at the bottom of block C in your minds eye you will see a pattern of column and other element locations. Then if you look at the top of block A you will see the same pattern of columns and elements in reverse. So when the two blocks engage the damages sre equal.

Smith's Law still applies.

You need to specify that you align the two.
Heiwa's model assumes alignment.

The WTC Tower collapses were not aligned.

Heiwa's model is a theoretical model which would be very close to impossible to put into practice - you could offer a million dollar bet on that provided....…

The WTC "not aligned" collapse is what actually happened.

eco's law "You can con most of the of the people most of the time but some people you will never fool." (Apologies understood to be due to Lincoln, A [citation needed])

ozeco41 (the eco from oz and the 41 is "mysterious") is one of those usually in the "some people" group on WTC and 9/11

Other subjects I occasionally get wrong.

 

[Heiwa]

You need to specify that you align the two.
Heiwa's model assumes alignment.

The WTC Tower collapses were not aligned.

Heiwa's model is a theoretical model which would be very close to impossible to put into practice - you could offer a million dollar bet on that provided....…

The WTC "not aligned" collapse is what actually happened.

No alignment is necessary. Just drop C on A - do not miss (too much misalignment?) - and try to crush A with C.

How is the area of part A crushed that C misses due to misalignment? Nothing contacts it?

Pls, make a sketch! C drops and gets inclined and impacts? Or C drops gets displaced sideways and impacts? What happens then? Any deformations or failures?

 

[bill smith]

Is it true to say that Bazant's hypothesis is not in fact a graphic representation of what he thinks happened.literally ? If that is so then we can dispense with Bazant because debunking him is not debunking anything.

But does that mean that there is no official collapse theory other than a general statement of 'the buildings fell down from damage and fire' ?

 

[beachnut]

Is it true to say that Bazant's hypothesis is not in fact a graphic representation of what he thinks happened.literally ? If that is so then we can dispense with Bazant because debunking him is not debunking anything.

But does that mean that there is no official collapse theory other than a general statement of 'the buildings fell down from damage and fire' ?

You can't explain Bazant's paper and like others who attacked Bazant with a real paper, they were busted in a real journal. Your failed attempt to talk about Bazant proves you lack engineering skills, and you have zero comprehension of physics. Your support of Heiwa's delusions on 911 is priceless; keep up the comedy with more dumb statements based on your opinions based on lies, hearsay and more delusions. You can't do a worse job if you tried.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

You can't explain Bazant's paper and like others who attacked Bazant with a real paper, they were busted in a real journal. Your failed attempt to talk about Bazant proves you lack engineering skills, and you have zero comprehension of physics. Your support of Heiwa's delusions on 911 is priceless; keep up the comedy with more dumb statements based on your opinions based on lies, hearsay and more delusions. You can't do a worse job if you tried.

Beachnut, the paper "The Missing Jolt" refutes Dr. Bazant's hypothesis so completely that those who still feel a need to cling to a non-controlled demolition theory for the collapses are now forced to try and claim that there were lots of smaller jolts which somehow weren't visible. That is not what Dr. Bazant said, as he knew that a natural collapse would require a serious jolt or impulse to generate an amplified load. He probably wasn't being dishonest but just looking to explain it in a naturally possible way. The problem is that there was no jolt or impulse, so his natural explanation doesn't work.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf

The multiple small jolt theory is surreal. It simply can't happen that way, and those using it and dressing it in words such as "it just means Bazant's most optimistic scenario isn't what happened" don't have a way to explain how these smaller impulses could take place without being observable.

 

[WildCat]

This is what I was trying to say. When the whole top part of the building starts to fall, what stops it?

The ground.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

The ground.

Usually the columns which have enough strength to carry many times the load that is on them above. The only way around it naturally is with an amplified load. That requires deceleration which did not occur in the measureable fall of the upper block of the North Tower.

 

[Furcifer]

Beachnut, the paper "The Missing Jolt" refutes Dr. Bazant's hypothesis so completely that those who still feel a need to cling to a non-controlled demolition theory for the collapses are now forced to try and claim that there were lots of smaller jolts which somehow weren't visible. That is not what Dr. Bazant said, as he knew that a natural collapse would require a serious jolt or impulse to generate an amplified load. He probably wasn't being dishonest but just looking to explain it in a naturally possible way. The problem is that there was no jolt or impulse, so his natural explanation doesn't work.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf

The multiple small jolt theory is surreal. It simply can't happen that way, and those using it and dressing it in words such as "it just means Bazant's most optimistic scenario isn't what happened" don't have a way to explain how these smaller impulses could take place without being observable.

Anything that gets an 11 story building in motion is going to be considered a "jolt" IMHO. It's hard to tell from any video, but the idea the upper section perfectly "nestled" down on itself is just as surreal.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Anything that gets an 11 story building in motion is going to be considered a "jolt" IMHO. It's hard to tell from any video, but the idea the upper section perfectly "nestled" down on itself is just as surreal.

There was no jolt. The fall of the upper block has been measured and there is no negative velocity change or deceleration. If there was no jolt then there is no natural collapse mechanism meaning something else removed the strength of the columns.

Maybe you need to see for yourself so measure it yourself. The Missing Jolt paper provides a step by step way for anyone to do it themselves. It is not hard to tell. Read the paper which is in the quote you used from my earlier post.

 

[Furcifer]

Usually the columns which have enough strength to carry many times the load that is on them above. The only way around it naturally is with an amplified load. That requires deceleration which did not occur in the measureable fall of the upper block of the North Tower.

"Many times the load" should read "About 2 times the static load".

"Many" is deliberately misleading. Knowing this and stating it as fact could be considered a lie. I'll assume you're simply ignorant of this and leave it at that.

 

[Furcifer]

There was no jolt. The fall of the upper block has been measured and there is no negative velocity change or deceleration. If there was no jolt then there is no natural collapse mechanism meaning something else removed the strength of the columns.

Maybe you need to see for yourself so measure it yourself. The Missing Jolt paper provides a step by step way for anyone to do it themselves. It is not hard to tell. Read the paper which is in the quote you used from my earlier post.

Jolt is an ambiguous term. What do you consider a "jolt"? If i move an entire building 1cm in 1 second is that a "jolt"? Break it down for me again, given the video evidence, what is the observable amount of movement over what time frame? If i remember correctly, the entire upper section could have moved upwards of a few feets in 1/32 of second without being detectable. That's a considerable "jolt" in my book.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Jolt is an ambiguous term. What do you consider a "jolt"? If i move an entire building 1cm in 1 second is that a "jolt"? Break it down for me again, given the video evidence, what is the observable amount of movement over what time frame? If i remember correctly, the entire upper section could have moved upwards of a few feets in 1/32 of second without being detectable. That's a considerable "jolt" in my book.

You need to read the paper. It will explain what a jolt is for you. The real term is "impulsive load".

 

[Tony Szamboti]

An additional requirement for the Heiwa model challenge

I would like to see an additional requirement for the Heiwa model challenge, especially for those who believe there could have been indiscernable impulses in the fall of the upper block of the North Tower.

The additional requirement would be to also show how these indiscernable impulses could occur, while still causing a collapse.

Of course, this could be done on a second model, so as not to interfere with the point Heiwa is trying to make and others here are trying to disprove.

 

[leftysergeant]

There was no jolt. The fall of the upper block has been measured and there is no negative velocity change or deceleration. If there was no jolt then there is no natural collapse mechanism meaning something else removed the strength of the columns.

No.

The debris falling inside the perimeter columns pushed them outward and broke the floors loose. It doesn't matter how much the columns could take verticlly. What matters most is how much they could take from the inside, andhow strong the brackets supporting the floor slabs were.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

"Many times the load" should read "About 2 times the static load".

"Many" is deliberately misleading. Knowing this and stating it as fact could be considered a lie. I'll assume you're simply ignorant of this and leave it at that.

No, I am not ignorant of what the Factors of Safety of the Twin Tower columns were. They were 3.00 to 1 for the core and 5.00 to 1 for the perimeter. I even wrote about it in a paper which can be found at

http://www.journalof911studies.com/...itionHypothesisForDestructionofTwinTowers.pdf

with the Factor of Safety of the columns discussed in the Reference section.