WTC collapses - Layman's terms again

[Architect]

Dave:

Piano in the style of Les Dawson , perchance?

 

[Zorglub]

Don't call me dishonest.

Why? I thought you wanted the truth? Here it is.
You are dishonest to the bone. Dishonest and a lying fraud.

Not that you want to. But you could actually try to explain what caused your explosion. Like this: I, Heiwa, belive there was no plane and the collapse of WTC was caused by Semtex cunningly hidden in a toiletpaper dispenser on the 92:nd floor. This would be a statement that we could use together with you "paper". Now, you are of course aware that using facts like this will give us the chance to find even more flaws in your theory. The clearer the pattern of your theory gets, the easier it will be for us to find your loose threads and rip it wide open.
You have learnt that lesson well and you keep your mouth shut about your former support for Socialworker and hidden gasoline cans causing the fireballs. So I guess you can learn from experience to some amount.

You are a confused, uneducated, man afraid of this huge world were you are nothing more than a really tiny man important to no-one. This scares you right?

 

[Architect]

Whilst I am concerned that Heiwa's "no plane" theory is not the subject of discussion, indeed there is always the risk we are introducing an unfair strawman, I am increasingly of like mind to Zorglub when he suggests that the current line of structural "argument" is being progressed in order to substantiate this theory.

So, Heiwa, as they would say in a public inquiry, where are you going with this? What is your fundamental proposition?

 

[Heiwa]

Why? I thought you wanted the truth? Here it is.
You are dishonest to the bone. Dishonest and a lying fraud.

You are a confused, uneducated, man afraid of this huge world were you are nothing more than a really tiny man important to no-one. This scares you right?

Not at all. OT of course. T is why collapse arrest is not considered. I am just depressed by all these ghastly strumpets without manners filling the thread with garbage. With the moderator sleeping at the switch? Living in an 1-D world must be ... tight?

 

[tsig]

Not at all. OT of course. T is why collapse arrest is not considered. I am just depressed by all these ghastly strumpets without manners filling the thread with garbage. With the moderator sleeping at the switch? Living in an 1-D world must be ... tight?

Are ghastly strumpets anything like undead wenches?

Do sleeping moderators dream of ghastly strumpets?

What indeed does the switch connect to? ghastly strumpets?

That's three and that's 3-d how about thee?

 

[X]

But there is not one support! There are 280+ supports spread around on 4000 m² (2-D) and then the upper block is above (3-D).

So when you start removing supports a lot of things happens in the real 3-D world ... as explained in my article. Easy to model. Evidently the upper block deforms, changes geometry and locations before any free fall will ever occur. Actually the deformations, changes of geometry and locations will initiate what in the end is known as collapse arrest. Collapse arrest is when a stable state of a partially damaged structure has developed. Happens every time in 3-D. But never in 1-D. Narrow minds only work in 1-D with their 1-D equations.

(emphasis mine)

Congratulations, Heiwa.
Along with proving the WTC could not have collapsed on 9/11, you've also proven controlled demolition to be impossible.
Buildings can, by your reasoning, never collapse. Merely "settle" a floor or two, a section at a time.

 

[Newtons Bit]

(emphasis mine)

Congratulations, Heiwa.
Along with proving the WTC could not have collapsed on 9/11, you've also proven controlled demolition to be impossible.
Buildings can, by your reasoning, never collapse. Merely "settle" a floor or two, a section at a time.

He's not too bright, is he?

 

[Architect]

Clever, possibly.

Bright, no.

Misguided, undoubtedly.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

You forgot the wet, cool towel.

Nist & Co assume there is only one upper block, one upper mass, one support, one force, one structure below. Evidently if you remove the one support the one force acting on the one block has no other choice than to take the only way possible, one displacement downwards and cause one free fall. This is the infamous one-dimensional analysis that Greening admits is a little crude but still proves that gravity only driven collapse is, maybe, possible. As non-alignment is not possible in this narrow world one impact is the result ... and confusingly the one structure below is pushed down, etc. Finally the upper block is pushed up and disappears. Voilà! Marvellous.

But there is not one support! There are 280+ supports spread around on 4000 m² (2-D) and then the upper block is above (3-D).

So when you start removing supports a lot of things happens in the real 3-D world ... as explained in my article. Easy to model. Evidently the upper block deforms, changes geometry and locations before any free fall will ever occur. Actually the deformations, changes of geometry and locations will initiate what in the end is known as collapse arrest. Collapse arrest is when a stable state of a partially damaged structure has developed. Happens every time in 3-D. But never in 1-D. Narrow minds only work in 1-D with their 1-D equations.

According NIST: "The release of potential energy (PE) due to downward movement of the building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy (SE) that could be absorbed by the structure. Global collapse ensued." Mis-quoted? Any evidence for anything in this infamous quote? I have not seen any. Which I point out in a friendly and lively way.

Again, you fail to demonstrate that the magnitude of force that the 280+ supports provides is sufficient to arrest collapse. You merely assert it. You don't provide support for the argument, you don't provide calculations, you merely claim that it happens.

Energy calculations were provided by Dr. Greening and others here. You seem to be blowing those off, but I've not seen any real critiques of their calculations. Instead, you say things like

It is not a question of energy - it is a question where the energy is applied. And no energy was applied on the columns of the lower block sufficient to break them like spaghetti. Frank Greening apparently MISSED that?

... which makes me wonder if you understand the concept of conservation of energy. Where does the energy go? It doesn't simply dissipate, or totally expend itself breaking the "thin floors". You say the collapsing elements of the upper block miss the columns. Since when is compromising the structure by missing the columns and taking out the floors, therefore removing the lateral supports conducive to keeping the tower standing? Read what others have written earlier: You damage the lateral supports when you take out the floors. How are the colums supposed to remain standing when their lateral supports are missing?

Is that "3-D" enough for you?

If you want to convince people, show that the forces provided by all those supports you identify in the other two dimensions are sufficient to negate the overwhelming force in the 3rd, downward dimension provided by gravity. You've yet to do that.

Don't call me dishonest. I just play the piano. What's wrong with the music?

It's dischordant, atonal, and in no way resembles music provided by real musicians. Randomly hitting notes on the piano does not music make. Similarly, randomly choosing elements of models to criticise - such as Bazant's and Greening's models where columns impact columns - does not effective criticism make, especially when you misunderstand the reason for such assumptions.^a
Again, when a non-expert like me can point out these mistakes, your argument is in real trouble. Why don't you try arguing the points Architect, Newton's Bit, and the others have brought up? And why don't you actually demonstrate quantitatively how much energy is absorbed by the lower sections? All you have to do is show the calculations supporting your argument, and you'll immediately be beyond my competence to criticise.

^aThe physicists and engineering experts here can provide more detail, but in summary, the Bazant model referred to over and over in this forum made assumptions favorable to the collapse halting. Columns perfectly impacting columns - an ludicrously unlikely possibility in the real world - was one of these assumptions. That's why it's odd to see critiques of such assumptions being used by truthers to attack the model; alternate assumptions actually make collapse more likely.

 

[Corsair 115]

Whilst I am concerned that Heiwa's "no plane" theory is not the subject of discussion...

Well, that theory isn't really worth a discussion because it is so self-evidently ludicrous and insane that anyone believing it is inhabiting a region well outside the realm of reality.

 

[Heiwa]

Congratulations, Heiwa.

Along with proving the WTC could not have collapsed on 9/11, you've also proven controlled demolition to be impossible.

Buildings can, by your reasoning, never collapse. Merely "settle" a floor or two, a section at a time.

Thanks. Re your conclusion that CD is impossible according my observations, even if OT, I must disappoint you. CD is evidently planned simultaneous removal of a fair number of vital supports to cause global collapse of a structure without collapse arrest ... and not the topic of my article.

At WTC 1 we are talking about random, local, structural failures caused by fire/heat at some floors up top in the structure and the question is what these local failures can do in turn.

I suggest that a local failure (a buckled column!) will first affect the structure of the upper block above and second other supporting structure just below and finally the remaining structure below the supports.

Reason is of course that the gravity force in the buckled column must find a new way through the upper block structure to another support below and then to the intact structure below.

As I point out in an example in my article this way can be quite long, e.g. a wall column fails at floor 95 due fire, the force is not transmitted via spandrels to adjacent columns (they shear off) and the force is instead transmitted via a hat truss at roof level 58 metres higher up to a core column resulting in overloading the latter with local failures there as result. It is just an example to show that the upper block does not remain intact due to local failures of its support as assumed by the 1-D experts previously namned. It goes on to show that further failures are arrested in the upper block with some parts maybe dropping down. No damage to the structure below!

In another example it is shown what can happen if all structural supports between the upper block and the structure below fails; the structure below destroys the upper block and further collapse is arrested after a while.

I wonder why so many people that say that they are experts of all kinds cannot appreciate these simple observations based on clear thinking and why they get so upset? Are they not interested in better structural design based on proper analysis of past incidents? This is just a mental exercise (like playing piano). I am not stealing the food off their platters. But maybe their illusions are scattered? And they lose appetite? Bonne app, as we say here.

 

[Heiwa]

1. Again, you fail to demonstrate that the magnitude of force that the 280+ supports provides is sufficient to arrest collapse. You merely assert it. You don't provide support for the argument, you don't provide calculations, you merely claim that it happens.

2. Energy calculations were provided by Dr. Greening and others here. You seem to be blowing those off, but I've not seen any real critiques of their calculations. Instead, you say things like



3. ... which makes me wonder if you understand the concept of conservation of energy. Where does the energy go? It doesn't simply dissipate, or totally expend itself breaking the "thin floors". You say the collapsing elements of the upper block miss the columns. Since when is compromising the structure by missing the columns and taking out the floors, therefore removing the lateral supports conducive to keeping the tower standing? Read what others have written earlier: You damage the lateral supports when you take out the floors. How are the colums supposed to remain standing when their lateral supports are missing?

Is that "3-D" enough for you?

4. If you want to convince people, show that the forces provided by all those supports you identify in the other two dimensions are sufficient to negate the overwhelming force in the 3rd, downward dimension provided by gravity. You've yet to do that.



5. It's dischordant, atonal, and in no way resembles music provided by real musicians. Randomly hitting notes on the piano does not music make. Similarly, randomly choosing elements of models to criticise - such as Bazant's and Greening's models where columns impact columns - does not effective criticism make, especially when you misunderstand the reason for such assumptions.^a
Again, when a non-expert like me can point out these mistakes, your argument is in real trouble. Why don't you try arguing the points Architect, Newton's Bit, and the others have brought up? And why don't you actually demonstrate quantitatively how much energy is absorbed by the lower sections? All you have to do is show the calculations supporting your argument, and you'll immediately be beyond my competence to criticise.

6. ^aThe physicists and engineering experts here can provide more detail, but in summary, the Bazant model referred to over and over in this forum made assumptions favorable to the collapse halting. Columns perfectly impacting columns - an ludicrously unlikely possibility in the real world - was one of these assumptions. That's why it's odd to see critiques of such assumptions being used by truthers to attack the model; alternate assumptions actually make collapse more likely.

1. The 280+ supports are initially compressed <30% yield stress. Very strong.

2. Only local failures are assumed and all local energy released is consumed to produce the local failures (until arrest). Greening's energy calculations are 1-D nonsense, one force, one displacement. Very misleading.

3. See 2.

4. My article is an attempt. I always improve my articles based on input from forums like this one.

5. Columns impact columns are fantasy fairy tales. What points have Architect, Newton's Bit, and the others brought up? That I am stupid and a liar? A little OT.

6. ?? Bazant's model popped up two days after the incident 2001 and is so full of holes that I am amazed that people still believe in it. OK, Bazant has made a new attempt 2008 with Greening et al but it is even worse! Push down, push up. Greening actually admits it is a little crude. In my view it is worthless. Doesn't promote real science. I assume Bazant and Greening are old, retired teachers trying to impress people.

 

[DGM]

1. The 280+ supports are initially compressed <30% yield stress. Very strong.

2. Only local failures are assumed and all local energy released is consumed to produce the local failures (until arrest). Greening's energy calculations are 1-D nonsense, one force, one displacement. Very misleading.

3. See 2.

4. My article is an attempt. I always improve my articles based on input from forums like this one.

5. Columns impact columns are fantasy fairy tales. What points have Architect, Newton's Bit, and the others brought up? That I am stupid and a liar? A little OT.

6. ?? Bazant's model popped up two days after the incident 2001 and is so full of holes that I am amazed that people still believe in it. OK, Bazant has made a new attempt 2008 with Greening et al but it is even worse! Push down, push up. Greening actually admits it is a little crude. In my view it is worthless. Doesn't promote real science. I assume Bazant and Greening are old, retired teachers trying to impress people.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 . These are numbers, Try putting them into equations that support your "theory".

 

[Newtons Bit]

1. The 280+ supports are initially compressed <30% yield stress. Very strong.

You STILL ignore stress redistribution from failed elements due to the local failures from the plane impact. You accuse Bazant of being over simplistic and here you completely ignore degrees of freedom. This has been pointed out to you many times.

 

[Apollo20]

Heiwa:

Since you ignored my list of questions last time around, let's try again:

So you don't like gravitational collapse theories.....

Worthless, you say?

Well, Heiwa, alternative collapse theories that assume explosives were involved in the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 are ludicrous to the point of being pure sci-fi fantasy. I mean come on Heiwa, don’t you think the idea of pre-planted explosives in WTC 1 & 2 is totally impractical? No? So tell us what kind of explosive do you think was used? TNT, TATP, PETN, RDX, HMX, ANFO? And how much do you think was placed in each tower – 5 tonnes, 50 tonnes, 500 tonnes? Well, whatever explosives scenario you choose Heiwa, could you explain how the charges were placed to survive the aircraft impacts and fires. And, please tell us: Is there ANY explosive out there that can survive exposure to a jet fuel fire? And do you really believe that someone watched the towers that day and decided to push that detonator button 56 minutes after WTC 2 was hit and again, 102 minutes after WTC 1 was hit, or did he/she have the explosives set to go off on a timer like they do in the movies? Heiwa, do you really believe this kind of crap?

And by the way, I will keep asking these questions, and will ignore your comments about my supposed profession and motives for researching 9/11, until you start telling us how those explosives worked .........

 

[ElMondoHummus]

1. The 280+ supports are initially compressed <30% yield stress. Very strong.

2. Only local failures are assumed and all local energy released is consumed to produce the local failures (until arrest). Greening's energy calculations are 1-D nonsense, one force, one displacement. Very misleading.

3. See 2.

4. My article is an attempt. I always improve my articles based on input from forums like this one.

5. Columns impact columns are fantasy fairy tales. What points have Architect, Newton's Bit, and the others brought up? That I am stupid and a liar? A little OT.

6. ?? Bazant's model popped up two days after the incident 2001 and is so full of holes that I am amazed that people still believe in it. OK, Bazant has made a new attempt 2008 with Greening et al but it is even worse! Push down, push up. Greening actually admits it is a little crude. In my view it is worthless. Doesn't promote real science. I assume Bazant and Greening are old, retired teachers trying to impress people.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 . These are numbers, Try putting them into equations that support your "theory".

Hear hear. This is exactly what I mean by handwaving with assertions. You don't prove what you say; you merely state it as if it were fact.

Show me that the supports were less than 30% stressed.

Demonstrate that the energy was indeed used up in local failures/defomations.

Show how the holes in Bazant's models, and the refined ones others produced afterwards, invalidate the thesis. If you tire too easily over Bazant's model, Newton's Bit has some calculations you can tackle over here: http://newtonsbit.blogspot.com/2007/07/gordon-ross-shows-collapse-progression.html

2. Only local failures are assumed and all local energy released is consumed to produce the local failures (until arrest). Greening's energy calculations are 1-D nonsense, one force, one displacement. Very misleading.

3. See 2.

That is such a perfect example of your dodging the point. Demonstrate that the local energy is indeed consumed. Prove that the energy releases in other dimensions eat up enough energy to arrest acceleration in the third.

4. My article is an attempt. I always improve my articles based on input from forums like this one.

They why haven't you improved your article based on Architect's criticism of your cantilever misapprehension? Why haven't you modified things based on Mackey's, Newton's, and other's identification of your error regarding upper columns missing lower columns, specifically your handwave about around the fact the energy has to go somewhere?

5. Columns impact columns are fantasy fairy tales. What points have Architect, Newton's Bit, and the others brought up? That I am stupid and a liar? A little OT.

Even after being told why the column on column impact assumptions were made, you still miss the point.

And Architect's, Newton's Bit's, and others' points have been far more substantial than you being stupid and a liar. They actually tackle specific elements of your claims, and specific mistake. They're far from being OT. You want a reminder?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102629&page=3
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102407
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=108273

Heck, look at the one Newton's Bit just made right above this post:

You STILL ignore stress redistribution from failed elements due to the local failures from the plane impact. You accuse Bazant of being over simplistic and here you completely ignore degrees of freedom. This has been pointed out to you many times.

Does that look like an ad-hominem insult? Or a substantive criticism?

6. ?? Bazant's model popped up two days after the incident 2001 and is so full of holes that I am amazed that people still believe in it. OK, Bazant has made a new attempt 2008 with Greening et al but it is even worse! Push down, push up. Greening actually admits it is a little crude. In my view it is worthless. Doesn't promote real science. I assume Bazant and Greening are old, retired teachers trying to impress people.

And we return full circle to my first lines in this response: Show the problems. Demonstrate that their "holes" really do invalidate the model. Show where Bazant's and Greening's work fails. You merely assert. Assertions are not proof. You provide no math behind your claims. That makes them empty claims.

 

[Architect]

I seem to recall that Heiwa claimed at one time that steel structures did not, in fact, fail due to fires at all and refused to consider the evidence set out in a range of cross-referenced technical documents including (inter alia) the British and European Standards.

In fact, Heiwa has wholly failed to address technical criticism in any meaningful manner, most damningly in the lodging of structural calculations but also in considering more basic points about general structural design concepts and load path analysis.

What we got was an analogy to a plastic garden table.

 

[X]

I seem to recall that Heiwa claimed at one time that steel structures did not, in fact, fail due to fires at all and refused to consider the evidence set out in a range of cross-referenced technical documents including (inter alia) the British and European Standards.

In fact, Heiwa has wholly failed to address technical criticism in any meaningful manner, most damningly in the lodging of structural calculations but also in considering more basic points about general structural design concepts and load path analysis.

What we got was an analogy to a plastic garden table.

Are you referring to this?

1) You have stated that sub-elements can fail due to fire.
2) You agree, I presume, that elements carry structural load.
3) So then you must agree that the failure of a sub-element must redistribute the load among the remaining elements.
4) Thus the remaining elements carry more load.
5) As more elements fail, the load on the remaining elements becomes greater.
6) At some point, the load will be too large for the remaining elements to bear.
7) When this happens, the structure will fail.

1. Right
2. Of course
3. Right
4. Right
5. Right
6. Wrong
7. Not applicable

Imagine three subelements A, B and C of equal mass/density stacked on each other with C on top.

A carries B and B carries C and C carries nothing.

Imagine that C is weakened by fire! What happens to A and B. Nothing evidently because they are not weakened by fire.

Imagine that B is weakened by fire. What happens to A and C?

C may overload B but C and B will not overload A.

 

[Architect]

Close but no prize.

In his very first thread he seemed to suggest this point and I started a thread specifically allow him to expand. He backed down and denied making the point, IIRC.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

I seem to recall that Heiwa claimed at one time that steel structures did not, in fact, fail due to fires at all and refused to consider the evidence set out in a range of cross-referenced technical documents including (inter alia) the British and European Standards.

In fact, Heiwa has wholly failed to address technical criticism in any meaningful manner, most damningly in the lodging of structural calculations but also in considering more basic points about general structural design concepts and load path analysis.

What we got was an analogy to a plastic garden table.

Close but no prize.

In his very first thread he seemed to suggest this point and I started a thread specifically allow him to expand. He backed down and denied making the point, IIRC.

Yes. It was these threads, as I recall:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3580583#post3580583
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102629

IIRC myself, that is.