WTC Collapse Simulator - DEMOLITION PROOF.....

[Disenchanted]

Air friction? Yes it is negligible. But we talk about friction between parts like columns, beams, floors rubbing against each other and that is considerable. And Bazant ignores it.

Have you submitted your criticism of Bazant to a peer review journal, so it could be viewed by civil and structural engineers?

Bazant got his paper published in such a journal and so far has withstood scrutiny with in the peer review process.

If you believe you can refute his work why not submit your criticism?

 

[beachnut]

...

So the destruction seen including horizontal ejections of big chunks of wall sections cannot be due to energy provided by gravity.

How can you just wave your hands and produce another anti-intellectual statement?
Gravity was the only energy needed to eject the parts from the WTC. Once again you state false information. Why?

With over 576,000,000,000 Joules, there is more than enough energy to do the job? Your F, -F junk science is pathetic. Did you know how much energy was released on 9/11 due to gravity?

Do you understand gravity or energy in the WTC system? What is the energy involved in a WTC falling? Why not use numbers?

 

[PixyMisa]

Even if? Of course the upper part is destroyed

No.

After all, what do you even mean when you say "destroyed"? With a structure like WTC? Columns are bent? Broken? Welds broken? Floors cracked? Shattered? Reduced to dust?

What? Some of these happen to some degrees in some circumstances, but it all depends on the circumstances.

and the interface upper part/lower structure changes and the load it applies to the lower structure is redistributed, local pressures at contact points are reduced and further destruction is arrested.

No. You've demonstrated yourself why you cannot claim this.

You always reason as if the upper part remains unchanged after contact.

I never said anything of the sort.

What I said was that it doesn't matter.

It doesn't.

Yeah.

You are reasoning exactly as Bazant!

What we know, and you are having trouble with, is that it's not that important.

In the real world the upper part could not have remained unchanged, and when it starts to change after contact you have to look again what happens.

Yes.

And it might be that the top of the structure crumbles, leaving the rest of the structure standing.
Or it might be that the entire structure collapses.

You pointed out yourself that the rest of the structure undergoes deformation. You said that.

If the rest of the structure is not strong enough to withstand that deformation, it will collapse. The precise sequence of events depending on a huge variety of factors, of course, all of which you have chosen to ignore.

That's why the videos, topic of this thread, are wrong showing the upper part intact all the time.

No.

It doesn't matter.

Whether it's a single perfectly rigid million-ton structure, or a million tons of concrete kibble, it's still a million tons coming down on a weakened structure not designed to support that load in that way.

But the videos are still quite good. If the upper part for any reason would have remanied intact, the destruction that follows would have taken much longer time than seen in reality.

And what is the basis for this claim? You just said that it couldn't happen at all.

So the destruction seen including horizontal ejections of big chunks of wall sections cannot be due to energy provided by gravity.

Utter nonsense.

Take a normal drinking glass. Drop it on a tiled or concrete floor. Bits of it will fly all over the room.

That's your "horizontal ejection of big chunks of wall sections" right there.

 

[Dave Rogers]

OK - the 11 Match Boxes Experiment (or 9/11 Match Boxes Experiment).

We drop an assembly of 11 match boxes (object dropped) on the ground (object contacted). At contact with the ground both objects deform (if you look carefully) and the smaller object (11 match boxes) bounces - up!

Now do the same with a large building, by removing the ground floor supports with explosives. What happens, Heiwa? Are you scared to admit that the building behaves totally differently to a stack of matchboxes? Or would you like to try and convince people that buildings bounce?

Dave

 

[Bananaman]

Just face it guys, wasting time trying to explain things to Heiwa is pointless.

He's a ****ing idiot. End of story.


Bananaman.

 

[Heiwa]

No. Although there will be a non-negligible air friction, gravity applies a bigger force. A glued object interacts each other with the wall he's stuck to.


Because the glue interacts with the ceiling and the object...

Yes, but you can better than that. Where are the vectors? How can glue overcome force of gravity?

 

[Heiwa]

Now do the same with a large building, by removing the ground floor supports with explosives. What happens, Heiwa? Are you scared to admit that the building behaves totally differently to a stack of matchboxes? Or would you like to try and convince people that buildings bounce?

Dave

No, you just make my point. The upper, weaker, smaller part, above the modified interface in the structure, is deformed (and destroyed) when in contact with the object below.

 

[.13.]

No, you just make my point. The upper, weaker, smaller part, above the modified interface in the structure, is deformed (and destroyed) when in contact with the object below.

Why don't the matchboxes disintegrate when they hit the ground? Surely they are weaker than the object below (the ground)?

 

[Dave Rogers]

No, you just make my point. The upper, weaker, smaller part, above the modified interface in the structure, is deformed (and destroyed) when in contact with the object below.

Not with matchboxes, it isn't.

Dave

 

[Heiwa]

Why don't the matchboxes disintegrate when they hit the ground? Surely they are weaker than the object below (the ground)?

They, the matchboxes, have two possibilites! Bounce or destroy themselves. So they decided to bounce. All explained above.

The upper part of WTC1 had the same choice.

Personally I would bounce.

 

[Heiwa]

Just face it guys, wasting time trying to explain things to Heiwa is pointless.

He's a ****ing idiot. End of story.


Bananaman.

Is the Moderator sleeping?

 

[dtugg]

They, the matchboxes, have two possibilites! Bounce or destroy themselves. So they decided to bounce. All explained above.

The upper part of WTC1 had the same choice.

Personally I would bounce.

This has to be a stundie.

 

[Heiwa]

Not with matchboxes, it isn't.

Dave

Oh, yes. They deform ... and bounce. Didn't your experiment confirm that?

 

[Cuddles]

I am still waiting to get my orangegun (spudgun?) involved in a Heiwa experiment.

I like your thinking. OK, new experiment:

Equipment
11* Matchboxes (with matches)
1* Potato
1* Spud gun
1* Paraffin
1* Lighter

Setup
Stack 10 matchboxes on top of each other.
Soak potato in paraffin and place in spud gun.

Method
Fire potato at top of matchbox tower.
Use lighter to set fire to impact point.
Leave for several hours.
Drop 11th matchbox from a point directly above where you built the stack from a height of 12 matchboxes.

Conclusion
If the dropped matchbox lands on the stack and stays in place, the WTC towers could not have collapsed.
If the dropped matchbox causes a progressive collapse in a downwards direction, the NIST report into the collapse is correct.
If the dropped matchbox lands in a small pile of ash where the stack used to be, possibly a pile of matchboxes isn't a valid comparison to a hundred story steel-framed skyscraper.

Any comments on this updated, more accurate version of Heiwa's "experiment"? Clearly, including the fire and impact damage makes this a much more valid comparison than Heiwa's attempt. As far as I can see, this is pretty much an exact replication of the events of 11/9/01. Apart from the lack of skyscrapers and aeroplanes, but those are just minor details that obviously have nothing to do with skyscrapers collapsing due to collisions with aeroplanes.

 

[.13.]

They, the matchboxes, have two possibilites! Bounce or destroy themselves. So they decided to bounce. All explained above.

The upper part of WTC1 had the same choice.

Personally I would bounce.

Does that mean that matchboxes don't behave like buildings?

 

[Toke]

YES, orange cannon in action

 

[Heiwa]

Does that mean that matchboxes don't behave like buildings?

No, same laws of physics apply. Should be evident by now. Of course a lot of NWO-posters think laws of physics are subject to scale, etc. and that big weak objects become rigid when dropping, etc. But I do not blame them. Prof. Bazant and NIST make the same error.

 

[Toke]

So, you will get the same result whether is it a building, a pizzatower, or some machtboxes that burns for two hours?

 

[.13.]

No, same laws of physics apply. Should be evident by now. Of course a lot of NWO-posters think laws of physics are subject to scale, etc. and that big weak objects become rigid when dropping, etc. But I do not blame them. Prof. Bazant and NIST make the same error.

But don't buildings and matchboxes appear to behave differently?

 

[stateofgrace]

Air friction? Yes it is negligible. But we talk about friction between parts like columns, beams, floors rubbing against each other and that is considerable. And Bazant ignores it.

Does he?

I don't see where you get this from, maybe you could explain fully, in a non emotive, scientific post exactly where you got this from. Please include your calculations.

PS, here is a clue for anybody that as taken the time to read the works of Bazant (which you clearly have not), he does not model the collapse, he models the best case scenario based on ideal conditions, i.e. the columns falling onto each other and the upper section staying intact, during the collapse. In all the conditions, which are fully backed up with calculations and fact, the towers collapse. If you can offer a better case scenario, backed fully with calculations, do so.

Put up or shut up. Better still get in touch with this man whom you have continually accused of being complacent in mass murder and put your "mathematics” to him.

Please stop, you are fooling nobody other than yourself.