WTC Collapse Simulator - DEMOLITION PROOF.....

[Heiwa]

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.

OK - now the moving object is 10 times bigger and the object it drops on is 10 times smaller. The energy involved is 10 times bigger so local deformations and pressures will be greater and maybe something will break at the contact point(s) and cause local failures. When the energy required for deformations and local failures is equivalent to energy applied, action is arrested.

Say that the single match box is compressed 50%, then you may expect that the bottom box of your 10 box assembly is also compressed 50%. But the total 10 box assembly is only compressed 5%.

The bigger object always wins!

 

[PixyMisa]

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

Several, and very likely all, of them.

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

Inexpensive flutes tend to be made of thicker glass, and hence stronger.

 

[Lithrael]

Wow. Are all Truther threads like this? Does Heiwa understand why there are no giant ants?

 

[uruk]

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.

You are making a non-point. And you are still, seemingly purposly, ignoring an important aspect.

No impact is possible or could a kinetic force be applied from one object to another unless one of the objects is in motion in relation to the other object.

Gravity is what caused the motion of the upper section of the WTC to impact into the floors below it. Gravity gives and object potential energy due to it's position in a gravitational field in refrence to a specific point. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_energy

Once the support gave out from under the upper section of the WTC, the upper section was free to go into motion. It's potential energy was converted into momentum.

Momentum is mass times velocity. (Or rather p=mv) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum

Gravity provides the velocity and the mass times the velocity determins the kinetic energy the mass will impart into the object it comes into contact with. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy

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

And guess where that force comes from. Guess what causes the object to move in the first place.
That force is the product of mass and the velocity which is provided by potential energy which is provided by gravity.

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).

Yes, equal and opposite reaction and all that.

The issue is can the structures involved survive the forces of the impacts. If the energies involved are greater than the load bearing or structural integrity of the objects they will fail. And if the structures fail they will not be able to arrest the movenment of the object in motion.

And in the case of WTC those structures that have failed and become disconnected from thier support structures will become part of the mass in motion since they 1. failed to arrest the moving mass and 2. Also have potential energy due to thier mass and position in a gravitational field. Not to mention and residual energy left over from the initial impact that caused thier failure. Gravity, in the form of potential energy, is constanly applying extra energy into the reaction as the failing structures become free to move on thier own.

That means that the moving mass has increased and is still in motion and would impart an even larger force to the structures below. If the first floor was not able to withstand the initial impact what the chances the floor below it would also be able to withstand the impacts?

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!

Except that the WTC as an architectural structure is not solid. The individual components that make up the WTC make be considered solid object (i.e columns, beams, etc.)

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.

You are forgetting that the moving upper section of the wtc is also applying a force on the lower section which is made up of the very same materials as the upper floors.

Remember the floors were connected to the columns so if any deformation takes place in the floor structures due to impacts, the displacement of the floor structures will cause stress to the columns and the loss of the integrity or support of the floor structures will weaken the column structure's integrity.

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.

And you seem to be assuming that the lower section is super strong and can arrest any mass impacting upon it.

Remember the structural integrity of the upper floors may be destroyed but the aggregate mass of the materials that make up the upper section is still there and all that mass is still moving down due to gravity.

All those columns, floor sections and concrete and wall sections will continue to impact on the floors below.
And because the moving mass has volume all the energy of the entire upper section will not be expended all at once. The individual components of the upper section will cause a multitude of local failures. All those local failures will add up and some cases a local failure in a key location or support structure can lead to a progressive collapse. All it takes is a lucky impact in the right location.

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.

As are the upper floors of the lower part of the WTC. The lower part of the WTC is made up of the same materials of the upper section. that would mean that the upper floor of the lower section is only designed to carry the same capacity of the lower floor of the upper section.

Imagine a million grand pianos all making holes in the upper floor of the lower section of the WTC.

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.

You are over simplifying the interaction. The structural integrity of the entire building is compromised when the upper section became disconnected from the lower section.

Please review the architectural structure of the WTC towers. The building had a clolumn tube with in a tube structure. The upper section had what was called a hat truss structrure that connected the inner column structure to the outer column structure. Along with the floors this provided structural integrity to the building as a whole.

Once the upper section became detached the WTC lost a large part of its structural integrity. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/hattruss.html

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.

Again you are oversimplifing the interaction. The collapse was a very chaotic event, there were many factors involved that you seem to be overlooking. You are applying tha math as if the upper and lower section were solid mass. They are not.

Once the materials become disarticulated from the structures you have many different individual interactions that can all cause local failures that can accumulate with the possibilty of progressive collapse depending on where and how structures were impacted.

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.

that is unless the forces involved are greater that the maximum structural stress of the objects involved. Which happens when you drop a glass bottle on another glass bottle.

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.

And you are assuming the opposite that a super weak is being dropped on a super strong. I'd say it was more like a weak is being dropped on another weak.

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

Your matchbox experiment is completly missguided and has no relation to reality in refrence to the WTC.

 

[uruk]

OK - now the moving object is 10 times bigger and the object it drops on is 10 times smaller. The energy involved is 10 times bigger so local deformations and pressures will be greater and maybe something will break at the contact point(s) and cause local failures. When the energy required for deformations and local failures is equivalent to energy applied, action is arrested.

Say that the single match box is compressed 50%, then you may expect that the bottom box of your 10 box assembly is also compressed 50%. But the total 10 box assembly is only compressed 5%.

The bigger object always wins!

You are missing the point. (maybe purposly)

Biscuit is asking that you actually do the experiment and see what in reality will happen to the single matchbox.

If you will notice that dropping the 10 matchboxes on the single match box does not destroy the single match box below, then maybe you will realize why your experiments are seriously flawed.

But of course you can always deny reality.

 

[twinstead]

Why is it that the rest of the world complains about the American school system, yet we have to sit here and be confronted with these absurdities from Heiwa and 911 Investigator in numerous threads? Obviously the school systems of other countries are in just as sad of shape.

 

[beachnut]

...
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! ...

You believe the top falling is F, and the lower structure is -F, thus stopping the fall.

Get help with physics; you spew fantasy physics based on your F, -F junk science.

The bigger object always wins!

No one can kill me with a bullet, I am invincible!

 

[Baylor]

Why is it that the rest of the world complains about the American school system, yet we have to sit here and be confronted with these absurdities from Heiwa and 911 Investigator in numerous threads? Obviously the school systems of other countries are in just as sad of shape.

HA! I was thinking the exact same thing. I love how British twoofers try to throw in as much scientific jargon in one sentence as they can (apologies to our British debunkers here.) It ends up not making one stitch of sense.

Need I remind everyone that European Skyscraper is an oxymoron?

 

[Heiwa]

Remember the structural integrity of the upper floors may be destroyed but the aggregate mass of the materials that make up the upper section is still there and all that mass is still moving down due to gravity.

All those columns, floor sections and concrete and wall sections will continue to impact on the floors below.

The parts of the upper section may not be destroyed, but will be destroyed and that is the beginning of the collapse arrest. The destruction of the upper section will, i.a. cause deceleration. Sure, the mass is still there but it has been slowed down and is in pieces rubbing against each other and friction and further local failures take care of the rest. All energy available is used up.

So nothing will continue to impact anything. Physically impossible even if Bazant and NIST suggest the opposite. Sorry that the Match Box experiment didn't teach you that. You have completely misunderstood what gravity does. It terrorizes me!

 

[Heiwa]

You are missing the point. (maybe purposly)

Biscuit is asking that you actually do the experiment and see what in reality will happen to the single matchbox.

If you will notice that dropping the 10 matchboxes on the single match box does not destroy the single match box below, then maybe you will realize why your experiments are seriously flawed.

But of course you can always deny reality.

Not at all. You cannot refute reality. In the original Match Box Experiment you drop one Box on a tower of ten Boxes! Very real and easy to do.

By careful observation you notice the deformations of the two objects at contact and observe that the dropped box is deformed X mm and that the 10 boxes are also deformed X mm. The deformation is then reduced as the single Box bounces up. The energy transmitted at contact causing the deformations is transformed into other types of energy. The dropped box motion is arrested.

In the revised Experiment you drop an assembly of ten Boxes on one Box. Also easy to do.

Now the energy involved is 10 times bigger. By careful observation you notice the deformations of the two objects at contact and observe that the dropped ten boxes are deformed 10X mm and that the single box also deforms 10X mm. The deformation is then reduced as the 10 boxes being dropped bounce up. Energy is transformed from one state to another as explained before.

Thus, whatever you drop on anything is affected at contact and the bigger object is always less affected than the smaller object. Just keep your eyes open and observe carefully.

Bazant and Nist close their eyes and assume (conveniently, lazy?) the opposite and suggest that whatever you drop becomes SUPERSTRONG, rigid, and affects (read destroys) anything below it, while it itself is not affected at all by the contact. Global collapse thus ensues ... whenever you drop a object on anything. In any scale!

Such stupidity really terrorizes me. On whose side are they? OBL's?

 

[Dave Rogers]

In the revised Experiment you drop an assembly of ten Boxes on one Box. Also easy to do.

Now let's try a further revision. Take an assembly of eleven matchboxes, raise them by the height of one matchbox, and drop them on the ground. This simulates the well known case of a controlled demolition in which the lowest storey supports are severed by explosives, leading to collapse of the entire structure. Since we know from a wealth of data that structures treated in this way will usually collapse, we would expect that, if matchboxes are a good model for structural collapse, the stack of matchboxes will collapse.

But look: they don't. The assembly is undamaged by the drop.

What can we conclude from this?

We can conclude that a stack of matchboxes doesn't behave the same way as a multi-storey building, and that conclusions drawn from one are worthless in predicting the behaviour of the other. So simple, a child, an idiot or a maritime engineer from Sweden could understand it.

Dave

 

[PixyMisa]

Thus, whatever you drop on anything is affected at contact and the bigger object is always less affected than the smaller object. Just keep your eyes open and observe carefully.

Wrong.

It might happen that way. It might not. It depends on all sorts of factors. As a blanket statement, though, it's pure idiocy.

Look again at your matchbox experiment.

Drop one matchbox on a stack of ten matchboxes: No damage.

Drop a stack of ten matchboxes on one matchbox: No damage.

Doesn't this make you pause, even for a moment, to consider that maybe there's a problem with your experiment? Did you give any consideration at all to material strengths, failure modes, scaling factors, static vs. dynamic loads? And if so, why did you create such a silly experiment?

 

[Cuddles]

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

I just did. Did you not read the rest of my post? If you perform a more realistic experiment including jet fuel and fires, the matchboxes will be destroyed. I have to admit that I haven't yet tried flying an airliner into the stack since I don't have a pilot's license. However, I'm fairly sure that will not make the small pile of ash any more structurally stable.

 

[Toke]

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

 

[Heiwa]

Now let's try a further revision. Take an assembly of eleven matchboxes, raise them by the height of one matchbox, and drop them on the ground. This simulates the well known case of a controlled demolition in which the lowest storey supports are severed by explosives, leading to collapse of the entire structure. Since we know from a wealth of data that structures treated in this way will usually collapse, we would expect that, if matchboxes are a good model for structural collapse, the stack of matchboxes will collapse.

But look: they don't. The assembly is undamaged by the drop.

What can we conclude from this?

We can conclude that a stack of matchboxes doesn't behave the same way as a multi-storey building, and that conclusions drawn from one are worthless in predicting the behaviour of the other. So simple, a child, an idiot or a maritime engineer from Sweden could understand it.

Dave

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, what caused the bounce? Gravity? No, gravity is a force directed - down. So another magic force it at play. It is not really magic! Newton has explained it 300+ years ago.

And this is what should have happened on 9/11. You drop the upper part of WTC1 on the lower (bigger) part ... and the upper (and lower) part should deform and the upper part should bounce up ... or be destroyed ... or partly destroyed and get stuck up top. There is no chance that the upper part remains intact ... and destroys the lower part in a global collapse. All experiments prove it - scale doesn't matter - as long as both objects have same structure, etc.

Only if you assume, in fantasy world, that the upper, smaller part becomes rigid (or its bottom floor) at contact, it will destroy the lower part - but just locally. After a while you run out of energy, if it is only supplied by gravity. But the upper part cannot become rigid - it self-destroys at contact with the lower part.

If you can prove the opposite - you win a prize.

 

[Heiwa]

Wrong.

It might happen that way. It might not. It depends on all sorts of factors. As a blanket statement, though, it's pure idiocy.

Look again at your matchbox experiment.

Drop one matchbox on a stack of ten matchboxes: No damage.

Drop a stack of ten matchboxes on one matchbox: No damage.

Doesn't this make you pause, even for a moment, to consider that maybe there's a problem with your experiment? Did you give any consideration at all to material strengths, failure modes, scaling factors, static vs. dynamic loads? And if so, why did you create such a silly experiment?

Plenty of deformation and bounce up though = damage actually. No problem there. Match boxes do not like being dropped on. They react to contact! You just do not observe enough. Such persons are easy to fool. So I created the experiment for you.

 

[Minadin]

Of course on videos of the real event we see complete sections of wall columns/spandrels being ejected sideways for which you require energy applied horizontally. But gravity is a vertical force.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7373
Your notion (that gravity can't impart a horizontal vector) is debunked by inclined planes:

Water flowing downhill ruins your argument.

Sad.

 

[Lennart Hyland]

How can Heiwa be so sure that scale doesnt matter?

 

[PixyMisa]

Plenty of deformation and bounce up though = damage actually.

There's some temporary deformation, sure. Absolutely.

But it's temporary, because the matchboxes have the strength and elasticity to recover. Correct?

Now, what would happen if the matchboxes weren't as strong?

 

[Heiwa]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7373
Your notion (that gravity can't impart a horizontal vector) is debunked by inclined planes:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/1253246af79b4934f2.gif[/qimg]

Water flowing downhill ruins your argument.

Sad.

As far as I can see the gravity vector applied to the object is vertical.

Then there is an inclined plane. What is it doing there? Did gravity put it there? OK, if the inclined plane doesn't collapse, at it should according to Bazant, I am inclined to agree that the inclined plane may affect the object (it looks solid) on it. But it is not gravity that does it - it is the inclined plane. Or more correct, not shown, the force that the inclined plane applies to the object perpendicular to the inclined plane.

I am glad to see that friction between object and inclined plane is mentioned. According Bazant friction does not exist in global collapses!

Now, if this friction coefficient has a certain value, you can be sure that the object will not accelerate ... or even move ... down the inclined plane, thus a = 0. Acceleration is zero! Reason is that the friction vector is heading up the inclined plane to the left in the other direction (not shown in the figure).

Pls, include all forces in your diagram.

Re water flowing downhill, it is only due to the force that downhill applies to the water. If no downhill, the water would drop ... like rain assuming gravity is strong enough! A wind might blow the rain upwards or side ways. In Holland the rain seems to be moving horizontally most of the time and it is due to Holland being a flat land, half of it below water (that is pumped out all the time), with a strong breeze applied to it. The strong breeze drives wind mills that pump out the water. Clever Dutch!

When there is not a strong breeze applied to Holland, balloons released in Holland fly straight up ignoring gravity, and the wind mills do not pump any water. Strange country, Holland. But do not worry. It is all due to physics.