WTC: Rate of Fall (rate of crush)

Ron J

Active Member
Fantasy. These contortions are equal to the 'building within a building' stuff. The guy made an effort to actually do the maths - and the maths is right, no matter your protestations, if not a perfect representation. He doesn't claim perfection. But basically it's correct - and you know it. Don't you? How long should the building have taken to reach the ground? - let's see your maths in his terms and based on my calculation of the total weight of one tower which is 280,000 tonnes including furniture. If what we're told is true, then how long for 'The Crusher' (ie. the top 15 floors - which actually weighed about 38,000 tonnes) to hit the ground after crushing the building and then itself, leaving nothing recognizable as a building, and likewise its contents (yes, that's the story, I feel sullied just repeating it). Can we see that from you in the terms I propose?

How long should the building have taken to reach the ground? The amount of time that it did.

15 floors crushing the building, then itself. One has to assume that the top 15 floors fell all the way to the ground as a unit, instead of breaking up just as the floors below broke up in its initial wake. Smoke and pulverized debris obscured any observation of the top 15 floors after a certain point. People survived in stairwell A on the lowest floors. Would that have been the case if the top 15 floors had crashed into the lobby as one unit?

The TV antenna was wobbling as the top 15 floors began to fall. How long did the roof remain intact?

Debris was shooting out windows on floors before column sections fell away in video i have seen of the South Tower. Internal collapse was leading external collapse, regardless that the top 30 floors collapsed down onto the the remaining 80. Obviously we are talking about the North Tower here, but i think the dynamics are more complicated than some math formula would suggest.

I saw a Youtube video accompanied with some physics experiments, which the author claimed that the only way that the top 15 floors could have fallen into the rest of the building in the manner it did, was if the support below was blown out. The problem with that being no evidence of explosions to blow out support at the 94th? floor.

Critics have decried that the collapse of the Towers defied the laws of physics, but no laws of physics could have been broken.

How long it took the top 38,000 tons to reach the ground depends on which pieces of the 38,000 tons one is talking about. Some column sections of the top 15 floors may have hit the ground before column sections at the 20th floor did.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
I saw a Youtube video accompanied with some physics experiments, which the author claimed that the only way that the top 15 floors could have fallen into the rest of the building in the manner it did, was if the support below was blown out. The problem with that being no evidence of explosions to blow out support at the 94th? floor.
That is only because no truther appears to understand buckling instability. It doesn't feature as part of their vocabulary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_engineering_theory#Buckling

Read it. In twelve years no truther, even the ones that call themselves engineers, has discovered it. They haven't done so because it immediately answers the question of how can something begin silently and progress towards a downward acceleration approaching G. Had they found it they would have forgotten it, because they would have received an unwelcome answer.

A careful balance between ignorance and dishonesty has to be maintained...

There are some wonderful YouTube college structural engineering videos on slender column buckling instability. I recommend them.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
That is only because no truther appears to understand buckling instability. It doesn't feature as part of their vocabulary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_engineering_theory#Buckling

Read it. In twelve years no truther, even the ones that call themselves engineers, has discovered it. They haven't done so because it immediately answers the question of how can something begin silently and progress towards a downward acceleration approaching G. Had they found it they would have forgotten it, because they would have received an unwelcome answer.

A careful balance between ignorance and dishonesty has to be maintained...

There are some wonderful YouTube college structural engineering videos on slender column buckling instability. I recommend them.
Strange assertion to make that the general public are unaware of buckling... everyone I know is well aware of the process. To suggest that 'truther' engineers do not know and understand it seems highly improbable to say the least, as they would have to factor it in their day to day work.

Further, it is well known that buckling is very often a precurser to shearing/fracture and collapse.

It seems far more likely that your assertion is dishonest Jazzy. It also fails to take into account many documented instances where buckling leads to shearing which leads to sections falling off whilst leaving the main structure standing.... especially if the buckling and shearing are asymmetric as was the case in question. But it appears you wouldn't really want to go there because that would contradict your argument would it not? Careful balances must be maintained eh :)
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Strange assertion to make that the general public are unaware of buckling... everyone I know is well aware of the process.
So why is it called instability? No peeking.

To suggest that 'truther' engineers do not know and understand it seems highly improbable to say the least, as they would have to factor it in their day to day work.
They never mention it. The NIST Report does.

Further, it is well known that buckling is very often a precurser to shearing/fracture and collapse.
No. It is a precursor only to collapse.

many documented instances where buckling leads to shearing
Name one.

which leads to
Gibberish from then on. No surprise there.

This is why all the buildings fell:



As soon as floors detached (and in all cases they were observed detaching) the columns, though strong enough to withstand their vertical loads, were no longer stable.

This is a complete answer to the observed silent initial stage of all three collapses, and the observed downward acceleration of close to G.

It is a complete answer, without ifs, buts and maybes.

Here it is before your eyes.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
So why is it called instability? No peeking.
Ok, no peeking... Because something which has buckled is unstable and likely to collapse. It is one of the factors which is taken into account in determining the effects of stresses and strains on structures to ensure their fitness for use and safety.


They never mention it. The NIST Report does.
I agree it is under mentioned. It appears to me surprising that the top section which broke loose did not continue, (it started), in it's lateral movement which would have led to it detatching and falling on it's own, (obviously with more damage incurred on the side which it fell toward.

No. It is a precursor only to collapse.
Around 4 mins is the most interesting and demonstrative part













 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Ok, no peeking... Because something which has buckled is unstable and likely to collapse.
NO.

A vertical slender column which buckles IS collapsing. The only thing to follow it is its meeting ground zero.

It is one of the factors which is taken into account in determining the effects of stresses and strains on structures to ensure their fitness for use and safety.
NO.

Each vertical slender column is normally ten times more capable of resisting buckling instability within its position in the structure than it need be.

It is when the structure is compromised that an erstwhile perfectly strong column fails.

I agree it is under mentioned.
Hah.

It appears to me surprising that the top section which broke loose did not continue
It never fully broke loose of either its inner or outer columns.

Once impacting random pieces of the lower structure there was no way it could maintain its own cohesion, which faded to nothing within seconds.

NONE of the videos you offer here are relevant to compression loads on a slender vertical column. You immediately reveal your er, weakness in this department.

Screen Shot 2013-05-05 at 19.44.09.png

Notice that L, the effective column length, is underneath and squared. Lose a floor, a quarter as stable, lose two floors, a ninth as stable, three floors, a sixteenth as stable, and thar she blows...

Hardly any of the internal and external columns were in any way crushed or damaged. They lost their lateral connections and became too unstable to remain erect.

The buckling of slender columns is a process which needn't damage the column in any way.

Check the the second case model in my previous post: the structure failed without damaging the columns. With a wriggle.

Do you have a steel measuring tape at home? That fails by buckling all the time without damage. Think about it.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
NO.

A vertical slender column which buckles IS collapsing. The only thing to follow it is its meeting ground zero.

Check the the second case model in my previous post: the structure failed without damaging the columns. With a wriggle.

Do you have a steel measuring tape at home? That fails by buckling all the time without damage. Think about it.
It is not hard Jazzy, 'buckling' is 'bending'... girders can buckle without collapsing, I have seen it many times. If the forces stabilise or decrease the beam will simply remain buckled or 'bent' as below. If the forces increase the buckle will continue to a point where connections sheer or the weight drags it over.



As for your yt example (face palm).

Are you suggesting the floors dropped in 1 and 2, the same way as is alleged in 7, (internally and unseen leaving a facade to collapse straight down)?

Also, you did notice when the tinsy little model 'collapses', (around 1.30)... it tips over!:cool:

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Cairenn

Senior Member.
But NONE of the facades collapsed 'straight down'. I have to wonder why you keep insisting they did.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
It is not hard Jazzy, 'buckling' is 'bending'
No, it [...] isn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckling

http://maji.utsi.edu/courses/02_fluids/handout_history_01_euler.pdf

The COLUMN.

As for your yt example (face palm), are you suggesting the floors dropped in 1 and 2, the same way as is alleged in 7, (internally and unseen leaving a facade to collapse straight down)?
Except that the collapse wasn't "straight down", yes. And there are pictures of dropped floors (immediately before collapse) in the NIST Report. Have you read it yet?

Also, you did notice when the tinsy little model 'collapses', (around 1.30)... it tips over!:cool:

That WAS the buckling. Didn't WTC 2 "tip over"?

[...]
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
No, it [...] isn't.

Yes, it [...] is
.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckling[...]
Leading to failure mode or to have deformed. Things do buckle (get bent) without collapsing although more often than not they do collapse but the collapse may be immediate and spectacular or it may collapse quite some time after, gradually, or not at all.

http://publish.ucc.ie/boolean/2010/00/dePaor/11/en



This is buckled, (bent). It is all a question of degree. A beam can bend and then spring back.... or it can bend and remain bent, (buckled) or it can bend too far, leading to a catastrophic failure. Yes if a beam or something is bent, then obviously it is (in a structural sense) unfit for service and will need replacing but things DO buckle without catastrophic collapse... just to clear up the bunk.

Except that the collapse wasn't "straight down", yes. And there are pictures of dropped floors (immediately before collapse) in the NIST Report. Have you read it yet?
As for the buildings not 'coming straight down'... to most normal people that is exactly what they did. If you want to faff around some convoluted argument that they didn't... be my guest. Perhaps you may like to start a thread on how they didn't comee down straight and ridicule the ignorance of 99% of the worlds population?

That WAS the buckling. Didn't WTC 2 "tip over"?
The top of wtc 2 could have been a partial collapse, (as it was part of the whole), To many people it looked as if it should have carried on sliding until it fell off the main body but instead of a partial collapse it very quickly changed to a total collapse.

Anyway you must obviously be a far better engineer than Astineh, who was admittedly shocked that the towers collapsed; but you have oft stated that 'you knew straight way as soon as the planes hit, that the towers were coming down', which is pretty amazing really when you consider it had never happened before or since.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

tjohnson_nb

New Member
There is no way in hell the WTC buildings collapsed - these structures were severely compromised somehow. Maybe someday we will know how and by whom. At this point I don't even believe they were hit by airplanes. The video makes no sense.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Thousands of folks SAW the planes fly into them. There were cameras running when the second plane hit. HOW in blazes can you say that they weren't hit by planes?

I will ask you, Are you a structural engineer? A materials engineer? Or someone that has a lot of experience working with steel or iron, when it is hot?

My hubby was home that day, since I had day surgery. We had already discussed if they could survive. He is geophysical engineer, by area is physics/geology. Neither of us have a structural background, and we had no information about how they were built. In spite of that, we had discussed what might happen if the damage was so intense that the top collapsed. Our guess was a total collapse.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Things do buckle (get bent) without collapsing
Vertically-loaded slender columns FAIL. They fail due to elastic instability. It still doesn't feature in your discussion. Because you don't know what you are talking about.

As for the buildings not 'coming straight down'
How was WTC 7 hit?

The top of wtc 2 could have been a partial collapse
It was already out of line. The civil engineering calculations rely on such buildings being horizontal and vertical. Even lined up, there was too much momentum in the falling structure for the intact structure beneath not to be crushed.

To many people it looked as if it should have carried on sliding until it fell off the main body
At that angle it would fail immediately as soon as it reacted with anything stationary. It could only hold its shape in near free fall.

you have oft stated that 'you knew straight way as soon as the planes hit, that the towers were coming down', which is pretty amazing really when you consider it had never happened before or since.
I knew how thin those floors were, and how important that their underside be insulated. I also knew the thermobaric effects consequent to vaporizing ten tons of kerosine, and mixing it with air, and igniting it. I knew it would blow off the foam, blast down the partitions and reach both to the roof and the basement via the lift shafts.

That is because I'm an aeroengineer, and have been for a long time. I enjoy seeing everything via science, thanks. What's your discipline? Obviously NOT science...
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Example of Buckling... I trust this will be an end to the argument that 'Buckling' is : "A vertical slender column which buckles IS collapsing. The only thing to follow it is its meeting ground zero."

As can clearly be seen, no collapse happened here and it certainly did NOT meet ground zero.

If we cannot trust the Cardington fire research project to use the correct terminology, who can we trust?
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI.htm

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jazzy

Closed Account
Example of Buckling
You are pointing out the buckling of a beam.

I have always been talking about the buckling, by elastic instability, of a slender vertical column.

Kindly desist from your persistent straw man argument.

I have pointed to you many times now the research conducted by Leonhard Euler in the mid-eighteenth century into slender vertical column elastic instability. Please read it and attempt to understand it.

For the nth time, the stability in question is demonstrated by this video:



Until you understand what has happened here, you are going to continue to permit yourself your fallacies.

You seem to be stuck. I no longer care.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
You are pointing out the buckling of a beam.

I have always been talking about the buckling, by elastic instability, of a slender vertical column.

Kindly desist from your persistent straw man argument.

I have pointed to you many times now the research conducted by Leonhard Euler in the mid-eighteenth century into slender vertical column elastic instability. Please read it and attempt to understand it.

For the nth time, the stability in question is demonstrated by this video:



Until you understand what has happened here, you are going to continue to permit yourself your fallacies.

You seem to be stuck. I no longer care.
Except it is not 4 flimsy columns that we are talking about is it?

Nor did the towers rotate around, tip over, release the load and then spring back again. They collapsed straight down....The video is garbage. It is not even clear what the '4 columns' in the video are made of! Rubber? Slinky 'spring' (high tensile) Steel? Certainly not your commonal garden steel as used in columns and beams.

Is that not fraudulent? Gross Misrepresentation? Bunk?

Slinky was originally priced at $1, but many paid much more due to price increases of spring steel



Not only that, they didn't even really 'buckle' in the true sense because a buckled steel column does not spring back after such massive deformation.

We are talking about very many columns all needing to buckle together and a huge structural core, (which dwarfed the Eiffel Tower AND remained after the collapse until it mysteriously 'disappeared' in a puff of smoke)

More like this, I suggest.



Again... Buckled but no total collapse. What does Euler say about this?



Or this?



Apples and oranges are not even in the same universe!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jazzy

Closed Account
Except < bullshit > universe!
I am not going to repeat myself.

[video=youtube_share;9SSS0DDqfm0]http://youtu.be/9SSS0DDqfm0[/video]

[video=youtube_share;wrdO8hPJGyg]http://youtu.be/wrdO8hPJGyg[/video]

[video=youtube_share;PJVH8dpnwc4]http://youtu.be/PJVH8dpnwc4[/video]

[video=youtube_share;1GUsB7ll9nI]http://youtu.be/1GUsB7ll9nI[/video]

[video=youtube_share;RN9_0qFH1K8]http://youtu.be/RN9_0qFH1K8[/video]
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Re the Windsor Madrid Fire and partial collapse of unprotected, (no fire protection applied (SFRM)), lightweight steel mullions, (load bearing columns)

See https://www.metabunk.org/posts/43044

http://www.newsteelconstruction.com/...adrid/?print=1

Content from external source:

A view has previously been expressed that the collapses were caused by failure of perimeter steel mullion columns which were directly exposed to fire and this has been contrasted unfavourably with the perception that the concrete structure performed extraordinarily well.

Now that a report has been published by the Spanish authorities(1) it is possible to see that the situation is not as simple as the view expressed above. This article reviews some the information contained in this report and develops one important hypothesis.
First it must be made absolutely clear that the steel mullion columns should have had applied fire protection. Reference to BS 5950-8(2) or the Eurocodes would confirm this as they were relatively light load bearing multi-storey columns with high section factors (A/V between 100 and 200 m-¹​).

In the course of refurbishment, fire protection had already been applied to these mullion columns on all levels below the 17th with the exception of the 9th. None of the fire protected mullions failed and the Spanish report concludes that, although it cannot be stated with absolute certainty, the collapse of the upper storeys would not have occurred had this fire protection already been in place throughout.

That is the end of the report’s specific conclusions about the contribution of the steel mullions to the collapse. If you do not protect light steel members they will fail in a prolonged fire. Hardly rocket science!

However, it is interesting to see what happened on the 9th level. The picture shows that the unprotected steel mullions buckled as they were restrained against thermal expansion. But collapse did not ensue. Why? The answer is that the loads were taken by multiple alternative load paths – a classic robustness provision. Mullions above from level 10 to 17 and below from level 8 down were able to distribute and share the loads as the 9th level mullions failed. The fact that there were 60 mullions per floor level added to the number of alternative load paths available.




Why was it that although these alternative load paths existed above the 17th level they did not apparently prevent the collapses?

There are two answers to this – firstly because there was no effective fire compartmentation of the building; secondly because of the failure of two internal concrete columns. Yes, a portalised pair of 1200 x 500 concrete columns did collapse.



Buckling of 9th floor mullions...(NB note buckled light steel mullions in background)

Dr Roger Pope analyses the Spanish report into the causes of the Windsor building fire in Madrid. Unprotected steel mullions were not the sole cause of the collapse, he suggests.

On 12 February 2005, fire broke out in the 30 storey Windsor Building in Madrid.

The fire started on the 21st floor level. As shown in the picture taken from the east after the fire, the serviced storey between 16th and 17th levels arrested all the progressive collapse that occurred to the upper superstructure. Such “strong floors” in multi-storey buildings are another classic robustness provision.
NB.. Classic means, old, well known, tried and tested. And yes The WTC's had them.

This is a simple but effective demonstration of the effect of alternate load pathways.



It would be interesting if someone could work out the likely critical forces available from the 20 odd floors which collapsed onto the structurally sound floors below, (taking into account the large amount of debris overspill) and compare that with the combined resistance of the structure below, (taking into account alternate load pathways and bearing in mind the preference for pathways of least resistance, (being overspill to the sides).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jazzy

Closed Account
Re the Windsor Madrid Fire and partial
no, Oxy, complete

collapse of unprotected lightweight steel mullions
the effect of alternate load pathways
Can be completely overcome by creep.

By settling due to heat-induced creep, columns can transfer their loads via interconnected truss structures.

In the case of WTC 2, the transferred loads appeared to help cause the external face buckle (once floors dropped away) in the direction of lean, whereas with WTC 1 it appeared that the internal columns failed first.

In both cases, creep loads were transferred by the towers' top hat trusses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creep_(deformation)

You must be seriously invested in your pseudoscience, Oxy, to so permanently set your face against the truth. You have my sympathy. So has my old, blind, deaf dog. But she smells, too.
 

Ron J

Active Member
There is no way in hell the WTC buildings collapsed - these structures were severely compromised somehow. Maybe someday we will know how and by whom. At this point I don't even believe they were hit by airplanes. The video makes no sense.

If there was no way that the WTC buildings collapsed, they would still be standing. The structures were severely compromised by the planes that flew into them and the fires that ensued. You should view video of the bowed in columns on the east wall of WTC2 where the fire was burning. It might give you an understanding of why a fire compromised building would collapse.

There are numerous videos of the second jetliner crashing into WTC2 and a French documentarian shot video of the the jetliner striking WTC1, while recording a documentary on an NYFD fire house. That the Towers were struck by jetliners was well documented.
 

Ron J

Active Member
The top of wtc 2 could have been a partial collapse, (as it was part of the whole), To many people it looked as if it should have carried on sliding until it fell off the main body but instead of a partial collapse it very quickly changed to a total collapse.

The collapse of WTC2 was a total collapse from the start. Once it began, there was no stopping it. It never could have been a partial collapse, as floors began collapsing below the break immediately after the break occurred. Debris burst out windows just below the break moments after the east wall failed. Debris was bursting out those lower windows as floor trusses fell down to those floors, then causing more floor trusses to collapse in chain reaction.

The top 30 floors could not simply slide off or tip over off the rest of the building, leaving it unscathed.
 

hiper

Active Member
Ron J you talk about the floors and conveniently leave out the massive steel core that somehow disintegrated along with the floors.
Not very credible.
What do you think was the reason for the disintegration of the steel core?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Ron J you talk about the floors and conveniently leave out the massive steel core that somehow disintegrated along with the floors.
Not very credible.
What do you think was the reason for the disintegration of the steel core?
When it no longer had the lateral support of the floors it collapsed from the thousands of tons of steel and concrete falling on it. Even when nothing was falling on it, with enough lateral support removed it could not be stable under its own weight. In the image below half the height of the core is still standing.

Buckling is the key here.

 
Last edited:

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
Ron J you talk about the floors and conveniently leave out the massive steel core that somehow disintegrated along with the floors.
Not very credible.
What do you think was the reason for the disintegration of the steel core?
I agree. Looking at the thread above, Eulers theory is what is being misapplied re the buckling. It is actually only valid for very slender columns, which the WTC 47 cores were not. Also, when you do a momentum transfer analysis of the top block colliding with the building below, even when you allow it to fall for one whole floor at freefall acceleration, the velocity almost halfs after the first impact to just over 4.5m/s. As for the weight of the top block, 58000 tonnes would actually be a bit on the heavy side, but i would be happy to use it as a ballpark figure, as have many engineers on either side of this debate. I have tried this with much higher figures and the results are similar. These towers had half their total mass, which was nowhere near half a million tons btw, in the first 35 - 40 floors. This means that the top 15 floors would represent around 13.5% of the height, but only around 5% of the mass. How does 5% crush 95% and continue to accelerate while it does so. I have never had a decent answer to that question yet.
The question of how these towers managed to constantly accelerate through themselves averaging around 66% total freefall is indeed perplexing to anyone who has read a physics book. The law of conservation of momentum seems to have taken a day off on 9/11. Interesting topic
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
When it no longer had the lateral support of the floors it collapsed from the thousands of tons of steel and concrete falling on it. Even when nothing was falling on it, with enough lateral support removed it could not be stable under its own weight. In the image below half the height of the core is still standing.

Buckling is the key here.

These are the weakest column rows that remain standing, whilst the strongest have already fallen. This should not happen in a gravitationally driven event.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
How does 5% crush 95% and continue to accelerate while it does so. I have never had a decent answer to that question yet.
The question of how these towers managed to constantly accelerate through themselves averaging around 66% total freefall is indeed perplexing to anyone who has read a physics book. The law of conservation of momentum seems to have taken a day off on 9/11. Interesting topic
Each floor that fails adds to the mass.
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
Each floor that fails adds to the mass.
With respect to that, in kinematics velocity is squared, mass is not. So in the case of WTC1 adding 1/15th of the mass makes very little difference in comparison to the decrease that occurs in velocity after the first impact. Momentum must be conserved.
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
Why not? The weakest columns would have less to support.
The 22 degree tip is not constant and if this were a purely gravitational collapse it would be reasonable to expect the strongest columns to survive longer than the weakest, i think they are row 5 and 6, can't remember the others, but i could go check if you are interested in exploring it.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
With respect to that, in kinematics velocity is squared, mass is not. So in the case of WTC1 adding 1/15th of the mass makes very little difference in comparison to the decrease that occurs in velocity after the first impact. Momentum must be conserved.
It's a tad more complicated than a bunch of blocks banging into each other though, there's a bunch of collision events going on. But why don't you show your working?
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
It's a tad more complicated than a bunch of blocks banging into each other though, there's a bunch of collision events going on. But why don't you show your working?
Okay, are you happy enough to presume that the upper block is around 58000 tonnes?
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
16 storeys @ 58000 tonnes fall for a floor at total freefall is (58000000/2)*(8.52*8.52) = 72.5904*29000000=2105121600J = 2.1GJ at impact.
Energy Losses -
17 storeys V2 m/sec + 1 storey moving at 23/24*V2 m/sec+ 1 storey @ 22/24*V2m/sec +......+ 1 storey moving at 2/24*V2 m/sec + 1 storeymoving at 1/24*V2m/sec 16*8.5 = V2 (17 + 11.5) so V2 i= 16 * 8.5 / 28.5 = 4.8m/s
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
16 storeys @ 58000 tonnes fall for a floor at total freefall is (58000000/2)*(8.52*8.52) = 72.5904*29000000=2105121600J = 2.1GJ at impact.
Energy Losses -
17 storeys V2 m/sec + 1 storey moving at 23/24*V2 m/sec+ 1 storey @ 22/24*V2m/sec +......+ 1 storey moving at 2/24*V2 m/sec + 1 storeymoving at 1/24*V2m/sec 16*8.5 = V2 (17 + 11.5) so V2 i= 16 * 8.5 / 28.5 = 4.8m/s
That looks more like a conclusion that your working. What's the 23/24, 22/24 refer to?
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
That looks more like a conclusion that your working. What's the 23/24, 22/24 refer to?
This is because of the continued elastic deflection experienced in the lower section by the presumed impact of the top block before it enters the plastic phase. As you correctly stated earlier, this is more complicated than just a bunch of blocks hitting each other. ie steel has phases of elastic, shortening, and then plastic stages of deformation.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Perhaps your calculations have been presented in a fuller form elsewhere? Or is this novel research?

It would seem that if you have mathematical proof that 9/11 was controlled demolition, then you would want to publish this in full.
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
Perhaps your calculations have been presented in a fuller form elsewhere? Or is this novel research?

It would seem that if you have mathematical proof that 9/11 was controlled demolition, then you would want to publish this in full.
I wouldn't want to overstate things. What this does prove is that the theory proffered by NIST is flawed, and that the gravitational loading and subsequent momentum that it would transfer would cause enough of a reduction in velocity for the perceived collapse to be arrested at quite an early stage. It should be considered more of a critique of NISTs lack of explanation, after all, they did not address the actual collapse itself in their report. Only the events leading up to it. Bazant did do an analysis early on and then revised it but did not take the shortening of the bottom block into account. Also, it is worth remembering that we are presuming that a whole floor (3.7m) of the tower just disappears and allows the block to drop at g.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I wouldn't want to overstate things. What this does prove is that the theory proffered by NIST is flawed, and that the gravitational loading and subsequent momentum that it would transfer would cause enough of a reduction in velocity for the perceived collapse to be arrested at quite an early stage.
Surely that proves deliberate demolition?
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
Surely that proves deliberate demolition?
It proves that there should be a more thorough investigation into the whole event. The fact that controlled demolition was not considered in the report is counter intuitive as this is the only cause ever of high rise steel framed building collapses like these. Fire does not have form for dong this to buildings made of steel, so the fact that NIST discarded the most likely cause, but clung to the least likely historically speaking should be a red flag to anyone. The implication that every highrise on the planet is now liable to collapse from fire should be disturbing to us all, whether it is true or not.
 

Related Articles

Top