WTC Collapse Simulator - DEMOLITION PROOF.....

[Heiwa]

Scale changes everything.

Matchboxes - if you scale things naively - are much stronger than office buildings.

Sure? According Bazant the upper part (full scale) is (assumed) rigid! How do you scale that?

 

[Heiwa]

It is not a "smaller object" but rather multiple stories falling onto ONE story. Said story can not hold the stories above resulting in collapse. This process repeats until there are no more stories.

Get it? (probably not)

So the 'smaller object' is now falling onto an even smaller object - ONE storey only?

OK, we will amend the experiment. The TEN match boxes remain as lower part. OK? And now we drop TWO match boxes on it. The TWO match boxes contact the ONE match box on top of the other NINE. TWO > ONE. Does TWO (boxes) collapse ONE (box)? And then TWO, THREE ... TEN (boxes)?

Sorry, you are on the wrong tack. No prize for you. Try again. Use physics!

 

[dtugg]

Thanks for the advice. But why not tell the real media?

Good idea. I think that you should tell every major media outlet in the world about your experiments debunking NIST, Bazant, et al. Let us know how that works out for you.

 

[Heiwa]

I dropped a Lego person from more than ten times his own height and he wasn't smashed to pieces. Therefore I can jump off a building without any risk of injury.

Of course you can! If you are a Lego person.

 

[Heiwa]

Epic fail.

Make a stack of 10 expensive crystal champagne flutes. Drop an 11th champagne flute on top. Sweep up the mess.

This is a good experiment! But only two flutes will get damaged ... or just one! Guess which one!

Pls use inexpensive flutes to save cost! Spend the money on the champagne.

PS to Moderator. This is not PR for French champagne but there is no other as PixyMisa probably (doesn't) know.

 

[240-185]

Now, drop the 11th match box on this bigger object. The 11th match box is the upper part of WTC1 allegedly dropping down. You can chose the height of drop; the height of a match box, or whatever. Gravity will take care of the drop. The bigger object will take care of the contact as it is in the way!

This experiment has already been done. By Richard Gage and his famous cardboard boxes.

Learn how the twin towers were built. Learn that there were steel trusses in the Twin Towers, which is a fact you deliberately ignore.

Your representations of the Twin Towers are WRONG and you don't have the mental abilities to see that. I can't believe you have reached such a high level of stupidity with your matchboxes.

But LEARN or SUBMIT YOUR FREAKING EXPERIMENTS TOWARDS STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS.

This is a good experiment! But only two flutes will get damaged ... or just one! Guess which one!

Have you ever celebrated a marriage?

[facepalm]

 

[Heiwa]

This experiment has already been done. By Richard Gage and his famous cardboard boxes.

Learn how the twin towers were built. Learn that there were steel trusses in the Twin Towers, which is a fact you deliberately ignore.

Your representations of the Twin Towers are WRONG and you don't have the mental abilities to see that. I can't believe you have reached such a high level of stupidity with your matchboxes.

But LEARN or SUBMIT YOUR FREAKING EXPERIMENTS TOWARDS STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS.

Steel trusses in the WTCs? You mean the roof/antenna supports? Did they cause the global collapse?

My experiments are only made to visulize simple physics. Apply the knowledge and you will understand that WTC1 top part cannot cause global collapse.

 

[dtugg]

Heiwa, I expect to be hearing on the news about how some Swedish guy proved that 9/11 was an inside job by using matchboxes, pizza boxes, and a bathroom scale.

 

[twinstead]

Heiwa, I expect to be hearing on the news about how some Swedish guy proved that 9/11 was an inside job by using matchboxes, pizza boxes, and a bathroom scale.

That would be a sign of the apocalypse.

 

[240-185]

My experiments are only made to visulize simple physics.

No, you aren't using "simple" physics, you're *oversimplifying* physics. Extreme summarizing is not making things easier to understand.
Your analogies are like comparing a nuclear power plant with electrodes planted in lemons...

Steel trusses in the WTCs? You mean the roof/antenna supports? Did they cause the global collapse?

Reading you makes me like this...

 

[Cuddles]

And that's what should have happened to WTC1 on 9/11 IF the upper part actually dropped, which it didn't as no drop is seen on any video.

No drop was seen? What, are you now claiming that WTC1 is actually still there?

In any case, I just thought I'd let everyone know that I have an updated, even more accurate version of this experiment. As in Heiwa's experiment I used a stack of 10 matchboxes and drop an 11th on to it. However, as we all know there were fires in the WTC, so I threw some kerosene on the stack first, set fire to it and then dropped the 11th matchbox. As far as I can tell, this proves that 9/11 was an inside job because there was more than a small pile of ash left at ground zero.

Edit: Important Safety Notice! Try this at home. Fire is perfectly safe and fun to play with, and nothing could possibly go wrong when using kerosene and matches in an unsupervised, uncontrolled manner.

 

[Heiwa]

No drop was seen? What, are you now claiming that WTC1 is actually still there?

No, if you read carefully the drop refers to the 10% upper part of WTC1. If it had dropped, it would have bounced on the 90% lower structure; like in the Match Box Experiment. But there is no drop! Instead the lower structure is destroyed without any drop!

The simulation (topic) shows on the other hand a top box (or 15 boxes) destroying 95 boxes below. The top box (or 15 boxes) remains intact during this performance, so it is quite strong, and can be seen intact after doing its job. The other boxes below just disappear one after the other. But as it takes time to crush 95 boxes the destruction is much slower than seen on real life video where WTC1 goes down in dust at more or less free fall speed.

No drop anywhere. Just plenty of debris being thrown sideways, which gravity cannot do.

Come on, debunk the Match Box Experiment. Win a prize!

 

[dtugg]

Heiwa, you are going to go to the world media with you findings, right?

 

[DGM]

Come on, debunk the Match Box Experiment. Win a prize!

Lack of attention to scaling of structural strength make the conclusions in this experiment unfounded.

What do I win?

PS This also applies to your other experiment too. Your debunked! (unless you can show how you scaled the material strength and came up with a match or pizza box)

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Come on, debunk the Match Box Experiment. Win a prize!

Weak analogies are self-debunking...

 

[uruk]

It seems that there is confusion between drop and contact.

An object drops due to gravity. But it doesn't contact another object due to gravity! It contacts the other object as it happens to be in the way.

The object would not make contact if it wasn't for gravity. And the energy in the contact is produced by the potential energy of the moving object's mass and position in a gravitational field. Your gross denial of science and fact is truly astounding.

It seems also my previous experiments (Pizza Boxes, Bathroom Scale) are too difficult to execute for JREF posters and that, regardless, many persons do not understand the objective of the experiments and the results, i.e. that a smaller object dropping on a bigger object (both objects have same structure, unit weights, etc) will not destroy the bigger object
All you need is 11 match boxes of exactly the same type (structure, unit weight, etc). Pls don't play with the matches. Keep them inside the boxes.

Start of experiment

You put 10 match boxes and put them on top of one another on a table. That is the bigger object/lower structure - quite similar to WTC1, actually.

Execution of experiment

Now, drop the 11th match box on this bigger object. The 11th match box is the upper part of WTC1 allegedly dropping down. You can chose the height of drop; the height of a match box, or whatever. Gravity will take care of the drop. The bigger object will take care of the contact as it is in the way!

Result

What is the result? Does the 11th match box destroy, one after the other, the 10 match boxes constituting the bigger object/lower structure in a 'global collapse'?

Evidently not! I hope everybody agrees!

Analysis

So why doesn't the 11th match box destroy the 10 boxes below.

Aha, lack of energy! Lack of speed?

And that's what should have happened to WTC1 on 9/11 IF the upper part actually dropped, which it didn't as no drop is seen on any video.

Conclusion

A smaller object cannot destroy a bigger object when dropping on it, when both objects have same structure and unit weight.

Exercise for advanced scientists

Explain why the 11th match box cannot destroy the 10 boxes below using simple language and correct assumptions and proper physics.

PS

Do not assume that the 11th match box is rigid and has the mass of a bowling ball. The 11th match box is not rigid and has the mass 1/10th of the lower object.

Good luck!

Anybody that can prove that the 11th match box can destroy the 10 other boxes only with assistance of gravity in a global collapse will get a prize!

Your matchbox and pizza box experiments are incredibly missguided. They do not take into account the scale of gravity, mass, momentum and structural stresses of the materials involved. Your experiments have absolutly no relevence to reality.

At all.

 

[uruk]

I have nothing against the definition of progressive collapse. My point is that most local failures for any reason do not lead to progressive collapse but rather to collapse arrest!

The location oand type of local structural failures can determine if a collpase will be aressted or progressive. If key structural supports are damaged to the point of failure the collpase will continue.

Collapse arrest occurs when the destruction runs out of energy and a new equilibrium of the structure is established.

and it can only run out of energy of the impacted structure can dissipate the energy with out compromising it's structural integrity. If absorbing the energy compromises it's structrual integrity the collapse can continue in the case of the building because gravity will continue to pull the failed components down due to it's mass and position in the gravitational field.

I have proposed to NIST to do that analysis - collapse arrest - as it is quite simple! Just identify the local failures and calculate the energies required to cause them and what energy is available. When the energy available cannot produce more local failures, the destruction is evidently arrested.

What happens if the energy is sufficient to compromise the structure's integrity? What if that failed structure is sitting 100 feet above the surface of the Earth? wont that structure continue to impact another structure with the energy provided by it's position in a gravitational field?

We can establish the available energy. Say it is 1.2 GJ (33 000 tons dropping 3.7 meters at g = 9.82 m/s², which is unlikely). It may sound a lot but is not enough to deform elastically and plastically and then fracture completely 280+ columns once! You simply need more energy for that.

You over simplifing the interaction. A collapse is a chaotic event and the structural desgin and maximum stress load is a factor.
Ever heard of the round chicken joke?

And not to talk about shearing off complete chunks of wall column sections and ejecting them sideways in four directions (north, south, east,west). Gravity cannot produce that energy and the structure being contacted cannot produce the reaction forces required to push those chunks sideways.

Why can it not? Just because you say so? The dropped pencil analogy was meant to illustrate that the shape of the object and the angle in which it impacts can play a role in determining vector the impact energy can move an object.

So the question remains! Where did the energy come from?

Potential energy.

Your error is that you are looking at the collapse in an oversimplified manner.

 

[twinstead]

Your error is that you are looking at the collapse in an oversimplified manner.

That's a very kind way of putting it.

 

[Heiwa]

The object would not make contact if it wasn't for gravity. And the energy in the contact is produced by the potential energy of the moving object's mass and position in a gravitational field. Your gross denial of science and fact is truly astounding.

Sorry! Gravity only accelerates the object (with mass m). The contact is due to the fact that something else, another object, not gravity, is in the way of the moving object.

At contact the moving object applies a force F on the other object.

At contact, the other object applies a force on the moving object that happens to be -F. Newton has established that and everybody agrees today (except NIST, Bazant, Greening and other cl-wns).

If the moving object is fairly solid you may expect force -F to stop the moving object; it may, e.g. bounce. Like a ball!

If the moving object is a weak structure - like the upper part of WTC1; just columns spread around, some beams and thin concrete floors and plenty of air (95% of total volume) with total mass m - you should know that force -F will destroy the moving object when applied locally on its weakest parts, e.g. a thin floor.

Bazant assumes that this is not the case. He assumes that the bottom floor of the moving object is SUPERSTRONG and can demolish anything it contacts (except the rubble on the ground).

Same thing is assumed in the videos - topic of this thread.

But I am sorry to say that the bottom floor of the upper part of WTC1 was only designed to carry persons and furniture at a max capacity of 300 kgs/m² (or less). If you had dropped a grand piano on that floor, it (or its legs) would have made a hole in the floor.

Note that force -F is not applied to the total upper part with mass m. It is applied locally to a thin floor that has very little mass, and even less local strength and -F produces a very high pressure on the mowing objects floor. So -F destroys the first floor it contacts in the upper part. And then the second, and third ... and then probably the destruction stops.

Why does the local destruction stops. Simply because now, after destruction/arrest force -F = m*g is applied to the upper part via plenty of contact points, and -F happens to be the weight of the upper part. Equilibrium is reinstated.

The upper part, that tried to destroy the other object, now only applies F = m*g, on the other object. No big deal. Happens every time you drop something on something and when the action is arrested.

Except according Bazant, of course! BUT then what you dropped must be rigid, SUPERSTRONG, and what was dropped on must be SUPERWEAK and that was not the case on 9/11. But that is what the authorities want you to believe - have FAITH son - and it terrorizes me.

Hints re the solution to the Match Box Experiment problem can be found above. It has nothing to do with scale.

 

[Biscuit]

Heiwa,

What would you expect to happen if you did it this way?

Put one matchbox on a table in a fixed position, use a rubber band and connect ten other match boxes together. Now drop the ten match boxes onto the one.

Would you expect the single matchbox to be destroyed by the other 10? Would you expect the ten to be destroyed by the fall? Would you expect them to just bounce off?

Let me know what you think would happen.