WTC Collapse Simulator - DEMOLITION PROOF.....

[GlennB]

I have just dropped a pencil on a perfectly flat kitchen table. The pencil, also horizontal, every time, bounces straight up. And it is not due to gravity! Gravity is a force acting vertically down - all the time.

A vertical force F down always produces vertical motion down. If the motion is in another direction, up or sideways, it is due to another force.

So if you think that big chunks of WTC1 walls are ejected horizontally out by gravity, you are simply wrong.

The original point was that a pencil dropped at an angle on the edge of of table will move sideways. You have carefully ignored this.

But even if the pencil is dropped horizontally there will still be sideways movement if a greater length is overhanging the edge than is hitting the table. Try it.

The same applies to WTC. Components falling vertically will experience a degree of sideways movement when they collide with other components that are fixed horizontally.

 

[leftysergeant]

The whole problem with femr2's and Heiwa's theories is that they assume that the only damage was done by one floor falling on another, in succession, and does not take into account the effect that the piling up of dbris has on the perimeter columns. Once mass is set in motion, it can be stopped only by meeting another moving mass or running into an unmoveable obstacle from which it cannot be diverted. The mass which contacts a floor may be slowed by that contact until enough mass arrived from above to break the floor. The arriving mass may, then, be travelling faster than the mass ahead of it. Since it is not all of a coherent piece, some of that mass will be deflected outward, thus applying pressure of the surfaces copntaining it.

Since, in this case, the containing surfaces were assembled in three storey segments, it is to be expected that the mass which has not come into contact with a given floor may already be exerting a force on the columns one or two floors below the topmost in tact floor.

The falling debris just basicly blew the towers open.

Bazant may be wrong in some aspects, but he is less wrong than all those who think of the collapse as a single, linear process with force applied in only one direction.

 

[PixyMisa]

I have just dropped a pencil on a perfectly flat kitchen table. The pencil, also horizontal, every time, bounces straight up.

You are lying.

And it is not due to gravity!

Really?

Gravity is a force acting vertically down - all the time.

And?

A vertical force F down always produces vertical motion down. If the motion is in another direction, up or sideways, it is due to another force.

Yes. Which is why I am asking you to describe all the force vectors, not just one of them.

So if you think that big chunks of WTC1 walls are ejected horizontally out by gravity, you are simply wrong.

A vertical force can and very often does result in horizontal motion. Dropping a pencil on a table is just one of an infinite number of ways to demonstrate this.

Of course, if you lie about your results, you won't get very far.

 

[Heiwa]

You are lying.


Really?


And?


Yes. Which is why I am asking you to describe all the force vectors, not just one of them.


A vertical force can and very often does result in horizontal motion. Dropping a pencil on a table is just one of an infinite number of ways to demonstrate this.

Of course, if you lie about your results, you won't get very far.

No, gravity does not cause lying. It is just a vertical downward force.

That a vertical downward gravity force F result in horizontal motion is not possible. There must be some other effects doing that. You agree?

Example: dropping a pencil that contacts a table edge may produce some effects. OK? But, none is caused by gravit! You agree? Probaly not??? But gravity just caused the dropping. You agree! Yes. The cause of the contact is that the table edge happened to be in the way of the drop - but gravity did not put the table edge there. You understand? No! OK, read above a couple ot times! Gravity does not put table edges under dropping pencils. Someone else does, but not gravity.

The contact with the table edge thus caused the other effects. The table edge has no idea that what contacted it was caused by gravity. It could have been you contacting it and you are not gravity.

So let's say the table edge caused horizontal motion. But not gravity.

BTW, Bazant assumes that the whatever, let's call it X, drops on the table edge and destroys the table edge (no energy required for that) and that X remains intact and continues to accelerate to destroy other table edges. No horizontal motions are caused by gravity in the Bazant 1-D fantasy world. When X has destroyed 100+ table edges, X suddenly contacts a rubble heap on ground and ground/rubble heap destroys X in a crush-up.

Here I should put some laughing dogs, if I knew how, but it is not really necessary. The Bazant theory is so stupid that only mad dogs (and silly Americans) believe it and I just feel sorry.

 

[twinstead]

Here I should put some laughing dogs, if I knew how, but it is not really necessary. The Bazant theory is so stupid that only mad dogs (and silly Americans) believe it and I just feel sorry.

So, 'silly Americans' are the only ones who believe it? Dude. The whole filppin' world believes it. YOU'RE the anomaly.

 

[Lennart Hyland]

Heiwa:

Have you presented your "findings" to Bazant or NIST?

 

[Sunstealer]

Ever tried to eat one of these Heiwa?

What happens to all the vanilla custard in the custard slice as you bite down? What happens to the custard if you just push the top part of the slice down with your hand?

 

[A W Smith]

Heiwa:

Have you presented your "findings" to Bazant or NIST?

He lacks the confidence in his beliefs, Anders Bjorkman will never ever publish a real scientific paper outside of making comments on a forum or his own free personal web space. He knows he is wrong. We have proven he is wrong. Hes just a 60 something agenda driven flippant troll.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

That a vertical downward gravity force F result in horizontal motion is not possible. There must be some other effects doing that. You agree?

You either don't care or you don't understand what you are being told. If you place a ball on a sloped surface gravity will produce a downward motion component and the sloped surface will produce a horizontal element to the motion. The result will be that the ball rolls down the slope with a horizontal motion vector. The concept is essentially the same for the pencil model with different dynamics.

So let's say the table edge caused horizontal motion. But not gravity.

Garbage... the interaction between the pencil and the table influences the way in which the pencil lands due to gravity. Stand the pencil vertically on the surface of the table and then release the pencil. The pencil will tip over, and fall on it's side. That alone should demonstrate that horizontal motion vectors happen in everyday practice. Without the need for math.

Here I should put some laughing dogs, if I knew how, but it is not really necessary.

No laughing dogs needed, you made more than just a fool out of yourself with your argumentation. The pleasure is all mine:

The Bazant theory is so stupid that only mad dogs (and silly Americans) believe it and I just feel sorry.

If you're going to antagonize an entire population for believing in sound engineering principals, at least get your demographics right. Not everyone on this forum is American, and political ideologies are worlds apart. Of course it's only natural that you'd could come up with silly ad hom tactics, I guess I shouldn't be too surprised.

 

[Heiwa]

You either don't care or you don't understand what you are being told. If you place a ball on a sloped surface gravity will produce a downward motion component and the sloped surface will produce a horizontal element to the motion. The result will be that the ball rolls down the slope with a horizontal motion vector. The concept is essentially the same for the pencil model with different dynamics.

??? This is exactly what I say. Gravity produces downward motion (only) and the sloped surface a horizontal motion.
But there are no sloped surfaces in WTC1!
So what ejects big chunks of perimeter wall panels 100 meters horizontally?

The floors? There are no floors below the perimeter wall panels.

So get your vectors together when you look at the demolition of WTC1 and try to figure this out.

The beauty with gravity is that it only produces downward motion and - luckily - there is often something in the way stopping this downward motion. If not you and me would drop to the centre of the earth.

Silly Americans think that if you drop an upper part, flexible, light weight, mostly air, of WTC1 on the lower structure, the lower structure collapses in 100 000's+ pieces.

Well, it is not as simple as that, even if NWO criminals want you to believe that fantasy. It is even simpler; the upper part would just cause some local damage up top and remain there, because the lower structure is in the way. It will not collapse. It arrests the drop.

Read my paper at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm and you will understand.

 

[Lennart Hyland]

I guess I'm still under ignore huh?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

But there are no sloped surfaces in WTC1!
So what ejects big chunks of perimeter wall panels 100 meters horizontally?

There doesn't need to be... Think of a column as an elastic piece, when you compress it it bows, but it resists that flexing through its stiffness. If you apply a dynamic compressive force and then suddenly release it, the column 'snaps' for lack of better wording back into alignment... This is what causes some of the horizontal ejection, but of course it's not the only dynamic in the collapse.

If you don't understand the analogy I sat up for the column compression then think about a rubber band. The more you stretch it, the more potential energy you give it, and the farther it shoots when you release it...


If you still don't understand then perhaps someone has a better way to word this... but if that fails then I have no way of helping you...

 

[PixyMisa]

No, gravity does not cause lying.

Then why are you lying?

It is just a vertical downward force.

And?

That a vertical downward gravity force F result in horizontal motion is not possible.

Wrong!

There must be some other effects doing that. You agree?

There must be something else involved, yes. But without the gravity, there would be no movement at all in these cases.

Example: dropping a pencil that contacts a table edge may produce some effects. OK?

Yes.

But, none is caused by gravit! You agree? Probaly not??? But gravity just caused the dropping. You agree! Yes. The cause of the contact is that the table edge happened to be in the way of the drop - but gravity did not put the table edge there. You understand? No! OK, read above a couple ot times! Gravity does not put table edges under dropping pencils. Someone else does, but not gravity.

How is any of that relevant to anything?

You drop the pencil on the table, or on the edge of the table, and you get sideways motion. Every time.

The contact with the table edge thus caused the other effects. The table edge has no idea that what contacted it was caused by gravity. It could have been you contacting it and you are not gravity.

So what? The reason the pencil fell and hit the table was gravity.

So let's say the table edge caused horizontal motion. But not gravity.

Try the experiment in zero gravity. Look - no horizontal motion.

How about that.

BTW, Bazant assumes that the whatever, let's call it X, drops on the table edge and destroys the table edge (no energy required for that)

He doesn't assume anything of the sort.

and that X remains intact and continues to accelerate to destroy other table edges.

X need not remain intact.

No horizontal motions are caused by gravity in the Bazant 1-D fantasy world. When X has destroyed 100+ table edges, X suddenly contacts a rubble heap on ground and ground/rubble heap destroys X in a crush-up.

Wrong again.

Here I should put some laughing dogs, if I knew how, but it is not really necessary. The Bazant theory is so stupid that only mad dogs (and silly Americans) believe it and I just feel sorry.

So, all your ranting aside, you accept that gravity can result in horizontal motion?

 

[PixyMisa]

??? This is exactly what I say. Gravity produces downward motion (only)

Wrong!

Gravity is a downwards force. It can produce motion in any direction, including upwards, depending on the situation.

and the sloped surface a horizontal motion.

Gravity acting on a ball on a sloped surface produces horizontal motion. A ball on a sloped surface in zero gravity does not move.

But there are no sloped surfaces in WTC1!

There were once the beams started to give way.

So what ejects big chunks of perimeter wall panels 100 meters horizontally?

Well, that didn't happen, as far as I know.

But the answer in general is boiled almonds.

The floors? There are no floors below the perimeter wall panels.

Irrelevant.

So get your vectors together when you look at the demolition of WTC1 and try to figure this out.

We have. It works.

Now, you try it.

The beauty with gravity is that it only produces downward motion

Wrong.

Silly Americans think that if you drop an upper part, flexible

It was not particularly flexible.

light weight

And it was not light weight, by any normal measure.

mostly air

Mostly air by volume. Irrelevant.

of WTC1 on the lower structure, the lower structure collapses in 100 000's+ pieces.

Indeed. And this is precisely what we saw happen.

Well, it is not as simple as that, even if NWO criminals want you to believe that fantasy. It is even simpler; the upper part would just cause some local damage up top and remain there, because the lower structure is in the way. It will not collapse. It arrests the drop.

Place a bowling ball on an empty matchbox. What happens, Heiwa?

 

[Heiwa]

Think of a column as an elastic piece, when you compress it it bows, but it resists that flexing through its stiffness. If you apply a dynamic compressive force and then suddenly release it, the column 'snaps' for lack of better wording back into alignment... This is what causes some of the horizontal ejection, but of course it's not the only dynamic in the collapse.

I agree that if you load a vertical column it will both elastically compress/deform vertically and deform sideways/horizontally between supports. It acts like a spring. And if you remove the load, it springs back into its vertical shape. All described at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist1.htm#7 and the energy required for that.

If the load is bigger, plastic hinges will develop in the column between supports and fractures will start to develop at these hinges and cut through the column. It also required energy.

Sooner or later one, only one, fracture will cut through the column completely. The column is then in two pieces, evidently, and the load is no longer applied to the lower part ... that should spring back into vertical shape with a deformed top. The ends of both parts are plastically deformed/bent.

So what happens to the upper part? Well, no column supports it any longer so it ends up, somewhere else and not on top of the same column. One reason is that the upper part column has now displaced below the top surface of the lower part column.

So the bent ends of the two parts of the column will never meet again. The force vector of the upper part cannot be applied to the lower part.

However, according to Bazant & Co (fantasy world or NWO representatives) the upper part will, strangely, contact the lower part again ... and break it again ... 100 times or so!

In my analysis there is too little energy available to produce a fracture that will cut through the column in the first place and that is the reason why the destruction is arrested before that; only local failures, plastic hinges, would develop. And the whole upper part would remain up top.

It is quite simple to understand as soon as you get your vectors and energy calculations right.

So the destruction you see on all videos is not caused by release of potential energy. All that energy could not even fracture completely the columns.

So we are back to the big chunks of wall panel sections being ejected horizontally. If gravity did not assist in this, what did?

 

[uruk]

So we are back to the big chunks of wall panel sections being ejected horizontally. If gravity did not assist in this, what did?

Grab a bundle of chopsticks and drop them straight down on a table with thier ends pointing down. Notice how the potential energy provided by gravity caused some of the chopsticks to collide with each other as they impacted on the table to fly outward horizontaly.

 

[Heiwa]

Grab a bundle of chopsticks and drop them straight down on a table with thier ends pointing down. Notice how the potential energy provided by gravity caused some of the chopsticks to collide with each other as they impacted on the table to fly outward horizontaly.

Yes, yes. But it has nothing to do with gravity. It is the table that arrests the chop sticks and cause them to collide with each other. Gravity did not put the table there! Gravity did not cause the chopsticks to collide. The table did!

BUT, according Bazant, NIST, Greening, Seffen & Co the table should collapse if you drop rigid chopsticks on it. This is evidently fantasy world and you just confirmed it. The table evidently stops the chop sticks!

Gravity is actually a quite weak force. Cannot ever bring WTC1 down. Or eject big chunks of walls sideways out.

Thanks for your post. Pls join the truther movement, actually common sense people like myself using basic physics to explain things.

 

[lapman]

Yes, yes. But it has nothing to do with gravity. It is the table that arrests the chop sticks and cause them to collide with each other. Gravity did not put the table there! Gravity did not cause the chopsticks to collide. The table did!

BUT, according Bazant, NIST, Greening, Seffen & Co the table should collapse if you drop rigid chopsticks on it. This is evidently fantasy world and you just confirmed it. The table evidently stops the chop sticks!

Gravity is actually a quite weak force. Cannot ever bring WTC1 down. Or eject big chunks of walls sideways out.

Thanks for your post. Pls join the truther movement, actually common sense people like myself using basic physics to explain things.

Now, make the combined weight of those chopstics 250 times the load capacity of the table and watch what happens. Drop them into the center of the table and watch what happens to the legs.

 

[uruk]

Yes, yes. But it has nothing to do with gravity. It is the table that arrests the chop sticks and cause them to collide with each other. Gravity did not put the table there! Gravity did not cause the chopsticks to collide. The table did!

What energy does the table impart onto the chopsticks that was not initialy provided by the potential energy supplied by gravity?

Potential energy provides motion and momentum in a particular vector. When the the chopsticks impact on the table surface the downward momentum gets converted into momentum in a different vector depending on the orientation of the chopstick to the direction of impact on the table and the elasticity of the chopstick and table surface.

BUT, according Bazant, NIST, Greening, Seffen & Co the table should collapse if you drop rigid chopsticks on it. This is evidently fantasy world and you just confirmed it. The table evidently stops the chop sticks!

That is because the table is a much more massive, durable and stable structure than the chopstick. Try dropping the bundle of chopsticks on a structure of other chopsticks and see what happens then.

Gravity is actually a quite weak force. Cannot ever bring WTC1 down. Or eject big chunks of walls sideways out.

Gravity may be weak on the subatomic scale but it is much more powerfull on the macro scale. That is because gravity is constant and always in effect. Gravity is powerfull enough to keep the Earth in orbit around the Sun. It is powerfull enough to bend light and keep you from flying off into space when you take a good running jump. Sure you can easily overcome gravity whenever you lift something or jump, but you always come back down to earth because the energy in your jump is over come by the constant pull of gravity. Gravity is so powerful on the macroscale that it takes tons of fuel to accelerate the space shuttle into a low Earth orbit.


Gravity is also always accumulative. The greater the mass, great is the gravitational field, and greater is the effect of mass in motion in a gravitational field. Drop a feather and a bowling ball on a cardboard box (say a pizza box). Guess which one is going to flatten the box.

Why? Because of the greater mass of the bowling ball in the gravitational field.

Thanks for your post. Pls join the truther movement, actually common sense people like myself using basic physics to explain things.

Unfortunately you don't seem to funderstand* physics where gravity, potential energy and momentum is concerned.

Gravity does not stop acting on an object after an initial impact especially when there is still potential energy due to its mass and position in a gravitational field.









* Wow, I created a new word by accident. "Funderstand" the joy of understanding.

 

[Heiwa]

What energy does the table impart onto the chopsticks that was not initialy provided by the potential energy supplied by gravity?

Potential energy provides motion and momentum in a particular vector. When the the chopsticks impact on the table surface the downward momentum gets converted into momentum in a different vector depending on the orientation of the chopstick to the direction of impact on the table and the elasticity of the chopstick and table surface.

That is because the table is a much more massive, durable and stable structure than the chopstick. Try dropping the bundle of chopsticks on a structure of other chopsticks and see what happens then.

Gravity may be weak on the subatomic scale but it is much more powerfull on the macro scale. That is because gravity is constant and always in effect. Gravity is powerfull enough to keep the Earth in orbit around the Sun. It is powerfull enough to bend light and keep you from flying off into space when you take a good running jump. Sure you can easily overcome gravity whenever you lift something or jump, but you always come back down to earth because the energy in your jump is over come by the constant pull of gravity. Gravity is so powerful on the macroscale that it takes tons of fuel to accelerate the space shuttle into a low Earth orbit.


Gravity is also always accumulative. The greater the mass, great is the gravitational field, and greater is the effect of mass in motion in a gravitational field. Drop a feather and a bowling ball on a cardboard box (say a pizza box). Guess which one is going to flatten the box.

Why? Because of the greater mass of the bowling ball in the gravitational field.


Unfortunately you don't seem to funderstand* physics where gravity, potential energy and momentum is concerned.

Gravity does not stop acting on an object after an initial impact especially when there is still potential energy due to its mass and position in a gravitational field.

Yes, gravity is always present but nobody blames gravity when you drop something. Then you have to study both objects involved at contact and see what happens.

You cannot, like Bazant, Nist & Co, assume that the smaller object, the WTC1 upper part, is rigid while the bigger object is weak, etc. That is cheating from the start.

In this case the smaller object has exactly the same structure as the bigger object, i.e. an assembly of strong columns, weaker beams and thin concrete floor slabs. Not rigid at all!

And when the smaller object contacts the bigger objects there are serious local failures at points of contacts due to the high pressures developing there. The energy applied is transformed into all these failures ... and that's it. The worst that can happen is that the complete smaller object is destroyed while the bigger object is just partially damaged. Actually, it is the stronger parts of both objects, the columns, that will damage the weaker parts of both objects, beams and floor slabs, and after a while the weaker damaged parts get entangled into one another and friction between these parts starts to play its role.

All described in my papers that nobody has debunked so far.

To suggest that the smaller object (read assembly of parts) can completely destroy the bigger object is just fantasy and has nothig to do with physics or gravity.

It is interesting to note that Bazant, Nist & Co regard the smaller object not only as rigid but also as solid, with uniform density, inflexible, undestructible, etc, etc. It has nothing to do with reality.

Same thing with WTC7. Nist suggests that if you pour diesel oil in the basement and ignites it, the whole 47 storeys structure above suddenly collapses. Just fantasy; the diesel oil just burns on the floor (actually it is the gas of the diesel above the oil that burns) and most heat is just vented away with the smoke. Local heating of structure in the ceiling will be small and all parts will thermally expand and any local failures will be minor. The columns are spaced far apart and will not heat more than a couple of hundred degrees = no problem. Just ask NYFD and they will confirm it. Or do my experiment at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist1.htm#6 .

Please, come up with a better argument than that I have no idea about physics and structural engineering.