|
Debunking the "crush-down progressive collapse" Conspiracy Theory of NIST by Anders Björkman (also at EMI, 2013, Evanston, IL) |
|
|
|
September 11, 2001, was a quite remarkable day for the air defense system of the United States.
In short, a whole set of highly improbable events occurred simultaneously on that morning. From a scientific point of view these anomalies need further investigation. It is not credible that Bin Laden was responsible for these anomalies, nor that they were sheer coincidences.
SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE. (a) IN GENERAL.- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war. (b) COVERED PERSONS. - A covered person under this section is any person as follows: (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks. (2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces. National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
It would appear Prof. Bazant and others mentioned below suggesting towers collapse from top are covered persons to be detained as per above US law. You wonder why they are still at large. Is the President or military sleeping? Again?
Americans don't know any more about physics and structural architecture and engineering than the Soviet population and Stalin knew about genetics. Today "Lysenkoism" is used as a metaphor to denote the corruption of science in behalf of a social, political, or ideological purpose. |
|
Help Understanding the planned Destructions of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Debunking the Conspiracy Theory of Prof. Bazant and NIST. It is quite simple! A Structure cannot be one-way crushed-down from above by a weak upper Piece of itself driven by Gravity ... as shown 'live on TV'! I am a structural engineer and I assure you that alleged terrorists flying an airplane into and damaging the weak top of a skyscraper do not destroy the strong, intact bottom of the skyscraper. No structure of any kind collapses from top down and the content does not disappear into thin air. The path of defects producing structural collapses is always from bottom up. I therefore do not believe in a US theory, that 15 Saudi arabs and 4 other arabs conspired to destroy NY skyscrapers by flying hijacked planes into the weak tops so that later the complete skyscrapers collapsed from top down as seen 'live on (faked) TV' 9/11 2001. It is a pity that US law enforcement authorities like the FBI and professional groups like the American Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE, do not understand this allowing US military to kill innocent people in a war on terror. I have been invited to Evanston, IL, in August 2013 to explain the below again, in person at the EMI, 2013, conference. Hopefully, FBI will attend and listen then.
However, the fact is that a tower (a steel structure, A) cannot collapse or be destroyed from above (!) and crushed down or compressed (!) by a small (!) part (C) of itself, POUFF, POUFF, POUFF, POUFF, POUFF, POUFF by gravity into rubble. Prove me wrong and win €1 000 000:-.  This article describes in layman's terms and using common sense (!) the structure of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and what happens when the alleged release of potential energy, due to downward, alleged free fall* (!) movement and alleged impact (!) of the mass above - a small top part lightweight structure (part C) - by its supporting columns when buckling, exceeds the strain energy that can be absorbed by the same columns and much bigger structure below (part A). These are the official, identical cause and effect of both destructions. The conclusion is that the official conclusions by US authorities and experts are false! A composite steel structure like the WTC towers cannot crush down one-way from top down, when a small piece of the structure - upper part C - drops on the structure - intact part A from above! One reason is that the bottom part A of WTC1 is 10 times stronger than the top part C. Another reason is that gravity provides too little energy to destroy the structure. Quite basic! The USA is fooling the world. Fig. S1 - A fake picture
of a 'progressive global collapse' of WTC1
on 9-11 2001. The picture (from a video) has been
made using 'Independence Day' film technology, CGI,
- smoke, dust and debris are just added, while bits
of the tower are erased. Big parts dropping from
skyskraper = ridiculous! Prove me wrong and win
Euro
1.
000 000:-
(Note - photo is evidently another
fake!) Björkman's famous axiom
regarding any structure says: A smaller
(weaker) top part of an isotropic or
composite 3-D structure, when dropped on
and impacting a greater (stronger) bottom
part of same structure by gravity, cannot
one-way crush down the greater bottom part
of the structure. Thus no structures, 1, 2 or 5
meters tall, or 100, 200 or 500 meters tall exist
(e.g. the one shown left Fig. S1) that will one-way
crush down, when a small part C is dropped on the
bigger part A below. However, various people or
fools, i.a. Bazant
and Seffen,
which will be further described below in
2.1
and 9.1
propose otherwise. They suggest that what they
describe as crush down or progressive
collapse takes place as follows: The
top part
C of any structure gets
loose, drops on and destroys
bottom
part A
into
rubble B! (Fig.
S2) After a few seconds the whole
building
A is
just
rubbleB! The basic
errors with these suggestions are simply that no
small top part C can ever destroy anything below it
that carried it before.
Then do the same thing with a solid sphere of steel. Drop it on the floor. If the floor is strong enough, the same thing will happen as with a rubber ball! The steel sphere bounces. If the floor is not strong enough, i.e. it cannot produce a force big enough to deform the steel sphere, so that it bounces back, the floor will be damaged - maybe a hole is formed in it, and the steel sphere drops through the hole, or the floor is just partially damaged ... and catches the steel ball, i.e. arrests it. Now you have learnt a little what can happen when you drop anything on anything. This basic knowledge is used in this presentation. Now try to drop a piece of something on the same something bigger. You can never one-way crush down something A by a top piece C of A! The conclusion is that no destruction of the Towers can ensue under the given circumstances. More info is available in booklet Best Practices for Reducing the Potential for Progressive Collapse in Buildings. The reason is, apart from neither free fall nor impact of an upper part C or mass taking place - they are just invention by the terrorists - that the upper part C, with floor area 4 000 m² and its columns, which only occupy 5-6 m² or 0.13% of the total area, is not aligned with the lower structure and its columns at the alleged incidents/impacts! The upper and lower load bearing columns will never meet at any point! The upper part C in fact is an assembly of many weaker parts (floors) that will simply be sliced apart by the lower structure stronger columns (part A) and then be entangled with and jammed there due to friction and the destruction will be arrested. The upper part C cannot apply energy on the lower structure as the energy will destroy C first. You will learn what a gravity driven destruction (something stronger breaking something weaker below) really is and why such event did not take place at the WTCs! The subject has been analyzed in many articles on the Internet but you here find new observations and explanations. The information is so simple to grasp that no peer review of 'scientists' is required to support it. There is no mystery about it. The terrorists do not like that. Beware! (* free fall is to be understood in this paper as a drop due to gravity with little resistance, while the velocity increases (acceleration)) The author is a structural engineer for Heiwa Co albeit in the shipbuilding and very big oil tankers sector but the principles of structural design and analysis are the same. It is a more detailed description than this paper but the conclusion is the same! 1. 1 The Explanation - major Problems - no Evidence of (1) Buckled Columns, (2) Free Fall, (3) Impact and (4) Shock Wave or (5) Rigid Body of an Upper Part C or Mass NIST, the US National Institute of Support of Terrorism, at Washington, DC, has explained the WTC 911 destructions. From NIST report - NISTNCSTAR1-6D chapter 5.2 - we learn: "The aircraft impacted the north wall of WTC 1 at 8:46 a.m. … between Floor 93 and Floor 98. … The subsequent fires weakened structural subsystems, including the core columns, floors and exterior walls. The core displaced downward … At 100 min (at 10:28:18), the north, east, and west walls at Floor 98 carried 7 percent, 35 percent and 30 percent more gravity load loads … and the south wall and the core carried about 7 percent and 20 percent less loads, respectively., … At 10.28 a.m., 102 min after the aircraft impact, WTC 1 began to collapse. … The release of potential energy due to downward movement of the building mass above the buckled columns (the upper part C) exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure (part A). Global collapse ensued." From chapter 5.3 we learn: Note that the two
Towers were destroyed for exactly the same
cause: The release of potential energy,
PE, due to downward movement of the
building mass above the buckled
columns (the
upper
part C)
exceeded the strain energy,
SEb,that could be
absorbed by the structure
(part
A below).
There is no mention of the local
forces that develop at contact and will
destroy the structures locally and arrest
further destruction or whether
upper
part C can
apply sufficient energy on A without
destroying itself. Terrorists are simple
people with stupid explanations.
Can removal or destruction (e.g.
by fire) of load bearing elements high up in a
structure causing downward displacement of
elements above, up to the top of the structure
produce destruction of all intact elements and
connections below the initially destroyed elements?
NIST suggsts it is possible. Below is shown that it
is not possible. NIST is producing a fake report
about WTC 1/2. 1.1.1 What is a buckled
Column? And how much energy or mass
above is required to buckle it? Source http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build07/PDF/b07008.pdf Note - collapse always starts by removal of
an element at the bottom developing upwards
- not the other way around!   
A...............................................................;;;B.;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;C.
D................................;;;;;........................E. Fig. 1.1.1 Five steps of buckling of a column due to compressive load First, A, a plastic hinge develops in the middle of the compressed column due to lack of strain energy there, then, B, two more plastic hinges develop above and below the first hinge, then, C and D, the column 'kneels' and finally, E, a severely deformed part of the column may punch a hole in the floor below it, while the solid mass above or force applied is shifted sideways. All these deformations require energy that is applied by the displacing mass above! The column will never fracture in any location and it will never rupture due to fractures at the hinges into several pieces, i.e. it will always be connected, albeit very deformed. To suggest that 'buckling' of a column will result in free fall of the load or mass it carries is not correct! It is in fact absurd. As absurd to propose that dropping a mass on a column, the column will buckle! The dropped mass will just slide off before any buckling takes place. The above deformation also takes time and would be seen on any video, if it took place! No buckled columns from floors 93/98 of WTC 1 or floors 74/78 of WTC 2 have been presented as evidence. The major problem with the WTC 1 destruction is that the terrorists suggest that the top part, the upper part of WTC 1 suddenly dropped at nearly free-fall as a rigid, solid mass, releasing potential energy, PE, becoming kinetic energy, KE, due to acceleration and transferring it into the non-rigid structure below at an impact at a rate that exceeded the below structure's ability to absorb it, ignoring the simple fact that the buckled columns and failures in between would simply have stopped the vertical displacement. The structure below lacked
enough strain energy, SEb, we are told.
There is no mention of the strain energy of the
upper
part above,
SEa, because it is rigid
and cannot absorb any strain energy as it already
contains infinite strain energy, and the effects of
friction between the
upper
part and the
structure below. And there is no mention of the
strain energy of the intermediate part - all the
buckled columns there! The NIST explanation makes several assumptions that are easily shown to be unsupported (no evidence) or false or very strange, typical terrorist behaviour:
These above initiating events and destructions are not seen at WTC 1.
1.1.3 No Initiating Events recorded on (fake) Video All videos of the destruction
show that the
upper
part in fact telescopes
into or shortens itself for 2-4 seconds, while the
steel structure below is still intact! Thus - the
upper
part was not
rigid as assumed later by NIST
and supporting 'experts'. WTC 1 will be
analysed in detail below.WTC
2 is similar. Here
is a video
analysis of what might have hit WTC 2 and it is not
a plane! 40 minutes later WTC 2 is suddenly
destroyed. All videos show very strange
destructions when smoke, dust and damaged pieces
are being ejected. You should wonder if the
destruction is real ... or the videos are
faked! Reason to fake the videos is to
manipulate the viewer and confuse any analysis.
Photos here are from said videos. In author's
opinion the videos are faked but can be used for
analysis anyway. The whole
upper
part C of WTC 2 just
above floor 81 suddenly tips over, moves
horizontally sideways and disappears soon
after as shown on photos right (figs. 1.1.3.1,2),
while the lower structure remains intact.To suggest
that the
upper
part C is
rigid, remains intact, drops
vertically and is aligned with the lower
structure columns and crushes down the
floors/columns below poses a
predicament. It is quite clear that nothing
drops on the right wall and floors of WTC 2
structure below the
upper
part C. But smoke,
débris and dust are ejected ... for what
reasons? Gravity contact? Nothing has impacted the
right wall! On the other hand it seems that
multiple, great explosions take place tipping and
mowing the
upper
part C to the left
while the top floors are destroyed! According
Bazant and others
upper
part C is supposed to
be intact and one-way crush down the tower below,
but anybody can see on any video how
upper
part C is in fact
destroyed first. Thus the planned demolition starts
high up ... and continues below
later. No free fall of
upper
part C or
impact occurs at WTC 2 ... and cannot
occur - and none are therefore recorded on any
videos! The force to shift the
upper
part C
horizontally
sideways must have been enormous and cannot have
been provided by gravity - a downward
force! The pictures (figs. 1.1.3,4)
below show the same thing from another angle and a
few seconds later. The corners and roof line of WTC
2 are indicated by
green
lines. Note the smoke
ejected from the windows well below the tilting
upper
part in the left
picture, where the structure is still intact and no
local failures have occurred. Gravity alone cannot
produce such effects! "Observation of the upper
margin of the cloud of dust and smoke in the videos
somehow makes the discusser
conclude that the tower top motion is caused by
"part C becoming shorter while part A remains
intact." This is a delusion.
Part A remaining intact would violate the
principles of conservation of momentum and of
energy. The writers' analysis of the initial
two-way collapse shows that the columns of part C
get plastically squashed by only 1% of their
original length and afterward the collapse proceeds
in a one-way crush-down mode (Bažant and Le
2008)." Bazant
& Co, July 2010 lying in
Journal of
Engineering Mechanics! Evidently WTC 2
floors above #81 are demolished
= upper part
C is destroyed first! 
Gravity is an ever present vertical force of attraction between any two objects, e.g. all the parts of the towers and the Earth. WTC 1 and 2 consisted of many parts and, when WTC 1 and 2 were intact and all parts were attached to each other, gravity resulted in low, safe compressive stresses in the primary load bearing columns that were less than 32% of the yield stress as will be shown in 5.1 below. Evidently the gravity forces were balanced by opposite reaction forces at every point. Evidently no parts or assemblies of WTC 1 or 2 were rigid. A rigid body is assumed indestructible. A floor is not a primary load bearing object. It just transmits its weight to the primary load bearing elements via connecting bolts. It will also be clarified in 5.1 below. If you cut a primary load bearing vertical column or allow it to fail/shear off in one location, it cannot transmit any load and the stress in it at the cut becomes zero. If you then cut the same object a bit away (it cannot fail again!), the lose part will evidently drop out and fall down. If it is located in the wall, it is likely it drops down to the ground outside the structure. A core column may fall on a floor or down a lift shaft.
1.1.5 Free Fall and Collision Impact In WTC 1 and 2 we are told that two times 230-240+ primary load bearing vertical columns simultaneously failed in two locations (buckled) in an initiation zone due to fire ... and disappeared allowing vertical free fall of the upper parts. I do not believe it, because it is crazy to suppose it and not observed and contradicts all laws of physics, but let's assume it anyway so this article can describe the madness. What happens then? Well, if the upper part above the initiation zone was then hanging in a crane and slowly lowered down and placed on the lower structure, the lower structure would evidently carry the upper part ... as before. The columns would again be stressed to less than 32% yield stress. This is normal practice in modern shipbuilding; big blocks are positioned on structure below and welded to it. If you drop a block on the structure below, the block is sliced apart in the worst case or bounces up or a combination of the two. But there was no crane lowering the WTC upper parts like in a shipyard! We are told by NIST, and I repeat, that the upper part (it is assumed a rigid (indestructible!), solid mass with uniform density and big strain energy, SEa keeping it together!): (1) near free falls vertically (there are no buckled columns below it) and 1.1.6 Upper Part remains intact? These are very misty allegations - total inventions - by a federal authority (albeit with terrorist ties). It is the first time in history, when a smaller object - the light weight, upper part, actually a non-rigid, flexible steel structure consisting of many smaller elements with very small strain energy, SEa, - destroys the bigger and stronger other object - the identical steel structure below only with assistance of gravity. And none of the (1) to (7) events in 1.1.5 is recorded on any video! On all videos the upper parts disappear early and the lower structures are destroyed sequentially from the top by something else than the upper parts, while huge amounts of smoke, dust, débris and rubble are ejected. Very strange destructions, actually. Looks like controlled or planned demolitions! The
upper
parts of WTC 1, 2
are the problems for the terrorists. We are
just told that they can destroy the building below.
They are according Bazant/Seffen,
two scientists, findings of which will be further
analyzed and debunked below, supposed to be
rigid, stiff, solid, of uniform
density,
indestructible, with
infinite strain energy, SEa
, etc., in order to first near free
fall vertically, then impact and finally
drive two huge destructions of intact steel
structures that have never been seen before and
after 911. There was plenty of space/volume for other structure, e.g. floors, to get entangled in, which is completely ignored by the authorities. Early on the so called pan cake theory was suggested - whole floors being disconnected from columns and dropping down from the upper parts - but it was soon abandoned. It was a ridiculous suggestion! Floors dropping down from a rigid, indestructible upper part ! So the upper parts were neither rigid, stiff, solid, of uniform density, indestructible nor with big strain energy, SEa , as assumed by the scientists. NIST cannot then explain the WTC lower structures total destructions except that potential energy, PE = kinetic energy, KE (of upper part ) is greater than the built in strain energy, SEb, (capacity to absorb energy) of structure below (NIST's law), that will also be further described below. Complete terrorist nonsense as PE/KE of the upper part has nothing to do with SEb of the structure below! NIST does not consider that friction between partly damaged or loose parts absorbs more energy than any strain energy absorbed by intact structure in elastic and plastic deformation! Bazant and Seffen came to assistance. But they assume that the load bearing structure columns occupy 100% of the total foot print due to uniform density of the upper part and not only 0.13% due to local, concentrated strength. There is no air in the Bazant/Seffen WTCs! They apparently assume that SEa is greater than SEb that will be further explained below. SEa would in fact be infinite according to Bazant/Seffen. The upper part is assumed rigid. They also assume that there are no space and volume for entanglement of locally failed elements anywhere and that collapse arrest may occur! Both ignores that friction develops between displaced elements and absorbs huge amounts of potential energy released. Collapse arrest will be defined and explained below in paras. 1.2, 1.3 and 1.5.
1.2 Missing Evidence - Why wasn't the upper Part locally damaged? There are 1000's of photos of the destructions but unfortunately some are missing, e.g. those during the 0.8 - 0.9 seconds, when the rigid, indestructible upper parts start to near free fall (1) 3.7 meters - all columns failed - and then collide/impact (2) with the top elements of the structure below transmitting the total upper part KE to these elements of the structure below - and nothing to the upper part itself. It is then that the clock of collapse time should start and (3) the shock wave is transmitted. It can evidently not be seen. No intact upper parts (4) are seen during the destructions that followed. In the case of WTC2 the upper part explodes outside the footprint of the tower. It was not very rigid! But if there is no free fall and no impact and no sudden transmission of KE, then a gravity driven destructions cannot even be initiated and no collapse time clock will start. Any calculations about what happens after the alleged impact and instantaneous transmission of KE become then pretty theoretical. We are told that PE is released at (1) and becomes KE at (2). NIST suggests in its infamous 10 000 pages report that the PE or KE (no calculations) exceeded the total strain energy, SEb, of the structure below (no calculations), or PE = KE > SEb, but it is nonsensical maxims employed by savages! PE/KE and SEb have nothing to do with each other! Nothing to do with each other? Exactly. The PE/KE of the
upper
part must evidently
be applied at a sudden IMPACT to the structure
below, but gravity does not work like that for
loose objects! If some PE/KE of the
upper
part is applied to
the lower structure, you may, e.g. expect some
local failures due to lack of local
SEb as long as the load is applied. The
load will then slip off due to the deformation and
lack of friction. The SEb of the
complete structure is something completely
different. Then there is the lower structure itself
- it can evidently destroy the
upper
part, if it gets
loose. It happens when local SEb is
bigger than local SEa. In order for this upper part, 4 000 m² floor area and a certain height, with 280+ columns that occupy only 5-6 m² of it (<0.13% of the foot print), to free fall, impact and overload the lower structure, it must be 100% aligned with all 280+ columns below after failure. And then, if the 280+ columns above touch the 280+ columns below at contact, they must not slip off! Otherwise no KE will be transmitted! Each column is assumed to have failed at two locations (buckled) and the intermediate part has disappeared or is bent 180°. Does anyone believe that the cross surfaces of the broken parts are identical allowing a perfect fit at impact ... and overload? Try to hit a nail with another nail and see what happens because each column has the function of a nail hitting another nail! Evidently, the upper part columns were not 100% aligned at (1) with the lower structure columns after buckling - we are told that they were bent - and therefore they will miss the lower structure columns at (2). But NIST assumes the contrary! No impact, no shock wave! And therefore no global collapse due to KE bigger than SEb. If you argue that it was only the thin, lowest floor of the upper part that first impacted the thin, uppermost floor of the structure below, you should know that the PE of the lowest floor is negligible (5%) compared to the total PE of the upper block. The KE of the lowest floor must then be transmitted, via the uppermost floor of the lower structure (actually the bolts at the columns), to the columns to affect the latter. You require local SEa for that (in the bolts)! A vertical impact on a floor cannot be transmitted via the same horizontal floor to the supporting columns and break the latter. The bolted connections between the floor and the column break first! And something else should happen, i.e. the upper block would destroy itself due to small SEa. It is one reason for collapse arrest. NIST apparently assumes that the bolts of the upper block are super strong - rigid!, while the bolts in the structure below are weak. Not very logical! Typical terrorist behaviour!
1.3 What you would expect to happen If something falls it must go down freely. No upper parts are seen going down freely. They disappear early in the action that follows! Or that 240-250+ columns suddenly fail (buckle) just prior that. And then there are these mysterious impacts after falling down 3.7 meters near free fall that are not observed. The columns occupy only 0.13% of the total cross area and, if misaligned by say 10-40 mm, they will miss or slip off the columns below = no impact. And if there is no impact, there is no transmission of energy, KE, to the structure below - only weak, thin horizontal floors of upper part and lower structure will be cut/punched/sliced by vertical, strong columns that will remain virtually intact. So let's assume the upper part gets lose (A). It means that the potential energy, PE, available in a one-story drop was greater than the local strain energy to be overcome in the initiation zone, i.e. crushing all columns there. It is furthermore assumed that the compressive force, necessary for a descent was available; otherwise the motion would not start, i.e. no initiation. If these assumptions are not fulfilled, the conclusion is that the motion will be arrested already during the damage/buckling of columns of the initiation zone and the building will stand. What happens then? Let's assume that the upper part gets misaligned (exaggerated in picture below) outside the lower structure on two wall sides and inside on the two other wall sides of the lower structure (B) and goes down (C). Similar misalignment takes place at the core. WTC 1 with the mast on the roof is used in this example. Not all floors are shown. In WTC 2 the upper part tilted more than 10° and moved a considerable distance sideways before destruction and disappeared which has not been explained. You need a horizontal force for that, which gravity cannot provide.
The upper part walls columns (right in picture (C) above) misaligned on the inside of the lower structure will now slice through the first (red) floor below the impact zone - the floor hinges down on the (red) floor below - while the upper part walls columns (left in picture (C) above) misaligned on the outside will drop in the air and hit nothing! Actually only half the mass/walls of the upper part carried by the walls participate in the local failures that follows and results in tilting of the upper part. On the other hand the lower structure columns (left in (C) above) on the inside of the upper part will slice through the first (green) floor of the upper part - and it hinges down too on the (red) floor below! You do not need much energy for that. It is quite evident that the upper part is not rigid as assumed by all experts at NIST and elsewhere! And the lower structure walls columns on the outside of the upper part (right in picture (C) above) will remain ... intact! Similar floor failures may occur at the core but there the columns are fewer and spread around and interconnected by horizontal beams to which the floors are bolted. In (D) the upper part right wall columns inside the lower structure are assumed to have sliced three (red) floors in the lower structure and these floors have hinged down with two (green) floors of the upper part that have also been cut by the strong wall columns of the lower structure inside the upper part on top. Similar failures take place at the core. Evidently this destruction pattern will tip the upper part against the intact (right in (D) above) wall of the lower structure and the upper part will be jammed. The progressive local collapses due to some loose loads is arrested mainly due to friction between the many displaced parts, damaged or not. This more logical local collapse pattern is something NIST never considers. If the collapse is not arrested then, the upper part will disappear completely into the lower structure (E) and the left wall of the upper block will fall down in one piece to the ground! The upper part is sliced apart due to small local SEa (and not infinite SEa as assumed by NIST) and the structure below is also locally damaged, i.e. its SEb is reduced. The upper block green floors however remain inside the top of the lower structure. This destruction would not produce a lot of rubble, debris, dust or smoke! And we do not see that on any videos.
1.4 Why global Collapse will not occur (in Layman's Terms) What a reasonable person
would expect after local failures at the initiation
zone - even very serious ones - is that gravity
would just slowly (no free fall) pull the
upper
part assembly down,
some parts may contact each other and get damaged
like in a soft collision by local forces, when
plenty of energy is transformed into heat, and
after that primary and secondary structure of
upper
part and parts of
structure below would get entangled into one
another and rub against each other. Friction
develops and absorbs the remaining energy released.
Some parts will fall down outside the building.
This is the basic reason why a multi-parts steel
structure does not ever globally collapse like a
house of cards! There are many masses/elements that drop - connected to one another one way or another by strain energy, SEa, forming an upper part. You cannot simplify and say the upper part is only one solid, rigid mass. There are four outer walls, core columns, many floors, etc. Each part and its connections to other parts make up the total strain energy, SEa, of the upper part that is limited. Let's say that the numbers of masses of the upper part are n. If these masses drop, their PE becomes KE. Each mass, numbers 1 to n, has its own PE/KE due to gravity. And each mass starts at a different location and will drop on a different location by gravity. What keeps all these masses together is the strain energy, SEa, of the upper part. The lower structure of WTC 1 is fairly complex - 280+ columns, 94 floors, etc. It cannot be treated as one spring or a party balloon or similar. The columns only occupy 0.13% of the total cross area of the tower. What loads are applied on them at an impact? Probably none as they are small and any load will slip off. The uppermost floor of the lower structure thus occupy 99.87% of the cross area or foot print. What loads are put on it and where and when? There are many masses, numbers 1 to n, dropping down. Which one will be applied first? Right - the one that was closest above and will actually contact something below. The strength of the upper part and lower intact structures (all parts/connections, etc) are known. We know the various loads, numbers 1 to n that are dropped on the uppermost floor of the lower structure in a certain order depending where they started from. It should be clear that if a column impacts a floor, the column will only punch or slice a hole in the floor.
1.5 Analysis of Collapse Initiation, Progressive Collapse and Collapse Arrest - The Masses get entangled - Friction Forces absorb the released Energy In order to analyze the collapse initiation you evidently apply the loads to the lower structure and the upper part and see what happens! Does global collapse start or is it just local failures due to local forces and local collapse is arrested by friction?
So we start with load number n = 1 - the one that is applied first! This is a repeat of 1.3 above. The analysis will be based on observations and using common sense. What happens to the uppermost floor of the lower structure being loaded by load n = 1? And where does load n = 1 come from? In (C) above it might be the wall columns and core columns/horizontal core beams of the upper part that hit the uppermost red floor of the lower structure in certain locations. Any deformations? Local failures? Is the poor floor still connected to the 280+ columns? Maybe it is only sliced locally and falls down as shown. At every local failure potential energy is consumed to overcome the strain energy holding the parts together. At every contact point between displaced parts rubbing against one another there is friction that absorbs huge amounts of energy released. The rubbing acts as an effective brake! Then we apply load number n = 2. This is the lowest green floor of the upper part that hits the wall columns of the lower structure on the other side and core columns/horizontal beams of the lower structure. The green floor of the upper part has no chance here! It is sliced and drops down on the red floor below. It seems the big load of the upper part is only applied on the - weak - side of the lower structure - only weak red floors in the way there, while there is more opposition on the other side - lower structure columns slicing up the green floors of the upper part. Does anyone believe that the
upper
part will fall
vertically - near free fall - as a
rigid block under the shown
circumstances - which is the fundamental assumption
of Bazant and Seffen? According basic physical
principles the upper block is subject to multiple
structural failures at impact! The first collapsed, hinged floors above and below will probably deflect many of the loads coming first and later from above outside the structure or inwards, against each other causing jamming, rubbing, friction and entanglement of these loads/masses. Too complicated to calculate? Not really. As long as you realize that it is not one, solid, rigid mass (one PE/KE) that impacts one structure below with one SE(?), you will agree that the Bazant/Seffen/NIST simplifications described below are just irresponsible nonsense. The first loads/masses from above, i.e. columns of the upper part applied on the uppermost floor will probably locally damage the uppermost red floor of the intact structure either at the boundaries or on the floor itself. The horizontal floor then becomes sloping in various locations and positions. It does not drop flatly down as assumed by NIST. The first loads/masses will then change direction from vertical to sideways due to the sloping floor parts and be stopped, e.g. by rubbing against the sloping floor and being entangled in the strong vertical columns. Gravity works like that. Some loads may drop further on the next floor, but the latter will obviously resist or only fail locally, where the particular loads/masses are applied! The next loads/masses coming dropping from above, e.g. the first green floor will not hit the uppermost red floor, but something else, i.e. the vertical columns of the lower structure and the upper part. There is a lot of damping, friction, etc. in this mess apart from pure SE of the floors of both upper part and lower structure resisting and deflecting the loading. Potential energy released is consumed both as strain energy (deformation of structure) and friction (rubbing between displaced parts). The second uppermost red floor of the structure below - see (D) above - may also collapse, similar to the uppermost floor, when the masses, i.e. the columns above have dropped on the first load/mass/mess. Progressive, local collapse continues. The second red floor of the structure below, now also sloping, will in turn deflect the loads from above as the first. Then the second green floor of the upper part will be damaged, when it drops on the columns below. After a while the top part of the lower structure is completely jammed with damaged floors of the upper part and the lower structure sliced apart in various locations. The remaining mass will then not do much further harm. Some will drop down outside. The rest will remain on top, as if lowered there by a crane. If the whole upper block is sliced up by the lower structure (E) before arrest (no friction!), the upper part outside walls will drop down on the outside but all the upper part (green) floors will remain up top jammed in the lower structure. The collapse is arrested! Reason is mainly the friction that develops between displaced components but also that the available strain energy, SEa, of the upper part was much less than the available strain energy of the structure below, SEb, and that 50% of the PE/KE released was in fact absorbed by SEa of the upper part and friction there and the other 50% by SEb of the structure below and friction there at the collision and following local destructions. This is the beauty of an airy tower steel structure of non uniform density with a strong perimeter held by spandrels. Some local parts my fail (e.g. floors) due to gravity overload and then any other loose parts just get deflected, entangled and jammed due to friction in the mess, as there is plenty of volume and intact structure for that. A stable state of a partially damaged structure always develops. No global collapse will ensue. Collapse arrest is when a stable state of a partially damaged structure has developed. NIST in its 10 000 pages report does not mention collapse arrest as a more logical result of local failures and the report is thus incomplete. That NIST ignores friction between displaced parts after local failures as the main factor to absorb released energy and arrest further destruction is chocking!
1.6 What really happened So why did the columns of the lower structure blow up in 1 000's of pieces, if there were no impact and shock wave? The answer will be given at the end of this presentation. The upper part it seems to be destroyed before it reaches the steel structure below ... at zero velocity ... and does not impact! It is mostly air anyway! Let's call the upper part C and the lower part A and the rubble between them part B. The following photos extracted from a video show what happens: 
Upper part C dropping into skyscraper = ridiculous! Prove me wrong and win Euro 1. 000 000:- (Note - photos are fakes!)
What we are really seeing on above three pictures is local destruction of both part A and upper part C at interface C/A and not a one-way crush down of part A by an intact upper part C. Attention though - the pictures are from a fake video! The destruction of the upper part C - it is compressed 20-35 meters - before its columns reach or, as suggested, impinge on the intact columns of the structure below simply means that the upper part C is not rigid and that its potential energy is split in 1000's of small parts and that the upper columns cannot impact on the columns of the solid intact tower steel structure below and destroy the latter. It seems that the upper part C consumes its strain energy SEa holding it together prior any destruction below. It also confuses the total destruction time of WTC 1! When does the WTC 1 destruction actually start? When the roof (and mast on top) starts to displace downwards? At that time no visible damages are seen at floor 94, so you should wonder why the roof moves at all. One second later? The roof has dropped a couple of meters and still no impact and damages are seen at floor 94. Two seconds later. The roof has dropped 10 meters and still no damages are seen at floor 94. Three seconds later. The roof has dropped 20-35 meters and still no damages are seen at floor 94! The columns are still intact at floor 94. There is no free fall or impact! It would appear that NIST, the US authority responsible for analyzing the collapse has abandoned the original suggestion of a rigid upper part C free falling, impacting and causing a shock wave and instead suggests that 6-11 lower floors inside the upper part C suddenly dropped down and overloaded the uppermost floor of the structure below. The above pictures evidently do not support such modified claim, where it is seen that the roof displaces 20-35 meters, while there is no visible effects at and below the initiation/impact zone at floor 94 (where the floors of the upper part C are supposed to drop down). If only internal floors suddenly dropped down, evidently the roof would remain in position. It would appear that the core columns of the upper part C above the initiation zone fail first, the upper part C is compacted and the walls of the upper part C telescopes into themselves. That the upper part C does not remain intact should be obvious to anybody. However, a few days later an unknown professor announced exactly the opposite!
2.1 The false Theory and the misleading Assumptions An American professor Z P Bazant published two days after the WTC destructions 911 a theory that was adopted by the authorities as true. The Bazant analysis is that if prolonged heating caused the majority of columns of a single floor to lose their load carrying capacity, the whole tower is doomed. Bazant suggests that upper part C then one way crushes down the tower in five stages as illustrated by Fig. 2.1.1 below from the Bazant paper! Upper part C remains intact all the time! The WTC 1 collapse can be seen here! Compare it with the following:
Stage 4: The vertical impact of the mass of the upper part C onto the lower part applies enormous (sic) vertical dynamic load on the underlying structure, far exceeding its load capacity (sic), even though it is not heated. Note that upper part C is still assumed intact and aligned with the structure below. Evidently not seen on the video pictures above, where nothing happens there, while the upper part C is compressed. Stage 5: This causes failure of an underlying multifloor segment of the tower, in which the failure of the connections of the floor-carrying trusses to the columns is either accompanied or quickly followed by buckling of the core columns and overall buckling of the framed tube (i.e. the wall columns), with the buckles probably (sic) spanning the height of many floors, and the upper part possibly getting wedged inside an emptied lower part of the framed tube! The buckling is initially plastic but quickly leads to fracture in the plastic hinges. Note that upper part C is still assumed intact and aligned with the structure below. Stage 6 (Collapse): The part of building lying beneath is then impacted again (sic) by an even larger (sic) mass falling with a greater (sic) velocity and the series of impacts (sic) and failures then proceeds all the way down. Are any further impacts seen on the videos? The upper part must then still be assumed intact and aligned with the structure below all the time to end of collapse. The extra mass below is all rubble! Can it really impact again? Most assumptions and conclusions in stages 1-5 are not correct and the Bazant dramatic stage 6 is not possible. Stage 7: Upper part is destroyed in a crush-up by rubble below! Stage 8: Rubble finally spreads out on ground. More ... There is no time table in the Bazant analysis and no explanations why the roof drops and the uppermost part of WTC1 above floor 100 disintegrates 3 seconds before Stage 3, floor 95 hitting floor 94, is supposed to take place, the latter never seen on any videos. To assume that the upper part C is intact and aligned with the structure below during the complete collapse is not serious. Actually, the upper part , intact, rigid and of uniform density at start of collapse, should according to Bazant's theory remain INTACT after the global collapse at end of Stage 6 ... on top of all rubble the upper part C has produced of the lower structure. Nothing could destroy a rigid upper part C of uniform density - not even the final impact with the ground forgetting that the rubble is there to dampen the final impact. The lack of the upper part C on top of the rubble after collapse proves Bazant wrong. It will be shown in this article that most assumptions and conclusions in stages 1-5 are not correct and that the Bazant stage 6 is not possible. To assume that the upper part is intact and aligned with the structure below, during, ... and after! ... the complete destruction of the bottom part is not serious. Actually, the whole theory of Bazant is nonsense! Bazant treats the WTC-tower as a uniform line (!) that gets shorter when impacted by a bit of the same line (the top of the bulding) from above by gravity. But the line is not uniform! It is 100 times stronger at the bottom than the top. The small top would just bounce on the big bottom in a serious analysis. Bazant is not serious! He supports the terrorists. Strange world.
3.1 Tower Structure - a Bird Cage 
Fig. 3.2.1 - Outer wall mesh of columns/spandrels like a bird cage The structural design of the World Trade Center Twin Towers is very simple as its very lightweight steel framework is similar to a box shaped bird cage in which human beings are working. Most skyscrapers or office towers in the world are built according similar principles. None has ever globally collapsed in seconds before or after 911 except WTC 1, 2 and 7. More ...
4.1 Collapse Scenario and Cause of Collapse - buckled Columns - Lack of Evidence From NIST report - NISTNCSTAR1-6D chapter 5.2 - we learn: "The aircraft impacted the north wall of WTC 1 at 8:46 a.m. … between Floor 93 and Floor 98. … The subsequent fires weakened structural subsystems, including the core columns, floors and exterior walls. The core displaced downward … At 100 min (at 10:28:18), the north, east, and west walls at Floor 98 carried 7 percent, 35 percent and 30 percent more gravity load loads … and the south wall and the core carried about 7 percent and 20 percent less loads, respectively., … At 10.28 a.m., 102 min after the aircraft impact, WTC1 began to collapse. … The release of potential energy due to downward movement of the building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure. Global collapse ensued." From chapter 5.3 we learn: "The aircraft … impacted the south wall of WTC 2 at 9.03 a.m. … between Floor 78 and Floor 84. … (9:59 am) … The release of potential energy due to downward movement of the building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure. Global collapse ensued." Note that the two Towers collapsed for exactly the same cause: The release of potential energy due to downward movement of the building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure. If the column does not deflect or crumple up, there is no downward movement of the mass above and thus no release of potential energy. And no impact! More ...
5.1 Arrangements at Floors 94-98 of WTC 1 Let's look at WTC1 and floors 94-98 - the initiation zone. Total area of each floor is about 4 000 m². The total mass of the upper part is as follows: Steel wall
columns 1 500
tons Steel core
columns 0
900 tons Steel floor
trusses 3 000 tons Concrete
floors 23 000 tons Windows and
misc. 4 600 tons Total 33 000
tons Note that less than 8% of the
mass is steel in the supporting columns and that as
much as 70% is concrete. If this mass filled the
total volume of the building above the initiation
zone
(190.000
m3), the uniform
density would be 0.18
ton/m3 or the
density of cotton! You could say that a big bale
of cotton (mass above) rested on the structure
below! This
mass is carried
about 50/50 by walls and core. The mass above the walls at
floors 94-98 is thus about 16 500 tons supported by
236 wall columns (total cross area 3.54 m²).
Therefore each wall column on average supports 70
tons. The compressive stress in the wall column at
floors 94-98 with cross area 150 cm² is thus
abt 467 kgs/cm² or 46 MPa or 18.8% of the
yield stress (abt 248 MPa) of the steel.
6.1 The Towers were built very strong in the 1960's The above is a clear indication how the Towers were originally built by serious architects and engineers in the 1960's. Compressive static stresses in the columns were less than 1/3 of the yield stress of the steel before (obviously) ... and after serious damage (not so obvious but shown here)! The buckling stress of the column is virtually the same as the yield stress as the columns were arranged with spandrels. One reason why the static stresses were so low was that the designers had no access to computers to optimize (slender down) the construction. Manual calculations were done and to be on the safe side you added steel and built strong! And steel was quite cheap at that time. And US steel was good quality. The assumed yield stress 248 MPa was probably much higher in reality. NIST never checked the yield stress of the steel from the initiation zone in the rubble! There was therefore plenty redundancy. A plane may crash into the bird cage and nothing happens. A big fire may break out and nothing happens. Why? Because the normal compressive stress in the supporting vertical structure is so low and if any column breaks or buckles, its load is transmitted to adjacent columns via the spandrels and the stress in adjacent columns increase a little. No global collapse is possible under any circumstances. Evidently the columns got stronger (thicker plates, steel with higher yield stress) further down when the 'mass above' increases, but it is certain that the compressive stresses in the Towers never exceed 1/3 of the yield stress. Same applies for the buckling stresses. More ...
7.1 No Release of potential Energy due to downward Movement - Influence of Heat The mass/load above a column evidently compresses it. The column acts as a spring. As long as the compressive stress is less than yield stress, the compression is elastic and hardly noticeable. As seen above the actual compressive stresses were only <30% of yield stress and it is assumed this was common practice in steel tower construction in US and elsewhere in the 60's. How is the yield stress of steel affected by heat? In this writer's opinion it is not affected very much at about 500°C. This is confirmed by any fire test - the test chamber and what's in it never collapses due to the heat inside up to 1000°C. The heat inside is normally by kerosene set on fire. Applied to WTC1 what you would expect due to a fire around the core columns is that they only compress and that their cross areas expand due to heat and the downward movement of the core is a few centimeters! It may put some extra tension in the floor trusses and their bolted connections pulling the perimeter walls inwards a few centimeters - and that is all! The wall perimeter columns, 80% of them are intact and free of soot and marks of fire as shown on many videos and subject to little heat as they are cooled by fresh air, will then further stabilize the core. NIST does not calculate the amount of potential energy released due to downward movement in their report, which is therefore incomplete. The simple reason is that no potential energy is released. In fact, no downward movement of a mass above is even possible due to heat inside the cage and there should be no sudden release of potential energy. But let's assume that potential energy is released vertically as all low stressed columns wall/core collapse simultaneously and are removed allowing a free drop. When 33 000 tons of upper part mass above in WTC1 falls down 3.7 meters due to gravity and crushes all the columns abt 340 kWh of energy is produced by gravity and a fair part of that energy is consumed to crush the columns. It is in fact a very strange release of potential energy due to alleged downward movement of an upper part mass above! The wall columns at the initiation zone did not buckle, deform or crumple up, when the mass above (the roof) has allegedly been falling down for 4-5 seconds. In order to establish what happened to WTC1 we need to know two times for two events that allegedly occurred: the time Tcause, when the potential energy was released due to all columns in the initiation zone collapsing simultaneously, i.e. the time of the cause of the disaster, and the time Teffect when this energy was applied to the structure below at an impact, i.e. the time of the effect. NIST and Z P Bazant do not advise these times. NIST and Bazant talk about an upper solid, rigid part above the initiation zone that suddenly falls down as a hammer and causes global collapse! There are many videos of the WTC1 incident but NIST and Bazant never show us the famous upper part at times Tcause (hammer/upper part starts to fall) and Teffect (hammer/upper part hits)! You wonder why NIST and Bazant cannot show us in their reports a time table for the 33 000 tons upper part and its potential energy first initiating and then producing global collapse. It seems that the upper part is disappearing (sic) at Teffect and a few seconds later before global collapse of the structure below starts. There is no evidence that an impact between upper and lower columns occur! More ... While reflecting about this lack of easy to understand photo evidence in the official reports and university papers,
The purpose of the model test is to establish the stiffness of the table leg pipes (the columns of the initiation zone) under heat and to see if suddenly, at, e.g. temperature 500° C, the mass above (luckily most water in this test for children) drops down, at a significant speed and with an enormous kinetic energy, and impacts on the cement floor with an enormous dynamic load. Or does nothing of that sort happen? Maybe the table legs will just bulge. You will find out (the latter)! More ...
9.1 Elastic Strain Energy absorbed by primary Structure below and its Compression It should thus be clear that the only primary structure below our wall cage bars are the wall cage bars and it is very easy to calculate what elastic strain energy they can absorb before plastic deformation and rupture when any of them is compressed above 30% of yield stress. The total strain energy our wall and core columns and attached spandrels and floors can absorb is evidently the energy required to first strain them to 100% yield - the elastic strain energy - and second to plastically deform, buckle or rip them apart - the buckle or rupture strain energy. In order to rip a column apart, the stresses in the structure must exceed the rupture/break stress of the steel that is much higher than the yield or buckling stress. This compression is evidently in the elastic range of the 'spring' and takes place when it is completely unloaded! Another 'expert', K. A. Seffen, in a paper 'Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Centre: a Simple Analysis' suggests that the potential energy released by the mass above - the upper part - resulted in dynamical "over-loading" of the undamaged lower columns by a factor of 30 (!) compared to their static load capacity at impact and transmits it to the structure - 'spring' - below and shakes it into pieces. How is that possible?
How the uniform density ro behaves between t = 0 and t = t(end) is also a mystery. It is evidently assumed constant in the rigid upper part and lower, intact part, but what about density ro of the intermediate block bL? Apparently the original uniform density ro increases in the bL part according Seffen during collapse - to another uniform density as a function of time - a new phenomenon! Photos of the WTC collapses show that material, dust and smoke are pushed outwards at high speed of the intermediate block, which is not explained by Seffen. There can not be any uniform density of any type in this area of damaged core columns and falling off walls. Thus - during collapse according Seffen a rigid upper part lL floats on a mysterious intermediate block bL of broken, compressed material with a uniform (?) density that increases >600% with time that in turn floats on the lower, intact part below a strange crush front. It is quite magic actually and could only have been invented by a blind scientist in an ivory tower to support terrorism. No mention that the columns must be perfectly aligned. The WTC 1 collapse can be seen here! Does anybody see a rigid upper part of height lL driving the collapse? These are the false assumptions of K.A. Seffen! That (1) the tower has uniform density ro, while it is not uniform at all, (2) the upper part begins to accelerate downwards as a rigid undamaged body with uniform density ro= 0.18 ton/m3, while it is seen to self-destruct, (3) that the initial load imposed onto the structure beneath was exceptionally high, while it was only that of a big bale of cotton, and (4) that the damage, no new damage seen of course in the smoke, was bound (??) to propagate. Alignment of columns is conveniently forgotten. You wonder what kind of structure bL is? Solid? No! Damaged? Yes! How is the upper part connected and aligned with the undamaged structure below via the mysterious structure bL zone? As shown in 7.7 the upper part disappears, implodes before it even reaches the floor below to impinge it, and, if it impinged, it should only bounce! But according to Seffen the upper part drives the collapse. You need kinetic energy, KE, for that and it can only be provided by an intact, rigid, uniform density upper part that remains intact, rigid, with uniform density during the whole destruction of the lower structure. The upper part is the only part that can provide KE during the alleged global collapse. The lower structure does not add any extra KE to the collapse or contribute to the collapse - it is being destroyed (lack of strain energy according NIST). Actually, the
upper
part, intact, rigid and
of uniform density at start of collapse, should
according to Seffen's theory also remain INTACT
after the global collapse ... on top of all
rubble the
upper
part has produced of the
structure
below. Nothing could
destroy a rigid
upper
part of uniform density
- not even the final impact with the ground
forgetting that the rubble is there to dampen the
final impact. The lack of the
upper
part on top of the
intermediate
block bL
rubble after collapse proves Seffen
wrong. That is one reason why there is
no figure of final collapse in Fig. 4 (9.1.1)
above! It should evidently show the
upper
part on top of the
rubble of the
intermediate
block bL
then resting on ground
as in figure left! You can easily calculate the
uniform density of that
rubble
heap! Anyway - the density of the
tower was not uniform! We are not talking about an
avalanche, are we? Such a snow avalanche has nothing in common with the WTC1 collapse, even if the upper part of WTC1 had a uniform density similar to that of compressed snow (180 kgs/m3) that sticks together - snow crystals interacting. But this is what the authorities and university professors want us to believe. More ...
10.1 Elastic Strain Energy of the Mass/primary Structure/Block above NIST or Bazant or Seffen does not consider the elastic strain energy of the primary structure and attached masses above or the upper part. It is in fact another 'spring'! It consists of a number of solid weights - the floors - connected to columns - each a 'spring'. Such a contraption is evidently not rigid or solid as assumed by NIST, Bazant and Seffen and in the unlikely case that it actually drops down free fall on a structure below, it will only transmit a sequence of energy pulses divided by finite times, each of which cannot overload the structure below. Furthermore, this upper part multiple 'springs' contraption is not very solid. It implodes before it can do any harm! More ...
NIST, Bazant and Seffen suggest that the
mass above, the
upper
part, acts as a rigid, solid
hammer (and not a spring) that multiple hits and/or stays in
contact with the structure below - the nail - even if it is
not evident from any pictures above - the
upper
part disappears before global
collapse starts!
It must also be recalled that
the upper
part
hammer is not really a
hammer - it is more like a spring or a bale of
cotton (!) and you evidently do not use a bale of
cotton as a hammer. Or like a child jumping in a
bed! And it is not certain that the hammer even
hits the nail. It is more likely that it misses
the nail because the mass above is misaligned with
the structure below when the connecting columns in
the initiation zone allegedly are broken. And who
has heard of nail that breaks up in 1000's of
pieces when it is hit by a hammer? Normally the
nail just bends ... and the hammer hits something
else! A thumb? And does the picture right look like
a hammer hitting a nail? Or the result of some
children jumping on a bed? It is taken a few
seconds after the hammer hit! 11.2 The Floors falling down
-
upper
Part not
rigid! NIST has been informed about the
above and suggests lamely in its FAQ
Update December 2007
that no hammer -
upper
part - hits a nail!
Instead 6 or 11 secondary structure floors hanging
on the walls and core columns in the
upper
part above the
initiation zone fell down and caused the global
collapse that ensued. The
upper
part
was not rigid after all.
All the connecting bolts of the floors above
suddenly gave way and overloaded the first floor in
the initiation zone as the floors above piled up on
it. But how and why would 6 or 11
floors in the initiation zone and above suddenly
drop down? Does anybody believe that? Does the
picture right look like some floors falling
down? On the video and pictures above
we see that the roof falls before any floors and
that the
upper
part disappears!
Fig. 11.1.1 - WTC 1 7
seconds after collapse initiation. Is the solid,
upper
part
really there?The
energy required to create the fountain of debris,
dust and smoke exceeds the release of potential
energy by a factor of 1000! What you see is
ridiculous! Prove me wrong and win
Euro
1.
000 000:-
(Note - photo is fake!) This means that we can conclude the following: 12. Conclusions The Twin Towers structure was very simple and its primary structure wall and core columns can be likened to steel bars in a bird cage full of air ... and humans. The compressive stress in the bird cage bars due to mass incl. floor loads is very small (<30% of yield stress). The Towers' structure was very strong! You can heat up the bars under compression in the cage to, say 500°C, and nothing dramatic happens and particularly not that the bird cage suddenly collapses in 1000's of pieces. The stress in a 500° C heated column may increase to 40% of yield. It will not buckle due to that. As soon as the fire moves away to another area the column cools again. Local deformation may take place. But in this article we assume that the upper part gets detached and suddenly falls down on the bottom part; release of potential energy. NIST has not produced any "buckled" columns of the initiation zones, be it bent 180° or crumpled up, that would have produced downward motion and release of potential energy. We are talking about 566 columns that must have "buckled" for the effect ... and none is presented as evidence that potential energy was released for that cause. But it is assumed here anyway. The suggestion that the Tower
cages collapsed due to release of potential energy
of a rigid
upper
part at an unknown time
Tcause exceeding the total strain
energy of the cage structure in the initiation zone
and later below after an impact at time
Teffect is not demonstrated by
NIST, Z P Bazant and Seffen and not supported
by any evidence what so ever or any serious
structural analysis. Simple calculations show that
the potential energy released in such a case would
only elastically strain the structure temporarily.
The picture above does not show a global collapse
due to floors falling down or a hammer hitting a
nail ... or a child jumping on a mattress in a
bed! "The release of potential
energy due to downward movement of the building
mass above the buckled columns exceeded the
strain energy that could be absorbed by the
structure. Global collapse
ensued." Reason why a steel building cannot collapse due to release of potential energy is, in simple terms, that the potential energy will mainly be applied to secondary structure - the floors - that will be overloaded and detached from the primary structure - the columns! The potential energy will then be deflected and will not be applied to the primary structure ... that will remain intact! The collapse is arrested. That is one reason why there are
no figures of final collapse in Fig. 2.1.1 (Bazant)
and Fig. 9.2.1 (Seffen) above! It should evidently
show the
upper
part on top of the
rubble
then resting on
ground! Nothing could destroy a rigid
block of uniform density - not even the final
impact with the ground forgetting that the rubble
is there to dampen the final impact. The lack of
the
upper
part on top of the
intermediate
block bL
rubble after collapse proves Bazant and Seffen
wrong. OK, OK - Bazant has added it
later - see left - on a comic style sketch! But
still -
intermediate
block bL
rubble after collapse (e) destroys the
upper
part (f). Magic.
Bazant and Seffen are supporting
terrorism.
Or just watch this! Remember: A smaller (weaker) top part of an isotropic or composite 3-D structure, when dropped on and impacting a greater (stronger) bottom part of same structure by gravity, cannot one-way crush down the greater bottom part of the structure producing a fountain of debris. Only Hollywood film animators can produce such impossible crush downs ... on film ... in support of terrorism.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
