Layman's terms please! Tower collapse issue

[Architect]

Seconded.

[MRC_Hans]

Actually, isn't the solid block assumption in the simulation sort of a worst-case scenario? The way I see it, a solid block of uniform, fairly low, density would be the object least likely to start a global collapse because it would offer the best possible distribution of force to the structure below.

Whereas a jumble of tumbling floors, jagged girder ends, and other stuf could punch through anything.

It would seem that calculations show that even Heiwa's wool-bale would have brought down the building.

Hans

[Heiwa]

It's an ASSUMPTION to make the MATH easier, maybe even necessary to make the math possible. This is not what they say happened that day. If you think that assumption is too far from reality to be accurate, then make your own. And no, your "paper" doesn't apply. It's junk and doesn't have any calculations of this magnitude in it.

Exactly! So I propose friendly in my article that named persons/institutions redo the MATH assuming a non-rigid upper block with non-uniform density ... plus considering that the WTC1 upper block was not intact during the collapse. As I describe in my popular article. It is a big difference between an alleged free fall + impact of a rigid body and a non-rigid body. The result is completely different. An impact by a non-rigid body is by definition not an impact to start with.

Evidently a 33 000 tons rigid or non-rigid block weighs exactly as much as 33 000 tons of rubble of the same block - who has suggested otherwise?

One problem is however to make 33 000 tons of rubble (density ??) impact or load anything.

[Dave Rogers]

An impact by a non-rigid body is by definition not an impact to start with.

What's your definition of "non-rigid" here?

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

Evidently a 33 000 tons rigid or non-rigid block weighs exactly as much as 33 000 tons of rubble of the same block - who has suggested otherwise?

Actually, you have. Let's take a look at where you've suggested it.

According Bazant and Seffen (read my paper) you need an intact, loose, rigid (all the time) upper block falling at a certain velocity on a structure to drive a gravity collapse of the latter, like an avalanche, until it runs out of energy.

Now Bazant and Seffen don't actually say any such thing. The stipulation that the upper block needs to be intact and rigid in order to drive a gravity collapse is purely yours. Bazant and Seffen treat the falling block as rigid and intact in order to simplify the arithmetic, as you've been told so many times it's getting boring, but still seem unable to comprehend. But why, in your fantasy, does the upper block need to be intact and rigid?

You do not know what a gravity driven collapse is, do you?. You need KE for that and it can only be provided by an intact, rigid, uniform density upper block that remains intact, rigid, with uniform density during the whole destruction of the lower structure.

Because "KE... can only be provided by an intact, rigid, uniform density upper block..."

Kinetic energy, of course, is half the mass times the square of the velocity. If KE can only be provided by a rigid, intact upper block, and since you're not suggesting that velocity of the pieces of a deformable, broken block must be zero, you're therefore either (a) suggesting that the mass of a broken, deformable block is zero or (b) unable to comprehend what you're suggesting.

Dave

[rwguinn]

What's your definition of "non-rigid" here?

Dave
The hell with that!
I have GOT to see his definition of "impact"!

(where is the popcorn smilie?)

[twinstead]

Kinetic energy, of course, is half the mass times the square of the velocity. If KE can only be provided by a rigid, intact upper block, and since you're not suggesting that velocity of the pieces of a deformable, broken block must be zero, you're therefore either (a) suggesting that the mass of a broken, deformable block is zero or (b) unable to comprehend what you're suggesting.


Can I vote for b?

[MRC_Hans]

*snip* An impact by a non-rigid body is by definition not an impact to start with.

*snip*

One problem is however to make 33 000 tons of rubble (density ??) impact or load anything.

I suggest you have somebody drop 33,000 tons of rubble (density of your choice) on the roof of your house. Then come back and repeat that statement. (Hint: Don't be in the house during the experiment)

I have a question for you (yes I asked it before, but you didn't answer): There was this 33,000 ton building block temporarily suspended over the lower part of the WTC1, with its supports buckled or broken. What did it do? Hover?

If it didn't hover, what stopped it?

If it didn't stop, where did it go?

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Mmmm, anybody know how to make a vertical, verbal chop (without breaking forum rules)?

Seems no matter how low we swing, it goes over Heiwa's head.

Hans

[cloudshipsrule]

You need KE for that and it can only be provided by an intact, rigid, uniform density upper block that remains intact, rigid, with uniform density during the whole destruction of the lower structure.

So what you're saying is 50 falling marbles would have no kinetic energy, but a falling bowling ball would. Is that what you're saying?

[Alferd_Packer]

I suggest you have somebody drop 33,000 tons of rubble (density of your choice) on the roof of your house. Then come back and repeat that statement. (Hint: Don't be in the house during the experiment)


Better yet, dump 7.9 million gallons of water (29.9 million liters or approximately 12 olympic sized swiming pools) on your house. Water is as non-rigid as you can get.

[cloudshipsrule]

Better yet, dump 7.9 million gallons of water (29.9 million liters or approximately 12 olympic sized swiming pools) on your house. Water is as non-rigid as you can get.

Should just pour over the sides, no?

[Apollo20]

Well each Twin Tower had about 2 million liters of water fall on it every year for about 30 years, giving a total of 60 million liters of water!

Not much happened......

[Newtons Bit]

Well each Twin Tower had about 2 million liters of water fall on it every year for about 30 years, giving a total of 60 million liters of water!

Not much happened......

:dl:

[DGM]

Well each Twin Tower had about 2 million liters of water fall on it every year for about 30 years, giving a total of 60 million liters of water!

Not much happened......
Your bad!!!!!!!

I did get soaked once by a fire plane water drop and thought I was going to die. It doesn't look like much in the videos but when it hits you for real it sucks.

[X]

I think what Heiwa is overlooking (and Apollo20 too, if he's serious), is that impact is a function of velocity and time together.

Heiwa seems to assume that if the upper block is not "solid", it must be macroscopically fluid, and thus would behave the same as water in stream, and break around the object.
At lower flow rates, you have a small mass of water impacting over a relatively long time, which allows the water to flow around the object.

At higher velocities (like, say, the deluge from a water bomber), the mass of water is huge, and it impacts over a very short time. It packs a helluva punch.

The same thing would happen with a large mass of rubble (rubble for Heiwa's fluid upper block). A lot of rubble (whatever consistency you want) impacting over a short time (and in a small area, since most of the mass is vertical, not spread out horizontally), will impact with a force not appreciably less than if it were rigid.

F = m(dv/dt)

F = impact force
m = mass
dv = change in velocity
dt = change in time

so, if m = 33,00 tons ~ 30x106 kg
dv = vinitial - vfinal, which I shall arbitrarily (since I don't know the speed at which the upper block fell) set to a conservative to dv = 5 m/s
dt = time of impact, which I shall arbitrarily set to a generous 1 second

F = 30x106(5/1) = 150,000,000 N

Put another way, that's the same as getting hit with a 1 kg cannon ball (over an impact period of 1 second) traveling at 150,000,000 m/s (half the speed of light!)

It is not an insignificant amount of force, and you can't just wave your hands and say "it never hits the towers", because even assuming the "fluid" upper block is deflected by the lower block, you have to account for the force applied to the lower section as it deflects all that mass over the duration of the impact.

[Alferd_Packer]

Again, complete ********. The spandrels cannot brace the columns in the out-of-plane direction. This is simple engineering mechanics. Please explain to me how a 5/8" over the course of 208ft is going to brace a column against buckling.

I predict that Heiwa will ignore this request as he has ignored all of my similer requests.

To address this issue would require him to admit that his theory that the exterior walls could not have buckled is wrong.

[cloudshipsrule]

At lower flow rates, you have a small mass of water impacting over a relatively long time, which allows the water to flow around the object.

Amazing the Grand Canyon even exists, huh?!

[rwguinn]

Amazing the Grand Canyon even exists, huh?!
:hb: :hb:

[Alferd_Packer]

Heiwa

http://www.efunda.com/formulae/solid_mechanics/columns/images/Fcr.gif

Can you demonstrate that you understand the consequences of having a mathematical function that includes an inverse square term in it?

(i.e. x over L squared)

[cloudshipsrule]

Forgot to use my [//sarcasm] formatting.

[rwguinn]

Forgot to use my [//sarcasm] formatting.
I knew that--
The reference was for the ijits what didn't are incapable of following [X] to the point where he said "even assuming the "fluid" upper block is deflected by the lower block, you have to account for the force applied... "

[Alferd_Packer]

Well each Twin Tower had about 2 million liters of water fall on it every year for about 30 years, giving a total of 60 million liters of water!

Not much happened......

At 47 inches per year, my estimate is 4.8 million liters. :)

[Apollo20]

Ok, I made a rough estimate of NYC's annual precipitation. It's still a lot of water.....
My point was that there was no indication of how fast the water was being poured, which has since been pointed out by [X].

[Heiwa]

I note the scurvy JREF mob, companions and rascals are scowling again. It does abhor me. No real technical arguments?

[DGM]

I note the scurvy JREF mob, companions and rascals are scowling again. It does abhor me. No real technical arguments?
Shouldn't you say technical arguments that you can understand? Maybe you should go to an elementary school and discus engineering with them (even playing field).

Why do you hand wave all engineering criticisms?

Face it man, You are out of your league as far a structural engineering is concerned.(every lurker can see this)

[Newtons Bit]

I note the scurvy JREF mob, companions and rascals are scowling again. It does abhor me. No real technical arguments?

Please explain to me how a 5/8" plate (in the weak axis) over the course of 208ft is going to brace a column against buckling.

[rwguinn]

Please explain to me how a 5/8" plate (in the weak axis) over the course of 208ft is going to brace a column against buckling.

PFM!

[Alferd_Packer]

I note the scurvy JREF mob, companions and rascals are scowling again. It does abhor me. No real technical arguments?

:rolleyes:

care to provide technical arguments to support your abhorrent claims?

[Architect]

I have to hand it to Heiwa; his arguments comprehensively busted, his rebuttals non-existent, his calculations.....hidden (cough). And yet he thinks that he's got us on the back foot?

Nowt as queer as fowk, as they say.

[Heiwa]

Please explain to me how a 5/8" plate (in the weak axis) over the course of 208ft is going to brace a column against buckling.

The spandrels? They are fitted between and hold the perimeter columns together at every floor, i.e. restrict movement in in/out and sideways. Length 3 ft or so! Weak axis? x, y or z? We live in 3-D.

But topic is collapse in layman's terms! That Bazant, Seffen and Nist treat as a 1-D problem - vertically/down - rigid upper block = hammer = all points; hitting a line in the weak axis! Perfect alignment and no movements in/out or sideways. Not possible in 1-D of course! And it simplifies the MATHs! That really turned my wit the seamy side without!

[Minadin]

The spandrels? They are fitted between and hold the perimeter columns together at every floor, i.e. restrict movement in in/out and sideways. Length 3 ft or so! Weak axis? x, y or z? We live in 3-D.

But topic is collapse in layman's terms! That Bazant, Seffen and Nist treat as a 1-D problem - vertically/down - rigid upper block = hammer = all points; hitting a line in the weak axis! Perfect alignment and no movements in/out or sideways. Not possible in 1-D of course! And it simplifies the MATHs! That really turned my wit the seamy side without!

OK, Heiwa. I thought you took structures courses? Which is the weak axis with regards to bending? Here's a representation of the spandrel piece you're talking about:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1253247e192a710dce.gif

Its dimensions are 5/8" in the X axis, 3'-0" in the Y axis, and IIRC they were about 3'-4" in the Z axis if they went from column to column.

Please calculate the I value (resistance to bending) for each axis of a rectangular section of A36 steel with these dimensions. Show your work.

[Alferd_Packer]

Actually you don't even have to do that. It is intuitively obvious that the spandrels would provide no meaningfull resistance to movement in and out of plane.

[Minadin]

It is quite intuitive but I thought that this might be a good opportunity for Heiwa to show some semblance of competence on a relatively simple problem. There were much more difficult sections to calculate in my 2nd year structures course.

[Heiwa]

Show your work.

Local I = b x t x t x t/12 but quite irrelevant. You have to look at the complete wall from roof to ground i.e. all columns + all spandrels (and floors if attached) + supporting side walls and do a grid analysis 3-D. Quite easy actually. No serious local deformations of the wall, e.g. bending due to static vertical loads even with some floors disconnected. Remember that the North wall didn't bulge even with 38 columns failed and four floors disconnected.

What about Bazant/Seffen/Nist I-D analysis of the whole tower? One nail hit by one hammer?

[Architect]

Do you consider that to be an appropriate level of structural analysis in response to the questions raised?

How peculiar.

I note that you've avoided my challenge. Quelle surprise!

[einsteen]

Dave, Heiwa should defend himself. But as he already said he thinks about a kind of cd to explain the telescoping. I think that is consistent with a compaction above the weakest zone and an antenna failing first. Of course robust math and good observation is needed to prove that and that’s one of the reasons that I’m an agnost concerning this. One thing that I remember from the past is that the zone with the fire is not the impact zone, seen from the north side there is a failure left down and one at the right and more up. And as been mentioned in this thread a model is a model and an approach of the real situation. David B. Benson’s example of compacted layer of floors works well within that model, which means there is a crush-up and crush-down and that zone is in fact responsible for collapsing the next story and so on, the intact stories above follow that avalanche.

One of the things we see in the south towers collapse is that the top section indeed looks destroyed. The problem is that what we see is not always what is, it is hard to measure because of the smoke and dust. Of course a destroyed section’s mass is not lost, there is no difference in kinetic energy, the only difference is that if small pieces are responsible to crush a story the energy is not applied at the same time, for an easy example if n floors apply their kinetic energy at the same time it is (1/2)nmv^2, if this is just sufficient to collapse a next story then if it is applied per floor (remember I’m talking about the model and not about funnelling etc, which should split the energies and makes it much more complex) then that floor will be arrested. In the extreme situation that you drop 100% powder on the building it cannot transfer all its momentum at the same time and there will be no global collapse (it is a perfect damper that’s why far jumpers don’t land on concrete!), but that’s not what happened. And I disagree with M*Hans that the solid block is a worst case situation; it’s the most favourable situation.

[Newtons Bit]

Regarding buckling:

This is a concept that the general public (and heiwa) has no knowledge of. A member in compression is considered braced if the supporting member can develop at least 2% of force in the compression member and have a route back to a perpendicular lateral system. For Heiwa's ridiculous claim to be validated he would have to show that the spandrel plate would be sufficient to carry a force equal to 2% of each column at that level and deliver it back to the moment frame in the other direction. This plate has a length of 208ft between supports, and is loaded by roughly 15kips at every 3ft or so.

It's just silly to claim that it these columns would be braced by the spandrel in the weak axis.

[Architect]

And the rest of his hypothesis isn't silly?!?

[Newtons Bit]

And the rest of his hypothesis isn't silly?!?

Indeed, though this one is particularly easy to debunk.

[rwguinn]

Indeed, though this one is particularly easy to debunk.
As I recall, CE 221 took care of it--about 1/3 way through the semester...

[Heiwa]

Regarding buckling:

This is a concept that the general public (and heiwa) has no knowledge of. A member in compression is considered braced if the supporting member can develop at least 2% of force in the compression member and have a route back to a perpendicular lateral system. For Heiwa's ridiculous claim to be validated he would have to show that the spandrel plate would be sufficient to carry a force equal to 2% of each column at that level and deliver it back to the moment frame in the other direction. This plate has a length of 208ft between supports, and is loaded by roughly 15kips at every 3ft or so.

It's just silly to claim that it these columns would be braced by the spandrel in the weak axis.

The spandrels proved themselves when 38 columns on the North wall was cut in two locations ... and the wall above and below the hole remained in position. No columns fell down. How was that possible? All floors hanging on the wall above and no support below ... and the wall and all its columns above did not drop free fall. And no columns above or above were bent in/out etc. Did the spandrels assist?

Actually it appears Newtons Bit, apart from the general public, has feeble knowledge of how a grid of columns and spandrels behave in compression.

But topic must be in layman's terms and I will not expand.

[Alferd_Packer]

What does that have to do with buckling?

[twinstead]

Actually it appears Newtons Bit, apart from the general public, has feeble knowledge of how a grid of columns and spandrels behave in compression.


I hate to break the news to you, but Newtons Bit, and others, have shown YOU to be the one with feeble knowledge.

Wanna know a good one? I have showed your posts to a few of my more academic friends from the engineering department down at the college when they are over for a few beers. They think you are hilarious. I know that means nothing to you, but these folks are people whom I respect and whose expertise is without question.

I realize this thread is about layman's terms, but they say the same thing that everybody who knows what they are talking about here says; they dare you to submit a paper to a respected journal. In fact, they DOUBLE DARE you.

Then after quite a few more beers go down their opinion towards your 'paper' gets a little too salty to repeat here.

Good times...

[Myriad]

But topic must be in layman's terms and I will not expand.


Oh, feel free to get as technical as you need to, to correctly answer Minadin's and Newton's Bit's questions. I'll try my best to keep up... :rolleyes:

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Newtons Bit]

The spandrels proved themselves when 38 columns on the North wall was cut in two locations ... and the wall above and below the hole remained in position. No columns fell down. How was that possible? All floors hanging on the wall above and no support below ... and the wall and all its columns above did not drop free fall. And no columns above or above were bent in/out etc. Did the spandrels assist?

Actually it appears Newtons Bit, apart from the general public, has feeble knowledge of how a grid of columns and spandrels behave in compression.

No Heiwa, stop dodging. I know it's difficult to stop doing, as it is the only thing you are apparently good at. We were talking about your BIRDCAGE analogy, remember that? This is the WTC that has no floors. You have argued that the spandrels in the weak axis will brace the columns in compression. And now you've given an example where not only are the floors still intact, but one where the spandrels are in bending about their STRONG axis. Do you understand the differences here? Yes or no.

But topic must be in layman's terms and I will not expand.
I'm going to go ahead and hypothesize that this is because you are unable to put any argument in engineering terms. Everyone who has been following the past few pages of this thread is more than capable of following engineering discussions. They aren't intimidated by discussions with math. They're a good audience. They'll admit it if you can prove me wrong.

[rwguinn]

...


I'm going to go ahead and hypothesize that this is because you are unable to put any argument in engineering terms. Everyone who has been following the past few pages of this thread is more than capable of following engineering discussions. They aren't intimidated by discussions with math. They're a good audience. They'll admit it if you can prove me wrong.
I concur. The shallow of expertise demonstrated by Heiwa would not dampen the soles of a High School physics student's feet.
I wonder if that boat company knows he's smearing their name?

[Newtons Bit]

I concur. The shallow of expertise demonstrated by Heiwa would not dampen the soles of a High School physics student's feet.
I wonder if that boat company knows he's smearing their name?

I have a problem that Heiwa can solve that will
a) show us that he knows a little bit about engineering
b) show him that the spandrels don't brace the columns in the wall in the out-of-plane direction


Question: What is the compressive capacity of a 14" thick x 208ft x 1000ft tall wall? Assume that the wall is loaded by a distributed force (i.e. no local failures at the point of loading) and that the top and bottom of the wall are considered pinned (k = 1) for simplicity. The wall is made of a material that has a yield strength of 36ksi and a modulus of elasticity of 29,000ksi.

How about it Heiwa. Will you have a go at it? Show your work, show us that you really can do this stuff and I will defend you whenever accuses you of not being a real engineer.

[rwguinn]

I have a problem that Heiwa can solve that will
a) show us that he knows a little bit about engineering
b) show him that the spandrels don't brace the columns in the wall in the out-of-plane direction


Question: What is the compressive capacity of a 14" thick x 208ft x 1000ft tall wall? Assume that the wall is loaded by a distributed force (i.e. no local failures at the point of loading) and that the top and bottom of the wall are considered pinned (k = 1) for simplicity. The wall is made of a material that has a yield strength of 36ksi and a modulus of elasticity of 29,000ksi.

How about it Heiwa. Will you have a go at it? Show your work, show us that you really can do this stuff and I will defend you whenever accuses you of not being a real engineer.
Material density?
I'm guessing .283 lbf/in^3 (.000733lb/in^3)

[Newtons Bit]

Material density?
I'm guessing .283 lbf/in^3 (.000733lb/in^3)

I think we should ignore self-weight, though it is a valid point.

[rwguinn]

I think we should ignore self-weight, though it is a valid point.
That ought to make it simple enough...

[AZCat]

Pictures are always nice. Sorry for the shoddy quality, but you should be able to get the idea anyway (for those of you who didn't have it in your heads already).

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1495347e321aa35011.jpg

Hmmmm. Now why do those dimensions seem so familiar?

[Apollo20]

You know to be fair to Heiwa I think you should have set up the problem in SI units: meters, and Newtons and Pascals and all that stuff....

[AZCat]

You know to be fair to Heiwa I think you should have set up the problem in SI units: meters, and Newtons and Pascals and all that stuff....

The math is a lot easier in SI, I don't know why the rest of the world hasn't converted. I'm tired of having to spec efficiencies in stupid hybrid units like kW/Ton.

[Newtons Bit]

You know to be fair to Heiwa I think you should have set up the problem in SI units: meters, and Newtons and Pascals and all that stuff....

Maybe I don't do so well in SI :(

[rwguinn]

I have a problem that Heiwa can solve that will
a) show us that he knows a little bit about engineering
b) show him that the spandrels don't brace the columns in the wall in the out-of-plane direction


Question: What is the compressive capacity of a 14" (355.6 mm) thick x 208ft ( 63648 mm) x 1000ft (304800 mm)tall wall? Assume that the wall is loaded by a distributed force (i.e. no local failures at the point of loading) and that the top and bottom of the wall are considered pinned (k = 1) for simplicity. The wall is made of a material that has a yield strength of 36ksi (2.482E8 Pa) and a modulus of elasticity of 29,000ksi (1.999E11 Pa).

How about it Heiwa. Will you have a go at it? Show your work, show us that you really can do this stuff and I will defend you whenever accuses you of not being a real engineer.

converted to mm-N-sec

[Apollo20]

Let me help:

1 kip = 4448 N

Ok, I see rwguinn beat me to it!

[X]

Well, as long as we're discusing units, I insist all velocities and accelerations be measured in forlongs per fortnight and furlongs per fortnight2, respectively.


1 m/s = 6 012.88475 furlongs per fortnight
1 m/s/s = 7.2731854 × 109 furlongs per fortnight per fortnight

You see why arguing units is pointless? Or maybe it's just because, being in Canada, I have to be comfortable with imperial and metric, that I view it as meaningless.

[AZCat]

Don't forget the ohm-farad.

It's a second.

[Hokulele]

Hmmmm. Now why do those dimensions seem so familiar?


Gah! I hate txt.shx.

[AZCat]

Gah! I hate txt.shx.

I wasn't about to post it in our office standard: RomanD. I can't read it even when it's not rasterized.

[tsig]

I like the quillets. And you know, reputation is an idle and most false imposition, often got without merit and lost without deserving. When Nist speak fustian, hot and moist means anything.

Speaking fustian we like it hot and moist. Can you bring it on?

[Hokulele]

I wasn't about to post it in our office standard: RomanD. I can't read it even when it's not rasterized.


The world should be Simplex. Or Stylus BT if you are feeling pretty.

[AZCat]

The world should be Simplex. Or Stylus BT if you are feeling pretty.

If only I'd won the Font Wars of 2005, then the world would be different. Our "office manager" put out a new timesheet a month ago that had at least five different fonts (not counting different sized versions of the same font - the damned thing didn't work right either).

At least my coalition came out on top in the Browser Insurgency of 2007.





Those who have not journeyed thru the cubical jungle might think this is tongue-in-cheek, but I beg of you to beware - such calamitous struggles are commonplace in the wild territories. I have seen grown men cry over the size of their monitors, and women faint at the sight of an email that contains the contents of forty previous replies. Such a place is not to be taken lightly, if it is to be taken at all.

[Heiwa]

Speaking fustian we like it hot and moist. Can you bring it on?

You really give me for my pains a world of sighs! I take this opportunity to thank for all intelligent JREF comments about my article. They were not many but useful. Really improved it.

[Architect]

Why, did you rip it up and throw it in the bin?


Now, can you answer any of the technical points put to you and in particular NB's calculation?

[Myriad]

;3547852']Well, as long as we're discusing units, I insist all velocities and accelerations be measured in forlongs per fortnight and furlongs per fortnight2, respectively.


Really? I find furlongs per fortnight per leap year far more convenient. For one thing, it converts directly into furlongs per leap year per fortnight.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Alferd_Packer]

In my first year of college, I had a test problem to convert the speed of light from cenimeters per second to furlongs per fortnight. No calculaters allowed, but we did have a table of conversion factors. There were still some people who got the answer wrong.

[pomeroo]

You really give me for my pains a world of sighs! I take this opportunity to thank for all intelligent JREF comments about my article. They were not many but useful. Really improved it.



You have demonstrated that you are incompetent--spectacularly incompetent--to write such an article.

[Heiwa]

You have demonstrated that you are incompetent--spectacularly incompetent--to write such an article.

One reason I write for children is:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/03/23/sv_michiokaku.xml

Prof Kaku has a gift for communicating complex scientific ideas in a way that lay people can understand. He argues, moreover, that good physics should be simple, so simple that it can be understood as an image. I'll let him explain. 'A good physicist is driven by a childlike fascination and imagination. If we find ourselves getting jaded or bored we have to try to recapture that childishness. Einstein used to do that. He could be quite childish. He wanted to get access to that feeling of wonderment.
'He also believed that if a theory couldn't be broadly explained to a child it wasn't working. He believed that there should be a picture behind the theory. So his special relativity, for example, can be understood as a 16-year-old boy out-racing a light beam.

Sorry, if my article were too advanced for you. Time to grew up?

[DGM]

One reason I write for children is:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/03/23/sv_michiokaku.xml

Prof Kaku has a gift for communicating complex scientific ideas in a way that lay people can understand. He argues, moreover, that good physics should be simple, so simple that it can be understood as an image. I'll let him explain. 'A good physicist is driven by a childlike fascination and imagination. If we find ourselves getting jaded or bored we have to try to recapture that childishness. Einstein used to do that. He could be quite childish. He wanted to get access to that feeling of wonderment.
'He also believed that if a theory couldn't be broadly explained to a child it wasn't working. He believed that there should be a picture behind the theory. So his special relativity, for example, can be understood as a 16-year-old boy out-racing a light beam.

Sorry, if my article were too advanced for you. Time to grew up?
This would only be true if you could prove your theory in the first place. You write for children because they will not question you and it makes you feel important. Kind of like the old days when the 'Estonia' was popular.

[Hokulele]

While Dr. Kaku believes that scientific theories should be understandable to the lay public, he can provide the hard science and math to back the theories up when addressing a professional audience. Heiwa, can you?

[rwguinn]

This would only be true if you could prove your theory in the first place. You write for children because they will not question you and it makes you feel important. Kind of like the old days when the 'Estonia' was popular.
This would also only be true if the science was right.
In Heiwa's place, simple is used in the 14th and 15th definition

[Newtons Bit]

One reason I write for children is:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/03/23/sv_michiokaku.xml

Prof Kaku has a gift for communicating complex scientific ideas in a way that lay people can understand. He argues, moreover, that good physics should be simple, so simple that it can be understood as an image. I'll let him explain. 'A good physicist is driven by a childlike fascination and imagination. If we find ourselves getting jaded or bored we have to try to recapture that childishness. Einstein used to do that. He could be quite childish. He wanted to get access to that feeling of wonderment.
'He also believed that if a theory couldn't be broadly explained to a child it wasn't working. He believed that there should be a picture behind the theory. So his special relativity, for example, can be understood as a 16-year-old boy out-racing a light beam.

Sorry, if my article were too advanced for you. Time to grew up?


Are you going to respond to my challenge (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3547654&postcount=298)? It's a five minute calculation. And it's not hard.

[pomeroo]

One reason I write for children is:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/03/23/sv_michiokaku.xml

Prof Kaku has a gift for communicating complex scientific ideas in a way that lay people can understand. He argues, moreover, that good physics should be simple, so simple that it can be understood as an image. I'll let him explain. 'A good physicist is driven by a childlike fascination and imagination. If we find ourselves getting jaded or bored we have to try to recapture that childishness. Einstein used to do that. He could be quite childish. He wanted to get access to that feeling of wonderment.
'He also believed that if a theory couldn't be broadly explained to a child it wasn't working. He believed that there should be a picture behind the theory. So his special relativity, for example, can be understood as a 16-year-old boy out-racing a light beam.

Sorry, if my article were too advanced for you. Time to grew up?


You write for children because you feel comfortable addressing your peers. The real engineers here have revealed you to be an incompetent.

[Architect]

Who are you calling an engineer?!

...unless you meant........HEY! POMEROO!!!

[Heiwa]

While Dr. Kaku believes that scientific theories should be understandable to the lay public, he can provide the hard science and math to back the theories up when addressing a professional audience. Heiwa, can you?

Of course, read the article http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm . There is first the theory of Bazant comprising six stages. I point out many mistakes in the various assumptions using observations (pictures) and very basic math. Then there is the theory of Seffen treated in a similar manner.

Both scientists treat the problem in 1-D; a rigid upper block of uniform density - like a point - is supposed to freefall on a structure - like a line - and destroy the latter. I think it is too simple.

The point - the upper block - is not rigid and not of uniform density and appears to selfdestruct before any freefall and impact.

The 0.8-0.9 seconds freefall cannot be observed on any videos and therefore no impact is seen.

The line - the lower, intact structure - consists in reality of 280+ load bearing columns - so there are at least 280+ lines to impact by equal number points. Not so easy.

But I do an attempt. The line is not a line but replaced by a spring that is impacted by a point (actually energy). And the spring compresses and bounces back. Explained with simple math.

The point is not really a point but another spring with its energy. And now it gets complicated. One spring (the line) is impacted by another spring (a point)! What happens then? Is there an impact? Does the upper spring remain on the lower spring? Is there a gravity driven global collapse? What is a gravity driven collapse? An avalanche? I kindly ask Bazant and Seffen to redo their analysises with that in mind and clarify the matters.

I have no theory as indicated in the title of the article. To me it looks like the lower structure is destroyed by one or more bombs and I find is strange that it has not been investigated. Maybe the investigators got confused? Like:

"Perplex'd in the extreme; of one whose hand,
Like the base Indian, threw a pearl away
Richer than all his tribe; of one whose subdued eyes,
Albeit unused to the melting mood,
Drop tears as fast as the Arabian trees
Their medical gum. Set you down this;
And say besides, that in Aleppo once,
Where a malignant and a turban'd Turk
Beat a Venetian and traduced the state,
I took by the throat the circumsiced dog
And smote him, thus. "

The great warrior saying this then commits suicide! Fooled by his honest friend! History repeats itself! Children (and adults) love it.

[Architect]

Of course, read the article http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm .

We all have; it's just that you keep ignoring the posts whichpoint out the many, many flaws in your hypothesis.

There is first the theory of Bazant comprising six stages. I point out many mistakes in the various assumptions using observations (pictures) and very basic math. Then there is the theory of Seffen treated in a similar manner.

We're going to have to disagree on that one. You misconstrue and misrepresent their models - look that one up before you respond - without understanding the underlying engineering analysis. For example:


Both scientists treat the problem in 1-D; a rigid upper block of uniform density - like a point - is supposed to freefall on a structure - like a line - and destroy the latter. I think it is too simple.


Density is wholly irrelevant. It is the overall mass impacting the lower structure which matters unless, for example, you are trying to argue that a building structure should perform in the same manner as (say) a fluid. Which would be ludicrous.


The point - the upper block - is not rigid and not of uniform density and appears to selfdestruct before any freefall and impact.


That's just plain wrong, and you've failed to respond to the half dozen posts pointing this out to you. You have unilaterally decided that the initiation zone is the aircraft impact point, when in actual fact initiation is higher (what with the fire and so on). At this point we see fragmentation of the upper section as it impacts the lower structure, which is exactly what we would expect.

But, of course, you expect the upper mass to simply slide off or flow around or somesuch. Which is ... how can I put this gently .... ludicrous.

The 0.8-0.9 seconds freefall cannot be observed on any videos and therefore no impact is seen.

What?!?!

The line - the lower, intact structure - consists in reality of 280+ load bearing columns - so there are at least 280+ lines to impact by equal number points. Not so easy.

How many times has it been pointed out to you that the WTC structure cannot be treated as a birdcage? Tall buildings are not designed that way. All you aredoing is aprading your own lack of knowledge.

But I do an attempt. The line is not a line but replaced by a spring that is impacted by a point (actually energy). And the spring compresses and bounces back. Explained with simple math.

Rubbish. Whilst there is a degree of spring back as the compression load is removed it is happening at the same time as 33,000T on building and debris hit the lower structure, massively exceeding design loads on the new and chaotic load paths.

The point is not really a point but another spring with its energy. And now it gets complicated. One spring (the line) is impacted by another spring (a point)! What happens then? Is there an impact? Does the upper spring remain on the lower spring? Is there a gravity driven global collapse? What is a gravity driven collapse? An avalanche? I kindly ask Bazant and Seffen to redo their analysises with that in mind and clarify the matters.

That's just plain daft.


I have no theory as indicated in the title of the article. To me it looks like the lower structure is destroyed by one or more bombs and I find is strange that it has not been investigated.


You clearly have a theory, and that is controlled demolition. Like many Truthers you disguise this as "asking questions", yet as with the same motley crew we find that your analysis has more holes than the Scottish 1st XV's front row. You clearly have no meaningful grasp of structural design, despite your protestations to the contrary, and no practical understanding of tall buildings.

Just as an aside, I note you ran away from my challenge. On the plus side you have, however, apparently quit calling me a greenhorn.

Maybe the investigators got confused?

Ah yes, I forgot. Some of the best engineers in the world got it wrong but you, a mere naval architect (allegedly), unravelled the whole conspiracy. Silly me. They'd have got away with it too, if it hadn't been for those pesky kids.


Children (and adults) love it.

Yea, well kids love the Mr. Men and Noddy books but I wouldn't use either of them as a benchmark for investigating the WTC collapse either.

[Sunstealer]

if a theory couldn't be BROADLY explained to a child it wasn't working.Capitalised word is of more importance than you will understand. Just because a child of 8 can't understand calculus does not mean that any theory involving calculus is worthless. sheesh!

[Heiwa]

Density is wholly irrelevant. It is the overall mass impacting the lower structure which matters unless, for example, you are trying to argue that a building structure should perform in the same manner as (say) a fluid. Which would be ludicrous.


A fluid structure?? Your brain? Have any? Density is very relevant according to Seffen and Bazant (and Nist). And the total upperbody/part mass - with uniform density - must be rigid (i.e. not fluid!) in their theories throughout the process. Otherwise there will be no impact and global collapse! It may be a collision ... but it is completely different and is not treated by Seffen/Bazant ... and normally does not cause global collapse of a very robust steel construction - like a cage. Just some local failures at most.

You know a collision? A non-rigid mass with no uniform density like when a small car hits a big truck from behind. The little car is mostly damaged.

Some people believe the little car impacted the truck but it was only its solid bumper with uniform density ... and it didn't last long - that impacted. The rest was a normal collision.

According Seffen, Bazant and Nist the little car - intact after impact - proceeds through the big truck and destroys it - and comes out intact the other end!!! Imagine what scientists invent!

Like a bullet! It has uniform density and is rather rigid. Shot by a gun! That smokes afterwards.

Actually the complete WTC1,2 collapses are smoking guns!! Could never have been caused by loose upper blocks and gravity (and plane crashes/fires to loosen the block). Any real engineer knows that. Or should.

[phunk]

The line - the lower, intact structure - consists in reality of 280+ load bearing columns - so there are at least 280+ lines to impact by equal number points. Not so easy.


And what do you suppose happens when the mass doesn't land on the columns, but falls between them?

[X]

A fluid structure?? Your brain? Have any? Density is very relevant according to Seffen and Bazant (and Nist). And the total upperbody/part mass - with uniform density - must be rigid (i.e. not fluid!) in their theories throughout the process. Otherwise there will be no impact and global collapse! It may be a collision ... but it is completely different and is not treated by Seffen/Bazant ... and normally does not cause global collapse of a very robust steel construction - like a cage. Just some local failures at most.


Allow me to quote myself:

;3541983']I think what Heiwa is overlooking (and Apollo20 too, if he's serious), is that impact is a function of velocity and time together.

Heiwa seems to assume that if the upper block is not "solid", it must be macroscopically fluid, and thus would behave the same as water in stream, and break around the object.
At lower flow rates, you have a small mass of water impacting over a relatively long time, which allows the water to flow around the object.

At higher velocities (like, say, the deluge from a water bomber), the mass of water is huge, and it impacts over a very short time. It packs a helluva punch.

The same thing would happen with a large mass of rubble (rubble for Heiwa's fluid upper block). A lot of rubble (whatever consistency you want) impacting over a short time (and in a small area, since most of the mass is vertical, not spread out horizontally), will impact with a force not appreciably less than if it were rigid.

F = m(dv/dt)

F = impact force
m = mass
dv = change in velocity
dt = change in time

so, if m = 33,00 tons ~ 30x106 kg
dv = vinitial - vfinal, which I shall arbitrarily (since I don't know the speed at which the upper block fell) set to a conservative to dv = 5 m/s
dt = time of impact, which I shall arbitrarily set to a generous 1 second

F = 30x106(5/1) = 150,000,000 N

Put another way, that's the same as getting hit with a 1 kg cannon ball (over an impact period of 1 second) traveling at 150,000,000 m/s (half the speed of light!)

It is not an insignificant amount of force, and you can't just wave your hands and say "it never hits the towers", because even assuming the "fluid" upper block is deflected by the lower block, you have to account for the force applied to the lower section as it deflects all that mass over the duration of the impact.

[DavidJames]

Heiwa - I would suggest you abandon your attempt to argue as though you were talking to children and begin to present your case like a professional and an adult. You have been presented with many arguments refuting your childlike assertions. Arguments supported with detailed technical analysis. Unless you can refute the calculations and analysis, I can only assume you are unable and will further assume you are ignorant of engineering principles.

[Heiwa]

And what do you suppose happens when the mass doesn't land on the columns, but falls between them?

Good question.

The mass is all the parts of the upper block connected to the 280+ columns above.

Let's assume there is a massive local failure up top - all columns fail - and the upper block free falls and is misaligned with the structure below.

The columns of this upper mass miss the columns below and there is no impact columns against columns. Abt. 50% of the wall columns slide outside the structure below, lets call them A, abt 50% of the wall columns slide inside the structure below, lets call them B. The core columns are also out of line.

The A columns will not hit anything after that! The lower floors attached to the A columns, will be punctured by the columns below previously aligned with the A columns. There will be many local failures. Max two, three floors will be punctured.

The B columns will puncture the floors below causing more local failures. The columns of the lower structure previously aligned with the B columns above will not be affected. I assume max two, three floors below will be affected.

It would appear that the upper block telescopes into the lower structure, but the upper block is actually sliced in two big parts but in reality many more parts. Quite a collision!

I would then expect (or suppose) that further local failures would not occur when what remains of the upper block gets entagled in the lower structure. The local failures due to the assumed initial massive failures will not extend more than a few floors.

Evidently 'global collapse will ensue' as suggested by Nist will not take place. The upper damaged block has no possibility to impact anything further. It didn't impact anything in the first place.

Actually the above worst case scenario is why tower steel structures do not collapse completely like houses of cards. In reality the assumed massive failures of all columns at one floor followed by a 3 meters free fall could never take place. Not seen on any videos anyway.

[Architect]

A fluid structure?? Your brain? Have any?

Oh Heiwa, my little Scandanavian friend.

One of us designs tall buildings for a living, and has previously provided sufficient creds to the mods for them to confirm professional status. One of us is, in fact, licenced to practice as an architect. One of us has recently picked up a Civic Trust Award for his work.

Hint: It's not you, mate.

Now, if I see one more comment accusing me of being a greenhorn, or being thick, then I will not hesitate to pursue your inane and insensible arguments three quarters of the way around the internet.

I had assumed that, as an alleged professional, the usual courtesies would apply. It would appear, however, that your narrow grasp of engineering also extends to the rules of conduct that most of us labour under.

Disappointed, rather than surprised, it would be fair to say.

Now, let's look at your latest comedic gems:

Density is very relevant according to Seffen and Bazant (and Nist). And the total upperbody/part mass - with uniform density - must be rigid (i.e. not fluid!) in their theories throughout the process. Otherwise there will be no impact and global collapse! It may be a collision ... but it is completely different and is not treated by Seffen/Bazant ... and normally does not cause global collapse of a very robust steel construction - like a cage. Just some local failures at most.

Interesting. Wrong, of course, but interesting.

You have been told time and time again that the cage analogy is irrelevant here. The WTC functioned in a manner akin to a composite girder truss, one element of which was the floors. Failure of floors led to failure of the external envelope and hence global progressive collapse.

It does not matter how often you use the cage analogy.....any engineer who looks at the schematics and details will see how it really works, and your "argument" will fall at the first hurdle.

You know a collision? A non-rigid mass with no uniform density like when a small car hits a big truck from behind. The little car is mostly damaged.

Your analogy is useless. There is no suggestion that the lower frame had sufficient capacity to accept a dynamic load pattern of of the type encountered in collapse. If you believe otherwise, post the detailed structural analysis.


Some people believe the little car impacted the truck but it was only its solid bumper with uniform density ... and it didn't last long - that impacted. The rest was a normal collision.


Stick at the English lessons.


According Seffen, Bazant and Nist the little car - intact after impact - proceeds through the big truck and destroys it - and comes out intact the other end!!! Imagine what scientists invent!


That's not actually what they say; try reading papers properly.

Like a bullet! It has uniform density and is rather rigid. Shot by a gun! That smokes afterwards.


You're only adopting that position because you believe - wrongly - that the debris was somehow of substantially lesser mass and hence would not have had a broadly similar impact. Which is, with respect, completely ludicrous.


Actually the complete WTC1,2 collapses are smoking guns!! Could never have been caused by loose upper blocks and gravity (and plane crashes/fires to loosen the block).


Sigh
Any real engineer knows that. Or should.

And there we have it again. The foremost structural engineers in the world are all wrong, except you, who doesn't even appear to understand basic structural engineering. Amazing.

[Architect]

Good question.

The mass is all the parts of the upper block connected to the 280+ columns above.

Let's assume there is a massive local failure up top - all columns fail - and the upper block free falls and is misaligned with the structure below.

The columns of this upper mass miss the columns below and there is no impact columns against columns. Abt. 50% of the wall columns slide outside the structure below, lets call them A, abt 50% of the wall columns slide inside the structure below, lets call them B. The core columns are also out of line.

The A columns will not hit anything after that! The lower floors attached to the A columns, will be punctured by the columns below previously aligned with the A columns. There will be many local failures. Max two, three floors will be punctured.

The B columns will puncture the floors below causing more local failures. The columns of the lower structure previously aligned with the B columns above will not be affected. I assume max two, three floors below will be affected.

It would appear that the upper block telescopes into the lower structure, but the upper block is actually sliced in two big parts but in reality many more parts. Quite a collision!

I would then expect (or suppose) that further local failures would not occur when what remains of the upper block gets entagled in the lower structure. The local failures due to the assumed initial massive failures will not extend more than a few floors.

Evidently 'global collapse will ensue' as suggested by Nist will not take place. The upper damaged block has no possibility to impact anything further. It didn't impact anything in the first place.

Actually the above worst case scenario is why tower steel structures do not collapse completely like houses of cards. In reality the assumed massive failures of all columns at one floor followed by a 3 meters free fall could never take place. Not seen on any videos anyway.

The floors are a vital part of the composite structural system. Failure will lead to deformation of the unbraced external envelope and hence global collapse.

Really, how many times do you have to be told these basics?

Tomorrow: Rain is wet......

[X]

Good question.

The mass is all the parts of the upper block connected to the 280+ columns above.

Let's assume there is a massive local failure up top - all columns fail - and the upper block free falls and is misaligned with the structure below.

The columns of this upper mass miss the columns below and there is no impact columns against columns. Abt. 50% of the wall columns slide outside the structure below, lets call them A, abt 50% of the wall columns slide inside the structure below, lets call them B. The core columns are also out of line.

The A columns will not hit anything after that! The lower floors attached to the A columns, will be punctured by the columns below previously aligned with the A columns. There will be many local failures. Max two, three floors will be punctured.

The B columns will puncture the floors below causing more local failures. The columns of the lower structure previously aligned with the B columns above will not be affected. I assume max two, three floors below will be affected.

It would appear that the upper block telescopes into the lower structure, but the upper block is actually sliced in two big parts but in reality many more parts. Quite a collision!

I would then expect (or suppose) that further local failures would not occur when what remains of the upper block gets entangled in the lower structure. The local failures due to the assumed initial massive failures will not extend more than a few floors.

Evidently 'global collapse will ensue' as suggested by Nist will not take place. The upper damaged block has no possibility to impact anything further. It didn't impact anything in the first place.

Actually the above worst case scenario is why tower steel structures do not collapse completely like houses of cards. In reality the assumed massive failures of all columns at one floor followed by a 3 meters free fall could never take place. Not seen on any videos anyway.



Alright, now post up your models and calculations that prove this.
If you want to convince us, that's what it is going to take.
Remember to list your approximations, and show your work.

[Architect]

And to at least the same level of detail as Bazaaaaant, Greening, Arup, and so on.

[Darkhole]

What I'm looking for is a simple explanation for why the towers could have come down inside of 12-15 seconds or so and still taken into account conservation of momentum.
Any help with this is appreciated.

Thanks.






On this picture you see the rubble falling faster then the building.
Is that proof enough?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp6.html

[phunk]

Good question.

The mass is all the parts of the upper block connected to the 280+ columns above.

Let's assume there is a massive local failure up top - all columns fail - and the upper block free falls and is misaligned with the structure below.

The columns of this upper mass miss the columns below and there is no impact columns against columns. Abt. 50% of the wall columns slide outside the structure below, lets call them A, abt 50% of the wall columns slide inside the structure below, lets call them B. The core columns are also out of line.

The A columns will not hit anything after that! The lower floors attached to the A columns, will be punctured by the columns below previously aligned with the A columns. There will be many local failures. Max two, three floors will be punctured.

The 'A' columns might 'not hit anything' as they fall outside the structure, but the floors that were attached to them will pancake and overload the floors below them. They will cause the columns below the 'A' columns to be pushed and pulled out of alignment so that they can not carry any more load.


The B columns will puncture the floors below causing more local failures. The columns of the lower structure previously aligned with the B columns above will not be affected. I assume max two, three floors below will be affected.


The 'B' columns will not be stopped by any of the floors below, if they fall just inside the columns below, they will easily sever the floor trusses from the outer columns, adding the mass of those floors to the collapsing mass. How do you figure they will be stopped after two or three floors? Like the columns below the 'A' columns, the columns below the 'B' columns will be pushed outward by the 'B' columns falling against their inside faces.


It would appear that the upper block telescopes into the lower structure, but the upper block is actually sliced in two big parts but in reality many more parts. Quite a collision!

And all of those big parts still have all of their mass, only now none of it is sitting on the only things that could hold that mass, the columns.

I would then expect (or suppose) that further local failures would not occur when what remains of the upper block gets entagled in the lower structure. The local failures due to the assumed initial massive failures will not extend more than a few floors.


In the core, when the upper section falls between the columns instead of directly aligned with them, there is nothing to slow it down. It won't just become entangled and stop. As as the upper section of the core falls between the columns, it's mass will easily break loose the horizontal members it encounters, as those are not designed to carry any vertical load. The mass will also impact against the sides of the core columns, pushing them out of alignment (very easily as the horizontal members are being removed also). The mass of the upper core section, if not aligned with the columns below, will easily 'unzip' the core all the way down.


Evidently 'global collapse will ensue' as suggested by Nist will not take place. The upper damaged block has no possibility to impact anything further. It didn't impact anything in the first place.


In what magical world can the upper section fall and have "no possibility to impact anything further"? It's guaranteed to impact the building below. The worst case scenario is the upper block columns shifting out of alignment with the lower block. Once that happens there is nothing to stop a global collapse.


Actually the above worst case scenario is why tower steel structures do not collapse completely like houses of cards. In reality the assumed massive failures of all columns at one floor followed by a 3 meters free fall could never take place. Not seen on any videos anyway.

The 3 meter free fall is not even necessary. All you need is to shift the columns of the upper block out of alignment with the columns of the lower block. Just a few degrees tilt of the upper block will do, for example if one of the outer walls buckles as we saw happen.

[rwguinn]

The 'A' columns might 'not hit anything' as they fall outside the structure, but the floors that were attached to them will pancake and overload the floors below them. They will cause the columns below the 'A' columns to be pushed and pulled out of alignment so that they can not carry any more load.<<<<snip>>>>

I snipped all that because you were using factual data and inferrences, which are strictly forbidden when dealing with troofers.
It causes them to change the subject, run away, and/or hide.
It certainly has no bearing on their reality...

[Heiwa]

In the core, when the upper section falls between the columns instead of directly aligned with them, there is nothing to slow it down. It won't just become entangled and stop. As as the upper section of the core falls between the columns, it's mass will easily break loose the horizontal members it encounters, as those are not designed to carry any vertical load. The mass will also impact against the sides of the core columns, pushing them out of alignment (very easily as the horizontal members are being removed also). The mass of the upper core section, if not aligned with the columns below, will easily 'unzip' the core all the way down.


You do not really believe that? 47 core columns suddenly failing, pieces of solid columns being removed, misalignment and then ... free fall of mass above + impacts? On what. And then impacts from the sides. By gravity?
Gravity is at work all the time! And deform the failing parts. Local failures! And always in equilibrium due to reaction forces in intact structure. No free fall ever. And no impacts in any direction. The failed parts will just get entangled with other parts. No unzipping!

Only Bazant, Seffen, Nist and of course JREF greenhorns believe in 280+ simultaneous, local failures of low stressed load bearing columns, free fall + a big first impact - not seen on any videos - followed by multiple impacts on the floors below caused by an intact, rigid, with uniform density upper block that remains intact all the time during the destruction driving the collapse and that finally lands on the rubble ... intact. Not seen on any videos of course.

Luckily steel structures and gravity do not work like that. Except in NWO physics, of course.

[Heiwa]

The 3 meter free fall is not even necessary. All you need is to shift the columns of the upper block out of alignment with the columns of the lower block. Just a few degrees tilt of the upper block will do, for example if one of the outer walls buckles as we saw happen.

You saw one of the outer walls buckles? You mean a deformed wall on an enhanced photo before destruction. When did it finally buckle and fail? Synchronized with the roof dropping?

[Architect]

You do not really believe that? 47 core columns suddenly failing, pieces of solid columns being removed, misalignment and then ... free fall of mass above + impacts? On what. And then impacts from the sides. By gravity?
Gravity is at work all the time! And deform the failing parts. Local failures! And always in equilibrium due to reaction forces in intact structure. No free fall ever. And no impacts in any direction. The failed parts will just get entangled with other parts. No unzipping!

You have impressively failed to grasp the nature of structural collapse or, consequently, the mechanisms which would cause structural collapse.

As far as I can tell, you make a number of fundamental (and mistaken) assumptions in support of your hypothesis;


That the external envelope was self supporting and can be meaninfully compared to a cage-type structure. In particular you believe that the floors played no part in stabilisation of the envelope against buclking failures. This is just plain wrong. You've been challenged to post caluclations to prove your case, but have refused.

Having finally accepted that steel is susceptible to fire induced failure, you have suggested that localised collapse would result in redistribution of loads to adjacent structural members and hence no more than localised failure. However this is also blatantly over-simplistic, assuming as it does that these adjacent members have sufficient capacity to carry the new loads - many of which will, for example, follow markedly different load paths. If you want to argue it, you're going to have to post some (wait for it) calculations.

You then go on to argue that the design capacity of the lower part of the building had sufficient excess capacity to withstand the collapse of the upper section. This too shows an astounding ignorance of structural design. Firstly, the new load is dynamic in anture resulting significant orders of magnitude greater than normal static loadings. Secondly joints, members, etc. are designed to accommodate credible load paths; just because a joint can support a certain vertical load does not mean that it can support the same load horizontally as the structure collapses.

The final aspect of your argument I'd like to focus on is your apparent believe that, because the collapse resulted in a crush-up/crush-down failure, the debris field would not have caused failure despite being of similar mass. 30,000t is 30,000t. This is something so simple that even a child could see it, and there is little hope if you cannot grasp that concept.

Only Bazant, Seffen, Nist and of course JREF greenhorns believe in 280+ simultaneous, local failures of low stressed load bearing columns, free fall + a big first impact - not seen on any videos - followed by multiple impacts on the floors below caused by an intact, rigid, with uniform density upper block that remains intact all the time during the destruction driving the collapse and that finally lands on the rubble ... intact. Not seen on any videos of course.


Ah, there we go again.....all the experienced engineers in the world are wrong except you. NIST, Bazant, Greening, Arup, Edinburgh, Sheffield, the authors of the Eurocodes, NCE, everyone. All wrong. All greenhorns. Except you.

And yet you seem to believe that the NIST model requires 280 simultaneous failures. You believe that the building fell at free fall speeds. Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.

You're still running away from my challenge re: awards. Scared?

Luckily steel structures and gravity do not work like that. Except in NWO physics, of course.

Says the alleged naval architect.

[Heiwa]

You have impressively failed to grasp the nature of structural collapse or, consequently, the mechanisms which would cause structural collapse.

As far as I can tell, you make a number of fundamental (and mistaken) assumptions in support of your hypothesis;


That the external envelope was self supporting and can be meaninfully compared to a cage-type structure. In particular you believe that the floors played no part in stabilisation of the envelope against buclking failures. This is just plain wrong. You've been challenged to post caluclations to prove your case, but have refused.

Having finally accepted that steel is susceptible to fire induced failure, you have suggested that localised collapse would result in redistribution of loads to adjacent structural members and hence no more than localised failure. However this is also blatantly over-simplistic, assuming as it does that these adjacent members have sufficient capacity to carry the new loads - many of which will, for example, follow markedly different load paths. If you want to argue it, you're going to have to post some (wait for it) calculations.

You then go on to argue that the design capacity of the lower part of the building had sufficient excess capacity to withstand the collapse of the upper section. This too shows an astounding ignorance of structural design. Firstly, the new load is dynamic in anture resulting significant orders of magnitude greater than normal static loadings. Secondly joints, members, etc. are designed to accommodate credible load paths; just because a joint can support a certain vertical load does not mean that it can support the same load horizontally as the structure collapses.

The final aspect of your argument I'd like to focus on is your apparent believe that, because the collapse resulted in a crush-up/crush-down failure, the debris field would not have caused failure despite being of similar mass. 30,000t is 30,000t. This is something so simple that even a child could see it, and there is little hope if you cannot grasp that concept.


Ah, there we go again.....all the experienced engineers in the world are wrong except you. NIST, Bazant, Greening, Arup, Edinburgh, Sheffield, the authors of the Eurocodes, NCE, everyone. All wrong. All greenhorns. Except you.

And yet you seem to believe that the NIST model requires 280 simultaneous failures. You believe that the building fell at free fall speeds. Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.

You're still running away from my challenge re: awards. Scared?



Says the alleged naval architect.

Subject is collapse. The floors, secondary structure transmitting load to the primary load carrying columns, are still attached. Evidently, as long as they are attached/bolted to the columns, they can also transmit horizontal windloads on one wall to another and prevent transverse movement of the columns. Nobody argues about that. Clear from the article.
And evidently heat affects the properties of the steel. 500°C and yield is reduced a little. Clear from the start! Strange that you cannot quote properly!
But heating some columns in a fire does not cause free fall of an upper block! The upper block and the lower structure are still attached by the alleged failed columns (none seen on any video) and gravity does not produce free fall of connected parts!
Gravity will only deform the alleged failing columns due fire. No free fall is possible of the upper block. And not seen on any videos.
Free fall 3.7 m before impact takes 0.8-0.9 seconds. Not seen on any video.
As a consequence an impact on a lower structure caused by an upper block after free fall is not possible. And not seen on any videos.
So there is no new vertical gravity load on the lower structure. The gravity load is always the same on the lower structure, while the connecting columns are being deformed. Quite basic. That's why steel structures never collapse due to gravity unless you suddenly destroy vital connections, like in CD. Fire can never suddenly destroy vital connections like CD does.
That is why CD companies never put the top of a steel building on fire and hope that it will collapse. It doesn't work like that.

But, if free fall actually occurs and if the released energy is actually applied on the lower structure, which is very unlikely, I demonstrate that it will only temporarily compress the lower structure and cause some local failures at the top of the lower structure. After that all potential energy released is consumed and lost. In reality no free fall/impact occur and all potential energy is consumed deforming the intermediate columns.

Bazant and Seffen and Nist are wrong when demonstrating anything else using false assumtions; rigid upper body, uniform density, upper body intact all the time, simultaneous failure/disappearance of 280+ columns, free fall, impacts, shockwaves, no redundancy in lower structure, etc. Clearly shown in my article.

Recommendation is that Bazant and Seffen redo their analysis using correct assumptions. No big deal really. Only that the conclusion will be that no global collapse ensues!

[Newtons Bit]

Subject is collapse. The floors, secondary structure transmitting load to the primary load carrying columns, are still attached. Evidently, as long as they are attached/bolted to the columns, they can also transmit horizontal windloads on one wall to another and prevent transverse movement of the columns. Nobody argues about that. Clear from the article.
And evidently heat affects the properties of the steel. 500°C and yield is reduced a little. Clear from the start! Strange that you cannot quote properly!
But heating some columns in a fire does not cause free fall of an upper block! The upper block and the lower structure are still attached by the alleged failed columns (none seen on any video) and gravity does not produce free fall of connected parts!
Gravity will only deform the alleged failing columns due fire. No free fall is possible of the upper block. And not seen on any videos.
Free fall 3.7 m before impact takes 0.8-0.9 seconds. Not seen on any video.
As a consequence an impact on a lower structure caused by an upper block after free fall is not possible. And not seen on any videos.
So there is no new vertical gravity load on the lower structure. The gravity load is always the same on the lower structure, while the connecting columns are being deformed. Quite basic. That's why steel structures never collapse due to gravity unless you suddenly destroy vital connections, like in CD. Fire can never suddenly destroy vital connections like CD does.
That is why CD companies never put the top of a steel building on fire and hope that it will collapse. It doesn't work like that.

But, if free fall actually occurs and if the released energy is actually applied on the lower structure, which is very unlikely, I demonstrate that it will only temporarily compress the lower structure and cause some local failures at the top of the lower structure. After that all potential energy released is consumed and lost. In reality no free fall/impact occur and all potential energy is consumed deforming the intermediate columns.

Bazant and Seffen and Nist are wrong when demonstrating anything else using false assumtions; rigid upper body, uniform density, upper body intact all the time, simultaneous failure/disappearance of 280+ columns, free fall, impacts, shockwaves, no redundancy in lower structure, etc. Clearly shown in my article.

Recommendation is that Bazant and Seffen redo their analysis using correct assumptions. No big deal really. Only that the conclusion will be that no global collapse ensues!

Just stop Heiwa, please.

Your "paper" has been de (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3535159&postcount=213)bunked. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3539491&postcount=243) Not that there was really anything much to debunk. You only provide conjecture, false metaphors and inaccurate bordering fraudulent simplistic calculations that do not represent the tower. You want Bazant, Seffen, etc to do calculations with your assumptions? Perhaps you should do them. You think yourself up to the intellectual task of pointing out the flaws in their calculations, why don't you try doing them yourself with baseline assumptions that you think should be used. Let's see some math. Put your money where your mouth is. Think of the fame that awaits you if you can actually prove inside job.

We've challenged (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3547654&postcount=298) you to show that you are an actual engineer and not just someone pretending to be. I've offered to personally defend your abilities as being in line with that of an engineer if you answered that challenge correctly. You haven't even acknowledged that said challenge even exists. I can only imagine that, after some attempted research on your part, you found the task too difficult.

Move on. Try doing some actual calculations. Put together some full-scale 3-d models. You claim to be an engineer, you should have access to this kind of software. Follow what I've done here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3465131&postcount=1) with regards to fire and the exterior wall buckling. Open your mind to the possibility of actual, real truth. Not this farce that the "Truth Movement" believes. A movement that is so fractured and full of mutually contradictory theories that the only thing that they can agree on is that their initial gut reaction to seeing debunked films, like "Loose Change", is right. This, perhaps, is the tie that binds all "Truthers" together: the inability to ever admit they've made an error.

[X]

Subject is collapse. The floors, secondary structure transmitting load to the primary load carrying columns, are still attached. Evidently, as long as they are attached/bolted to the columns, they can also transmit horizontal windloads on one wall to another and prevent transverse movement of the columns. Nobody argues about that. Clear from the article.
And evidently heat affects the properties of the steel. 500°C and yield is reduced a little. Clear from the start! Strange that you cannot quote properly!
But heating some columns in a fire does not cause free fall of an upper block! The upper block and the lower structure are still attached by the alleged failed columns (none seen on any video) and gravity does not produce free fall of connected parts!
Gravity will only deform the alleged failing columns due fire. No free fall is possible of the upper block. And not seen on any videos.
Free fall 3.7 m before impact takes 0.8-0.9 seconds. Not seen on any video.
As a consequence an impact on a lower structure caused by an upper block after free fall is not possible. And not seen on any videos.
So there is no new vertical gravity load on the lower structure. The gravity load is always the same on the lower structure, while the connecting columns are being deformed. Quite basic. That's why steel structures never collapse due to gravity unless you suddenly destroy vital connections, like in CD. Fire can never suddenly destroy vital connections like CD does.
That is why CD companies never put the top of a steel building on fire and hope that it will collapse. It doesn't work like that.

But, if free fall actually occurs and if the released energy is actually applied on the lower structure, which is very unlikely, I demonstrate that it will only temporarily compress the lower structure and cause some local failures at the top of the lower structure. After that all potential energy released is consumed and lost. In reality no free fall/impact occur and all potential energy is consumed deforming the intermediate columns.

Bazant and Seffen and Nist are wrong when demonstrating anything else using false assumptions; rigid upper body, uniform density, upper body intact all the time, simultaneous failure/disappearance of 280+ columns, free fall, impacts, shockwaves, no redundancy in lower structure, etc. Clearly shown in my article.

Recommendation is that Bazant and Seffen redo their analysis using correct assumptions. No big deal really. Only that the conclusion will be that no global collapse ensues!



I've highlighted the important part.

Yes, the weight remains the same (if you ignore the sudden addition of the weight of the airplane).

But now the upper block is moving.
I'm sure you know that moving objects have momentum, right?
All that potential energy from the weight sitting at that height is going to rapidly become kinetic energy, from the weight moving.

You know there is a difference. I would be very surprised if you were willing to hold a bowling ball 6 inches over your head, then drop it. But b your logic here, since it didn't hurt to hold it, it will not hurt when it falls on your head.

And I should point out (I don't know why it is necessary to point this out again...) that it was more than fire affecting the columns and trusses. There is the tiny detail of them being hit by an airliner going pretty darned fast. I've seen columns get cut by a forklift moving only a few kilometers an hour (some people just shouldn't be allowed to drive those things). Imagine what a plane going well over 700 kilometers per hour could do.

Now, Heiwa, instead of merely asserting that the assumptions used by Bazant, Seffen and Nist are wrong, are you willing to go out ad prove it?
Bazant, Seffen and Nist would be capable of supporting their assumptions. Are you? This is not a board populated by children, Heiwa. It is a board populated by people who know what they are talking about.
You assert that all the people who disagree with you are novice greenhorns. It's a pretty bold claim to make, Heiwa. Especially given your reluctance to provide any calculations for scrutiny.
Look at it this way: If you provide the calculations, and you show everyone else has been wrong, you will be a hero. Most of the professionals who were wrong will apologize (I say most, since I can't speak for everyone). You will be able to get any job you want, having shown yourself to be an engineer par excellence.

So, do you have anything to offer besides rhetoric?

[Architect]

Come on, Heiwa. The boys have put it well. Provide some real structural calculations. Put up, or shut up.

[LashL]

Come on, Heiwa. The boys have put it well. Provide some real structural calculations. Put up, or shut up.

[My bolding]

I'm pretty confident in predicting that Heiwa will do neither.

[Heiwa]

Come on, Heiwa. The boys have put it well. Provide some real structural calculations. Put up, or shut up.

?? All real calculations are in the article! Very simple ones - static intact stresses in structure (<20-30% yield), amounts of PE/KE available (not very much = 40 litres of diesel oil), effects on intact structure, if this PE/KE is applied to it (as a spring); deformation, force, stress, buckling properties of columns, etc. Will not cause global collapse! What else do you need? Lobster and champagne?
Main purpose is of course to debunk Nist, Bazant and Seffen in layman's terms. Their assumptions behind collapse are 100% incorrect; rigid upper block of uniform density being intact all the time during destruction, free falling, impacting, shock waving, compressing the lower, intact structure only by gravity, etc.
I am quite pleased with the article. Only some greenhorns at JREF are upset as expected but have not shown that these ridiculous assumptions are correct.

[Heiwa]

;3554967']

But now the upper block is moving.
I'm sure you know that moving objects have momentum, right?
All that potential energy from the weight sitting at that height is going to rapidly become kinetic energy, from the weight moving.

You know there is a difference. I would be very surprised if you were willing to hold a bowling ball 6 inches over your head, then drop it. But b your logic here, since it didn't hurt to hold it, it will not hurt when it falls on your head.



Yes, strange that the upper block is suddenly moving. Free fall? Shouldn't really do that being connected with the lower structure via supposedly failing columns. Steel does not allow it, even if heated.
You make the mistake comparing the upper block with a bowling ball! It is not! Using the assumptions of Bazant and Seffen it is more like a bale of wool. Mostly air. It will not hurt!

[Heiwa]

;3554967']

Now, Heiwa, instead of merely asserting that the assumptions used by Bazant, Seffen and Nist are wrong, are you willing to go out ad prove it?
Bazant, Seffen and Nist would be capable of supporting their assumptions. Are you?

Haven't I done all that in the article? Rigid upper block? Uniform density of same? Free fall? Impact on lower structure? 100% alignment? Enormous amount of kinetic energy transmitted? Enormous impact velocity? Shock wave in lower structure? No support exist for these assumptions.

[pomeroo]

Subject is collapse. The floors, secondary structure transmitting load to the primary load carrying columns, are still attached. Evidently, as long as they are attached/bolted to the columns, they can also transmit horizontal windloads on one wall to another and prevent transverse movement of the columns. Nobody argues about that. Clear from the article.
And evidently heat affects the properties of the steel. 500°C and yield is reduced a little. Clear from the start! Strange that you cannot quote properly!
But heating some columns in a fire does not cause free fall of an upper block! The upper block and the lower structure are still attached by the alleged failed columns (none seen on any video) and gravity does not produce free fall of connected parts!
Gravity will only deform the alleged failing columns due fire. No free fall is possible of the upper block. And not seen on any videos.
Free fall 3.7 m before impact takes 0.8-0.9 seconds. Not seen on any video.
As a consequence an impact on a lower structure caused by an upper block after free fall is not possible. And not seen on any videos.
So there is no new vertical gravity load on the lower structure. The gravity load is always the same on the lower structure, while the connecting columns are being deformed. Quite basic. That's why steel structures never collapse due to gravity unless you suddenly destroy vital connections, like in CD. Fire can never suddenly destroy vital connections like CD does.
That is why CD companies never put the top of a steel building on fire and hope that it will collapse. It doesn't work like that.

But, if free fall actually occurs and if the released energy is actually applied on the lower structure, which is very unlikely, I demonstrate that it will only temporarily compress the lower structure and cause some local failures at the top of the lower structure. After that all potential energy released is consumed and lost. In reality no free fall/impact occur and all potential energy is consumed deforming the intermediate columns.

Bazant and Seffen and Nist are wrong when demonstrating anything else using false assumtions; rigid upper body, uniform density, upper body intact all the time, simultaneous failure/disappearance of 280+ columns, free fall, impacts, shockwaves, no redundancy in lower structure, etc. Clearly shown in my article.

Recommendation is that Bazant and Seffen redo their analysis using correct assumptions. No big deal really. Only that the conclusion will be that no global collapse ensues!


People who are far more competent than you have corrected your errors repeatedly. Does anything ever sink in?

[pomeroo]

?? All real calculations are in the article! Very simple ones - static intact stresses in structure (<20-30% yield), amounts of PE/KE available (not very much = 40 litres of diesel oil), effects on intact structure, if this PE/KE is applied to it (as a spring); deformation, force, stress, buckling properties of columns, etc. Will not cause global collapse! What else do you need? Lobster and champagne?
Main purpose is of course to debunk Nist, Bazant and Seffen in layman's terms. Their assumptions behind collapse are 100% incorrect; rigid upper block of uniform density being intact all the time during destruction, free falling, impacting, shock waving, compressing the lower, intact structure only by gravity, etc.
I am quite pleased with the article. Only some greenhorns at JREF are upset as expected but have not shown that these ridiculous assumptions are correct.


The pleasure you take in an article that demonstrates your incompetence to discuss these matters strongly suggests that you are not a real engineer.

[Newtons Bit]

?? All real calculations are in the article! Very simple ones - static intact stresses in structure (<20-30% yield),

Your calculations are bunk. This has been explained. All you have done is taken the total weight over the total area. You have not accounted for severed columns. You have not accounted for individual columns with larger tributary areas will have somewhat higher stresses.

amounts of PE/KE available (not very much = 40 litres of diesel oil), effects on intact structure, if this PE/KE is applied to it (as a spring); deformation, force, stress, buckling properties of columns, etc. Will not cause global collapse!

Terribly fake analogy. Though one that is interesting to look at. If you have a crane that has 100% efficiency, it will take 40 litres of fuel to raise the upper block roughly 3m. That's like having a car with a fuel efficiency of 0.000075km/liter. This is quite significant. You did not calculate the amount of energy required to buckle the columns. You just waived your hand.

I am quite pleased with the article. Only some greenhorns at JREF are upset as expected but have not shown that these ridiculous assumptions are correct.

I've even offered you a challenge in which you could prove that you are not just a silly little kid in Sweden trying to challenge real engineers. You ignored that challenge. And yet you still call us greenhorns? I laugh at this.

We've pointed out the problems in your paper over and over again. I can only conclude, that you have pushed your fingers so far into your own ears that you have squished out what little critical thinking skills you posses.

[Architect]

?? All real calculations are in the article!

No, they're complete bunkum. As has been shown here. You have included absolutely no structural analysis, nor do we see detailed analysis of the performance of the individual members required to support your bizarre hypothesis.

I do not believe you are at all qualified in engineering.

[Heiwa]

Your calculations are bunk. Terribly fake analogy. Though one that is interesting to look at. If you have a crane that has 100% efficiency, it will take 40 litres of fuel to raise the upper block roughly 3m. That's like having a car with a fuel efficiency of 0.000075km/liter. This is quite significant. You did not calculate the amount of energy required to buckle the columns. You just waived your hand.

Yes, a big crane can lift 33 000 tons 3.7 metres in six seconds and for that it requires about 40 litres of diesel oil. Quite big engine, though in the crane. Explained in my article incl. calculation.

Energy required to buckle a column? Can also be calculated. Let's assume the column has low slenderness ratio and will not buckle before yield. So first you have to compress elastically the column to yield! Assume it is a spring! The energy/force formula is in the article. After that it becomes a little more complex. The column will deform plastically somewhere depending on its configuration and supports, so you have to establish, where this deformation takes place. But then you can calculate the work required for this plastic deformation. Not too difficult.

Evidently the plastic deformation modifies the configuration and maybe the supports of the column, so you have to allow for that, until buckling finally takes place, be it bucklebending, torsionbuckling or crumpling up.

I wonder why Nist didn't do it? It helps to retrieve some failed columns from the initiation zone also. Quite incompetent not doing either. Just saying PE/KE > SE without any calculations/evidence of any sort!

But topic is collapse ... and Bazant's/Seffen's assumptions. You still maintain the upper block was perfectly aligned with the lower structure during the gravity collapse? Look at WTC2! Aligned? I just put in a photo of WTC2 in my article about it.

100% alignment between upper block (with rigid, uniform density, mass that drives the gravity collapse!) of lower structure is an ABSOLUTE requirement for a gravity collapse, like an avalanche. If no alignment the upper block slides off the lower structure due to gravity = no gravity collapse or avalanche.

And for same reason no rigidity of upper block = no gravity collapse or avalanche possible

And of course no uniform density of upper block = no gravity collapse or avalanche possible.

We are not talking about a rigid bowl hitting something! Remember the upper block was mostly air! Many persons forget that.

[DGM]

..Snip....Yada..Yada...
We are not talking about a rigid bowl hitting something! Remember the upper block was mostly air! Many persons forget that.

Why don't you save your typing fingers and just say you don't know how to calculate (don't understand) what Newtons Bit asked?

[Newtons Bit]

Energy required to buckle a column? Can also be calculated.

THEN DO IT. I've already asked you a dozen times. You keep saying your calculations are in your paper, and now you admit it's not. What's the problem? Do the calculation!

[Architect]

100% alignment between upper block (with rigid, uniform density, mass that drives the gravity collapse!) of lower structure is an ABSOLUTE requirement for a gravity collapse, like an avalanche. If no alignment the upper block slides off the lower structure due to gravity = no gravity collapse or avalanche.


For crying out loud......

How often have you been told that column-column collision is not required for collapse? How often have you been told what part the floors play? How often have you been asked why - nay, how - the upper debris field would magically "slide" off the lower section?

Is reading comprehension a major problem for you?

[Architect]

THEN DO IT. I've already asked you a dozen times. You keep saying your calculations are in your paper, and now you admit it's not. What's the problem? Do the calculation!

2-1 says he can't.

[Newtons Bit]

Some more remarks, now that my irritation has subsided a bit.

Yes, a big crane can lift 33 000 tons 3.7 metres in six seconds and for that it requires about 40 litres of diesel oil. Quite big engine, though in the crane. Explained in my article incl. calculation.
Please show me this crane. A picture would be nice.

I wonder why Nist didn't do it? It helps to retrieve some failed columns from the initiation zone also. Quite incompetent not doing either. Just saying PE/KE > SE without any calculations/evidence of any sort!
Bazant already did the calculation. He discovered that it was a very small amount of the total potential energy available. I've done my own calculation of this and confirmed his result.

You still maintain the upper block was perfectly aligned with the lower structure during the gravity collapse?

NO HEIWA. Do not put words in my mouth. IT IS OLD AND CHILDISH. No one on this forum, EXCEPT TRUTHERS, have ever made this argument. It is a strawman. DROP IT. We assume that it is aligned because this is both favorable to collapse prevention and easier to model.

100% alignment between upper block (with rigid, uniform density, mass that drives the gravity collapse!) of lower structure is an ABSOLUTE requirement for a gravity collapse, like an avalanche. If no alignment the upper block slides off the lower structure due to gravity = no gravity collapse or avalanche.

Completely false. For the mass to slide off the top, a force has to act on the mass. This force has to be provided by the lower structure. The only way it could do that is if the floor slab on the topmost floor of the lower block was invulnerable and sloped. It was neither.

You need to find a new topic to harp on. The ones you're doing right now are old and debunked.

[Newtons Bit]

2-1 says he can't.

I've already done it, with a good explanation (though I have an algebra error that needs to be fixed). You'd think he could at least crib off of that.

[Architect]

I just can't believe that he's a professional engineer. It's as simple as that.

[Architect]

Duplicate post. See if my original just slides off it.

[DGM]

Duplicate post. See if my original just slides off it.
I think it's conspiracy theorist first engineer second. He just can't stand to let go of the good old days with the "Estonia" conspiracy.

[X]

Let's assume the column has low slenderness ratio and will not buckle before yield. So first you have to compress elastically the column to yield! Assume it is a spring! The energy/force formula is in the article. After that it becomes a little more complex. The column will deform plastically somewhere depending on its configuration and supports, so you have to establish, where this deformation takes place.

Now I'm curious.

What constitutes a low slenderness ratio?
What would be the approximate slenderness ratio of the columns in the Towers?

In other words: Can you justify this assumption?

[Heiwa]

Some more remarks, now that my irritation has subsided a bit.


1. Please show me this crane. A picture would be nice.


2. Bazant already did the calculation. He discovered that it was a very small amount of the total potential energy available. I've done my own calculation of this and confirmed his result.



3. NO HEIWA. Do not put words in my mouth. IT IS OLD AND CHILDISH. No one on this forum, EXCEPT TRUTHERS, have ever made this argument. It is a strawman. DROP IT. We assume that it is aligned because this is both favorable to collapse prevention and easier to model.



4. Completely false. For the mass to slide off the top, a force has to act on the mass. This force has to be provided by the lower structure. The only way it could do that is if the floor slab on the topmost floor of the lower block was invulnerable and sloped. It was neither.

5. You need to find a new topic to harp on. The ones you're doing right now are old and debunked.

1. I do it in layman's terms in my article.

2. ?? According Bazant:

"Stage 3 (Collapse starts): Once more than half of the columns in the critical floor (floors 94-95 of WTC1) that is heated most suffer buckling, the weight of the upper part of the structure above this floor can no longer be supported, and so the upper part starts falling down onto the lower part below the critical floor (floor 95 of WTC1), gathering speed until it impacts the lower part (floor 94 of WTC1). At that moment, the upper part has acquired an enormous kinetic energy and a significant downward velocity.

Stage 4: The vertical impact of the mass of the upper part onto the lower part applies enormous vertical dynamic load on the underlying structure, far exceeding its load capacity, even though it is not heated."

I my article I show: no vertical impact (WTC2 >20° off due to a big explosion), no enormous vertical dynamic load, no falling down, no gathering speed, no impact, etc.

Show your calculations about, e.g. vertical impact!

3. ?? If it is not aligned, there is no impact. If it is aligned, it evidently favours an impact, ... but it is not aligned. No impact = no initiation = nothing serious will happen. Easier to model? Look at the videos and model according to them.

4. ?? Nonsense. Sloped invulnerable floor slab? Pls use layman's terms.

5. ?? I like this thread. Rigid upper blocks with uniform density that vertically impacts lower structure, etc. Not seen anywhere. Just invented by Nist & Co and supported by JREF greenhorns. Fascinating. BTW I play piano. But I wish I could harp.

[Architect]

I think it's conspiracy theorist first engineer second. He just can't stand to let go of the good old days with the "Estonia" conspiracy.

I'd start a poll regarding the fellows qualifications and sanity, but know that the mods would rightly accuse me of mocking the afflicted and close it down PDQ.

[Heiwa]

;3558122']Now I'm curious.

1. What constitutes a low slenderness ratio?
2.What would be the approximate slenderness ratio of the columns in the Towers?

3. In other words: Can you justify this assumption?

1. <40
2. Read my article. <24.
3. Yes, of course.

[Architect]

4. ?? Nonsense. Sloped invulnerable floor slab? Pls use layman's terms.



1. No, you've failed to explain how the 30,000t magically slides off.

2. Why should we use layman's terms when you purport to be a qualified engineer?

[ElMondoHummus]

Duplicate post. See if my original just slides off it.

Now that is an awesome response! :dl:

[Evilgiraffe]

4. ?? Nonsense. Sloped invulnerable floor slab? Pls use layman's terms.

I'm a layman, when it comes to engineering at least.

After approximately 3 seconds contemplation, I deciphered this to mean the only way for the upper block to slide off the lower would be if the floor slab it impacted was ;

1. Sloped... Objects do not slide off horizontal surfaces. and
2. Invulnerable.... Unbreakable, so that the upper block doesn't just punch through the floor slab and continue on its merry way downwards in a gravity driven progressive collapse.

Am I right? Do I win teh interwebs?

[uk_dave]

Am I right? Do I win teh interwebs?

Yes. Sadly, however, on the basis of this thread, you should not contemplate a career in marine architecture. :D

[Heiwa]

1. No, you've failed to explain how the 30,000t magically slides off.

2. Why should we use layman's terms when you purport to be a qualified engineer?

1. If it is not aligned, it will slide off. WTC2 is a better example than WTC1. Clearly seen sliding off (and defintely not by gravity alone).

2. It helps! Once I testified for a US Congressional committée about oil tanker safety and risks of oil pollution caused by collisions and groundings and I tried to keep it in layman's terms. However, it seems the committée did not grasp very much anyway :)- . As only country in the world US later unilaterally disallowed my clever tanker design that according international standards would spill less oil in accidents than the US OPA 90 permitted DH design!! And had been accepted by everybody else just for that simple reason! Crazy world. But it seems the US Congress at least recognized my engineering qualifications. But who knows? Just 40+ years experience, today.

[einsteen]

deleted - scaling error...

[Alferd_Packer]

Well Heiwa, please define some of the laymans terms you wish to use. Or should we call them "Truther-mans" terms?

THe problem is that those types of terms have vauge and/ or multiple meanings. please. give us a laymans term ad define it for us.

You first.

[Newtons Bit]

I'm a layman, when it comes to engineering at least.

After approximately 3 seconds contemplation, I deciphered this to mean the only way for the upper block to slide off the lower would be if the floor slab it impacted was ;

1. Sloped... Objects do not slide off horizontal surfaces. and
2. Invulnerable.... Unbreakable, so that the upper block doesn't just punch through the floor slab and continue on its merry way downwards in a gravity driven progressive collapse.

Am I right? Do I win teh interwebs?

Indeed!

[Newtons Bit]

1. If it is not aligned, it will slide off. WTC2 is a better example than WTC1. Clearly seen sliding off (and defintely not by gravity alone).

No, it has rotated about one wall. The wall that collapsed LAST no less, which I suppose means that the columns didn't all collapse at the same time. When it rotated, the far end moves inside the building, not out. If you want to suggest that it can slide off, I want to see a free-body-diagram. Something like this: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3278462&postcount=82 . That truther could make one, and he's just an undergrad. Why can't you? Too afraid to put something down that isn't just conjecture and thus can be disproved?

[Architect]

Once I testified for a US Congressional committée about oil tanker safety and risks of oil pollution caused by collisions and groundings and I tried to keep it in layman's terms... But who knows? Just 40+ years experience, today.

Prove it.

[ElMondoHummus]

Prove it.

Wait, Architect, does that matter? Is it really a good idea to delve into his qualifications? His thesis either reflects reality or it does not, and invoking his credentials does nothing more than give other conspiracy peddlers something to hang a facade of credibility on.

I think the way this thread's developed so far has been good. There's not really been that much worrying about authority and credentials; on the contrary, there's been a lot more concentration on the actual engineering (sorry!) issues. That says much more about who's qualifications enable them to construct the collapse events than any external activities they may have participated in.

Just my 2 cents.

[SpitfireIX]

Prove it.


A statement of his was added to the record by a committee witness. See here (http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/Trans/hpw105-45.000/hpw105-45_0.HTM#3), p. 8. That may qualify as "testifying" using the US Congress's definition, even if not under the everyday definition.

[Architect]

Wait, Architect, does that matter? Is it really a good idea to delve into his qualifications? His thesis either reflects reality or it does not, and invoking his credentials does nothing more than give other conspiracy peddlers something to hang a facade of credibility on.

I think the way this thread's developed so far has been good. There's not really been that much worrying about authority and credentials; on the contrary, there's been a lot more concentration on the actual engineering (sorry!) issues. That says much more about who's qualifications enable them to construct the collapse events than any external activities they may have participated in.

Just my 2 cents.

Well, I was in two minds about posting. Qualifications are not in themselves germaine to the argument however he's the one accusing the rest of us as being "greenhorns" and claiming he's qualified to do building design.

But in any event you're right, his grasp (or lack thereof) of the engineering issues has spoken far, far more eloquently regarding the integrity (hah!) of his argument.

[Architect]

A statement of his was added to the record by a committee witness. See here (http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/Trans/hpw105-45.000/hpw105-45_0.HTM#3), p. 8. That may qualify as "testifying" using the US Congress's definition, even if not under the everyday definition.

Is that testifying under anyone's definition? Surely it's just a citation?

[Newtons Bit]

I my article I show: no vertical impact (WTC2 >20° off due to a big explosion), no enormous vertical dynamic load, no falling down, no gathering speed, no impact, etc.

Show your calculations about, e.g. vertical impact!

Huh? The tower collapse started when an entire wall was pulled inwards. I go into extreme detail about that mechanism (http://http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=107267). You've seen this before. This is why the upper block leaned: one wall failed first, then others, causing one side of the tower to begin falling before the other. However the end of the the tower that falls first eventually hits the lower block. A vertical impact you might say.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1632947dbe85f60a84.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=11262)

The columns of the upper block do not impact the columns of the lower block. The upper columns fall INSIDE of the upper blocks. You previously argued they would magically fall outside, remember that? But your entire argument is that since the upper columns missed the lower columns, the collapse stops! Which is pure insanity. The upper columns can (and did) easily punch through the floor slab and continue downwards. The two-way shear capacity of a 4" thick 3000psi floor slab is about 32kips (for the laypeople, it would take a force of 32,000lb over a 14"x14" area to punch through the floor slab). This is a fraction of the compressive capacity of the columns.

This is impossible to model mathematically. Which is why Bazant chose to use a column to column impact which gives the structure the largest possible resistance to vertical collapse.

Take your fingers out of your ears. Start thinking.

[Newtons Bit]

Yes, a big crane can lift 33 000 tons 3.7 metres in six seconds and for that it requires about 40 litres of diesel oil. Quite big engine, though in the crane. Explained in my article incl. calculation.

Just for funsies, here's the worlds largest crane (http://www.eurekamagazine.co.uk/article/12112/Shipyard-unveils-worlds-largest-crane-designed-on-digital-technology-.aspx). It can only lift 20,000tons. And there's no way in hell it can lift 20,000tons over 3.7m in 6 seconds.

[Minadin]

Newton -you have an extra http:// in your link. Fixed link is here:

http://www.eurekamagazine.co.uk/article/12112/Shipyard-unveils-worlds-largest-crane-designed-on-digital-technology-.aspx

[phunk]

3. ?? If it is not aligned, there is no impact. If it is aligned, it evidently favours an impact, ... but it is not aligned. No impact = no initiation = nothing serious will happen. Easier to model? Look at the videos and model according to them.


How could there possibly be no impact? Did the upper block slide 200+ feet to the side before it started to fall?

[einsteen]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1632947dbe85f60a84.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=11262)

The columns of the upper block do not impact the columns of the lower block. The upper columns fall INSIDE of the upper blocks.

...

The upper columns can (and did) easily punch through the floor slab and continue downwards.

This is impossible to model mathematically. Which is why Bazant chose to use a column to column impact which gives the structure the largest possible resistance to vertical collapse.


I guess you ment "The upper columns fall INSIDE of the lower blocks".
Great picture! now rotate it 180 degrees. Then that becomes

The columns of the lower block do not impact the columns of the upper block. The lower columns fall INSIDE of the upper blocks. In other words if you assume that they finally bypass each other at collapse initiation (at that moment they are really still connected and perfectly aligned) after the drop of a story then it is trival to see that if

- the core columns of the top section destroy the concrete floor slabs of the lower remaining building

that also implies that

- the core columns of the remaining building destroy the concrete floor slabs of the top section.

I think it is no bad attempt at all but a little bit trigono shows that they will touch each other.

[Heiwa]

How could there possibly be no impact? Did the upper block slide 200+ feet to the side before it started to fall?

You have not read Nist, Bazant, Seffen & Co? Before the upper block, rigid + uniform density, starts to fall vertically, all 280+ columns in the so called initiation zone fail ... and disappear. Then the upper block falls. It takes 0.8-0.9 seconds to drop one storey = the initiation zone. Not seen on any videos, of course.

And then there is an impact. The upper block impacts the lower structure. But the upper block is neither rigid nor of uniform density. It consists of 280+ columns on which many floors are hanging. It is mostly air! The total cross area of all columns is abt 5 m² so each column has an average area of 0.017 m². Actually just thin plates 15-90 mm thick. So the columns above must impact the columns below. If they are misalligned 15-90 mm they will miss completely! Little less - they will slide off. No impact. No global collapse.

The lowest floor of the upper block - it is 4000 m² big - may drop on the uppermost floor on the lower structure ... but that is no impact. Nothing will happen according to Nist. You need to stack 6-11 floors on the top floor of the lower structure before ... the top floor drops down one storey. Not seen either on any video. And no global collapse due to that.

And none of the above is seen on any videos. On the videos we see how the upper block disintegrates before anything happens to the lower structure. WTC2 is very clear - there is a big explosion at the initiation zone tipping the upper block 20° sideways.

Some people suggest it was just one wall that collapsed in WTC2 causing this tipping but ... a second later the whole upper block of WTC2 disappears.

According Bazant and Seffen, in order for a gravity driven collapse to take place, the upper block must be intact (and have uniform density) and aligned vertically with the structure below all the time! It is this upper block, or its released energy, that destroys the lower structure, storey by storey during the collapse. The upper block should actually, at the end of the collapse remain intact on top of the rubble, according Bazant and Seffen. They forget to say that in their articles, so I have asked them to explain what happens to the upper block after collapse.

No reply of course.

BTW - the unform density of the upper block is 0.18 (tons/m3) or less than baled wool! Read my article, and you will understand how 'scientists' and civil servant engineers (Nist) are fooling the adult public ... with help from the media. Luckily they cannot fool children ... my audience.

[Heiwa]

Just for funsies, here's the worlds largest crane (http://www.eurekamagazine.co.uk/article/12112/Shipyard-unveils-worlds-largest-crane-designed-on-digital-technology-.aspx). It can only lift 20,000tons. And there's no way in hell it can lift 20,000tons over 3.7m in 6 seconds.

The crane is described in my article. It is a little bit bigger than yours.

[Heiwa]

Huh? The tower collapse started when an entire wall was pulled inwards. I go into extreme detail about that mechanism (http://http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=107267). You've seen this before. This is why the upper block leaned: one wall failed first, then others, causing one side of the tower to begin falling before the other. However the end of the the tower that falls first eventually hits the lower block. A vertical impact you might say.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1632947dbe85f60a84.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=11262)

The columns of the upper block do not impact the columns of the lower block. The upper columns fall INSIDE of the upper blocks. You previously argued they would magically fall outside, remember that? But your entire argument is that since the upper columns missed the lower columns, the collapse stops! Which is pure insanity. The upper columns can (and did) easily punch through the floor slab and continue downwards. The two-way shear capacity of a 4" thick 3000psi floor slab is about 32kips (for the laypeople, it would take a force of 32,000lb over a 14"x14" area to punch through the floor slab). This is a fraction of the compressive capacity of the columns.

This is impossible to model mathematically. Which is why Bazant chose to use a column to column impact which gives the structure the largest possible resistance to vertical collapse.

Take your fingers out of your ears. Start thinking.

Thanks for the picture. Bazant and Seffen treats the collapse in 1-D. Therefore only vertical movement down is possible. And alignment is guaranteed (by definition! 1-D). Only problem is what happens with the upper block after the collapse. It must remain ... intact.

Your picture is 2-D! Very good. You indicate a local failure on one side. Very good. The result would be that the upper part tips outside ... end of collapse. No global collapse. It actually happens rarely in certain structures that bits fall down on the outside due to local failures.

[Architect]

If they are misalligned 15-90 mm they will miss completely!

Yes! And they will hit the floors! And they will collapse! Because they are not designed to take such loads! I have explained this simply in order that children might understand.

The lowest floor of the upper block - it is 4000 m² big - may drop on the uppermost floor on the lower structure ... but that is no impact. Nothing will happen according to Nist. You need to stack 6-11 floors on the top floor of the lower structure before ... the top floor drops down one storey. Not seen either on any video. And no global collapse due to that.

This is wrong! See our previous posts!

And none of the above is seen on any videos. On the videos we see how the upper block disintegrates before anything happens to the lower structure. WTC2 is very clear - there is a big explosion at the initiation zone tipping the upper block 20° sideways.

This is wrong! See our previous posts!

Some people suggest it was just one wall that collapsed in WTC2 causing this tipping but ... a second later the whole upper block of WTC2 disappears.

Yes! What is your point!

No reply of course.

Yes! This is simple! It is because you are mad!


BTW - the unform density of the upper block is 0.18 (tons/m3) or less than baled wool! Read my article, and you will understand how 'scientists' and civil servant engineers (Nist) are fooling the adult public


Yes! The whole world is wrong except you, Sun-tze! I must follow you! Now, stand here whilst I drop 33,000t of baled wool on your head! It will not hurt, the density is low!

Luckily they cannot fool children ... my audience.

I think they will stick with Lazytown and Noddy! Yes!

[Architect]

Very good. The result would be that the upper part tips outside ... end of collapse. No global collapse. It actually happens rarely in certain structures that bits fall down on the outside due to local failures.

Do you understand the meaning of the term "complete bollocks"?

:eek:

[Heiwa]

A statement of his was added to the record by a committee witness. See here (http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/Trans/hpw105-45.000/hpw105-45_0.HTM#3), p. 8. That may qualify as "testifying" using the US Congress's definition, even if not under the everyday definition.

Whatever, my oil tanker design, approved by all member nations of the United Nations International Maritime Organization and becoming part of international law September 1997 (protection of the maritime environment) (except USA that had to withdraw from the complete law (Marpol I) and make their own) got the US Congress interested, so I was asked to contribute to the discussion, e.g. provide evidence (testify!) that my design is as good as stated. According the the US law (OPA 90), the US administration (USCG) should in fact check the claims and report to the Secretary of Transport, and if found correct, it would be allowed according to the US law. But no such checks were ever made by the USCG. Not interested in the protection of the maritime environment? Or corrupt? Or incompetent? Or just lazy? Or a combination?

It could be added that the design is made of steel - put in the right position of course - and will not globally collapse if you hit it by another big tanker, say 150 000 tons or run it aground! Just local failures ... and minimal oil spills. Much better than the OPA90 designs that may actually collapse when the outer hull is damaged and the inner hull drops down due to lack of support.

[Heiwa]

Do you understand the meaning of the term "complete bollocks"?

:eek:

Pls use layman's terms. Topic is tower collapse issues.

[Architect]

Pls use layman's terms. Topic is tower collapse issues.

I can't be the only one that finds this stundie-worthy, can I?

[Newtons Bit]

I can't be the only one that finds this stundie-worthy, can I?

You're not.

[DGM]

We get it Heiwa, The USG doesn't adopt your tanker design so 9/11 has to be an inside job. Enough said, all of your posts make sense now.

[Architect]

But btw, "testify" doesn't mean what you think it means.

[Myriad]

It could be added that the design is made of steel - put in the right position of course - and will not globally collapse if you hit it by another big tanker, say 150 000 tons or run it aground! Just local failures ... and minimal oil spills. Much better than the OPA90 designs that may actually collapse when the outer hull is damaged and the inner hull drops down due to lack of support.


I bet it would collapse if you stood it on end, loaded it with 11,000 tons of evenly distributed paper and flammable office furnishings, and then crashed a jetliner into it.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[tanabear]

According Bazant and Seffen, in order for a gravity driven collapse to take place, the upper block must be intact (and have uniform density) and aligned vertically with the structure below all the time! It is this upper block, or its released energy, that destroys the lower structure, storey by storey during the collapse. The upper block should actually, at the end of the collapse remain intact on top of the rubble, according Bazant and Seffen. They forget to say that in their articles, so I have asked them to explain what happens to the upper block after collapse.



In Bazant's latest paper (http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf) he discusses the "crush up" phase as well, which explains why the upper block is not found on top of the debris.

[stateofgrace]

Let me get this straight.

Heiwa’s theory is that the upper section of WTC 2 should have either bounced off or slide off after it became dynamic because the external columns did not fall squarely on the external columns below. Furthermore it totally missed the floors that braced the inner core to the external columns. A massive explosion in the impact zone started the fall but they then staged another massive explosion in the upper section which then totally disintegrated so none of it hit anything. Further prove of this based on the fact that the upper section was not found fully intact at the bottom of the tower when the dust had settled.

Is that what you believe happened Heiwa?

If you do, please tell me how much explosives would be needed to produce such an event. Ta

[phunk]

You have not read Nist, Bazant, Seffen & Co? Before the upper block, rigid + uniform density, starts to fall vertically, all 280+ columns in the so called initiation zone fail ... and disappear. Then the upper block falls. It takes 0.8-0.9 seconds to drop one storey = the initiation zone. Not seen on any videos, of course.


That misinterpretation is your first mistake. The columns do not disapear, they lose their load bearing capacity. They simply fail to hold up the upper block anymore. They either slip out of alignment with the columns below them, or buckle. Either way, they go from holding up the upper block, to not holding it up, in a very short period of time. It's called progressive collapse. I can see why you'd have problems with the theory if you think that nist, bazant, etc are just assuming they go away magically.

And then there is an impact. The upper block impacts the lower structure. But the upper block is neither rigid nor of uniform density. It consists of 280+ columns on which many floors are hanging. It is mostly air! The total cross area of all columns is abt 5 m² so each column has an average area of 0.017 m². Actually just thin plates 15-90 mm thick. So the columns above must impact the columns below. If they are misalligned 15-90 mm they will miss completely! Little less - they will slide off. No impact. No global collapse.
I still don't understand where you think the columns go when they miss the columns below them. If they miss, then they go between the columns and destroy the framework. Missing the columns below means a better chance of collapse, not worse. Those columns are the only thing that could possible stop the upper block from falling (through the building below, not over the edge).


The lowest floor of the upper block - it is 4000 m² big - may drop on the uppermost floor on the lower structure ... but that is no impact.

What wierd definition of impact are you using? What you described, the upper floor dropping onto the lower, is the very definition of impact.

Nothing will happen according to Nist. You need to stack 6-11 floors on the top floor of the lower structure before ... the top floor drops down one storey. Not seen either on any video. And no global collapse due to that.

You don't need to stack 6-11 floors on there. The weight of the entire upper block is dropping onto it. None of the floors in building were designed to have that kind of mass DROPPED onto them.

And none of the above is seen on any videos. On the videos we see how the upper block disintegrates before anything happens to the lower structure.

I don't see that, are we watching the same videos? What can be clearly seen is that the upper and lower sections are both breaking apart in the impact zone.

WTC2 is very clear - there is a big explosion at the initiation zone tipping the upper block 20° sideways.

There was no explosion. There was dust & smoke expelled from the building as it began to collapse.

Some people suggest it was just one wall that collapsed in WTC2 causing this tipping but ... a second later the whole upper block of WTC2 disappears.

One wall did fail before the rest, that's why it tipped. But the upper block doesn't disapear, it collapses through the lower block and is quickly obscured by smoke & dust.


According Bazant and Seffen, in order for a gravity driven collapse to take place, the upper block must be intact (and have uniform density) and aligned vertically with the structure below all the time! It is this upper block, or its released energy, that destroys the lower structure, storey by storey during the collapse. The upper block should actually, at the end of the collapse remain intact on top of the rubble, according Bazant and Seffen. They forget to say that in their articles, so I have asked them to explain what happens to the upper block after collapse.

You've completely misinterpreted their paper. The upper block does not have to remain intact and aligned. They chose to test that because that is the case LEAST likely to collapse, and the results show that even that case can't resist collapse. The upper block breaking apart or coming out of alignment makes it more likely to collapse, because it takes the load off of the only thing that can hold it, the columns, and puts it onto the floors and into the framework where there is no capacity to hold it up.

No reply of course.

BTW - the unform density of the upper block is 0.18 (tons/m3) or less than baled wool! Read my article, and you will understand how 'scientists' and civil servant engineers (Nist) are fooling the adult public ... with help from the media. Luckily they cannot fool children ... my audience.

Unless it's low enough density to be bouyant in air, it doesn't matter. What matters is the weight and where it is applied to the structure below.

[einsteen]

According Bazant and Seffen, in order for a gravity driven collapse to take place, the upper block must be intact (and have uniform density) and aligned vertically with the structure below all the time! It is this upper block, or its released energy, that destroys the lower structure, storey by storey during the collapse. The upper block should actually, at the end of the collapse remain intact on top of the rubble, according Bazant and Seffen. They forget to say that in their articles, so I have asked them to explain what happens to the upper block after collapse.

No reply of course.

In Greening's (much more readable) paper it is better to understand the process, he uses a so-called 1st stage of collapse (Bazant: crush-down) and then a 2nd stage of collapse (Bazant: crush-up). When the top sections hits the ground then it will simply cave in quickly. In mechanics of progressive collapse there are some pictures at the end. I remember they estimated that about 20% of mass fell outside the footprint, I can't remember if they took into account the top section's mass.

[Heiwa]

Let me get this straight.

Heiwa’s theory is that the upper section of WTC 2 should have either bounced off or slide off after it became dynamic because the external columns did not fall squarely on the external columns below. Furthermore it totally missed the floors that braced the inner core to the external columns. A massive explosion in the impact zone started the fall but they then staged another massive explosion in the upper section which then totally disintegrated so none of it hit anything. Further prove of this based on the fact that the upper section was not found fully intact at the bottom of the tower when the dust had settled.

Is that what you believe happened Heiwa?

If you do, please tell me how much explosives would be needed to produce such an event. Ta

Read my article - and you will find that it is about gravity collapse in layman's terms and that the conclusion is that gravity force alone could not cause the collapse. The upper block, flexible and with non-uniform density, mostly air, would then only get entangled in the lower structure below the local failures in the fire zoe. No free fall, no impact, no shock wave ... and no global collapse due to PE>SE.

[stateofgrace]

Read my article - and you will find that it is about gravity collapse in layman's terms and that the conclusion is that gravity force alone could not cause the collapse. The upper block, flexible and with non-uniform density, mostly air, would then only get entangled in the lower structure below the local failures in the fire zoe. No free fall, no impact, no shock wave ... and no global collapse due to PE>SE.

I've read your posts about your article, now please answer the questions posted about your theory.

How much explosives would be needed to produce the event you believe happened?

Also you now say the upper block should have got entangled please make up your mind. Should it have bounced off, slide off or got entangled?

I will keep repeating the same questions about your theory until you offer up full and comprehensive answers.

[Heiwa]

1. That misinterpretation is your first mistake. The columns do not disapear, they lose their load bearing capacity. They simply fail to hold up the upper block anymore. They either slip out of alignment with the columns below them, or buckle. Either way, they go from holding up the upper block, to not holding it up, in a very short period of time. It's called progressive collapse. I can see why you'd have problems with the theory if you think that nist, bazant, etc are just assuming they go away magically.


2. I still don't understand where you think the columns go when they miss the columns below them. If they miss, then they go between the columns and destroy the framework. Missing the columns below means a better chance of collapse, not worse. Those columns are the only thing that could possible stop the upper block from falling (through the building below, not over the edge).


3. What wierd definition of impact are you using? What you described, the upper floor dropping onto the lower, is the very definition of impact.

4. You don't need to stack 6-11 floors on there. The weight of the entire upper block is dropping onto it. None of the floors in building were designed to have that kind of mass DROPPED onto them.

5. I don't see that, are we watching the same videos? What can be clearly seen is that the upper and lower sections are both breaking apart in the impact zone.

6. There was no explosion. There was dust & smoke expelled from the building as it began to collapse.

7. One wall did fail before the rest, that's why it tipped. But the upper block doesn't disapear, it collapses through the lower block and is quickly obscured by smoke & dust.


8. You've completely misinterpreted their paper. The upper block does not have to remain intact and aligned. They chose to test that because that is the case LEAST likely to collapse, and the results show that even that case can't resist collapse. The upper block breaking apart or coming out of alignment makes it more likely to collapse, because it takes the load off of the only thing that can hold it, the columns, and puts it onto the floors and into the framework where there is no capacity to hold it up.


9. Unless it's low enough density to be bouyant in air, it doesn't matter. What matters is the weight and where it is applied to the structure below.

1. Free fall and impact imply that the supports (the 280+ load bearing columns) disappear instantaneously in the fire zone. I would have expected gradual deformation of the supports due to heat/fire and no free fall/impact and that the columns, still connected to the upper block and lower structure would dampen any movement and get entangled in the lower structure, i.e. no sudden release of PE, no enormous velocity, etc.

2. See 1. I would expect the failed columns still to be connected both ends. Only IF they sheared off both ends - in order to support Bazant, Seffen - I would expect that they will never meet again.

3. An impact is a force exerted by one object when striking against another. If a 4000 m² large upper floor strikes against another 4000 m² large floor below, it is only the upper floor that strikes! Not the 15-20 other floors above. The weight of the other floors above is being transmitted to the columns ... that strike nothing.

4. See 3. No, it is only one floor involved.

5. ?? Evidently the upper block cannot disappear or get damaged prior local failures occur in the fire/heat zone below. Same with the structure below the fire/heat zone. Time for the upper block to free fall one storey is 0.8-0.9 seconds ... and is not seen on any video. And after these 0.8-0.9 seconds the lowest floor of the upper block is supposed to impact the uppermost floor of the structure below. Do you see that on any video? OK, smoke and dust are ejected (between intact wall columns)! Is that when the lowest floor of the upper block drops down? Nothing else has happened above?

6. So why was smoke/dust ejected? Floor dropping down?

7. So a complete wall section failed first and the upper block tipped? And then the floor dropped down only on that side? OK! So the smoke and dust were mainly ejected on the side where the wall failed! On the other hand I see big amounts of smoke and dust on the opposite side.

8. No, Bazant/Seffen treat problem in 1-D that does not allow any elastic deformations anywhere. Everything is supposed to be rigid except at the crush front (one storey) where brittle fractures or something occur - not very clear actually from their papers - ripping columns apart like spaghetti. And when the crush front arrives at ground ... the upper block (rigid, uniform density) should just stop there. It was the gravity force of the upper block - always intact - that was driving the crush front to ground.

9. Uniform density, particularly of the upper block, is a basic assumption by Bazant/Seffen in their 1-D analysises. It suits them fine. But has nothing to do with reality. See 1.

Thanks phunk for good comments that really clarify topic.

[Heiwa]

I've read your posts about your article, now please answer the questions posted about your theory.

1. How much explosives would be needed to produce the event you believe happened?

2. Also you now say the upper block should have got entangled please make up your mind. Should it have bounced off, slide off or got entangled?

I will keep repeating the same questions about your theory until you offer up full and comprehensive answers.

Here follows answers in layman's terms.

1. No idea! Not part of my article. Doesn't interest me actually.

2. When local failures occur in 3-D beam steel structures (with some components concrete/steel), the intact parts then get entangled in one another (no global collapse). If free fall/impact occur, as suggested by Nist, Bazant, Seffen (280+ columns failing!), I would expect, assuming perfect impact (relevant parts of upper block actually make contact with relevant parts of lower block), that there would be a bump, i.e. the upper block free fall would end, the lower structure would compress, some local failures may occur due overload, ... and that's it. Of course, the lower structure would decompress and push back the upper block a little. But I doubt perfect impact would occur due slipping off and misalignment of upper block/lower structure columns. Then the upper block structure would just get entangled in the lower structure. Evidently an upper block full of air cannot drive a gravity collapse! It is not a solid, rigid upper block we are talking about.

[stateofgrace]

Here follows answers in layman's terms.

1. No idea! Not part of my article. Doesn't interest me actually.

2. When local failures occur in 3-D beam steel structures (with some components concrete/steel), the intact parts then get entangled in one another (no global collapse). If free fall/impact occur, as suggested by Nist, Bazant, Seffen (280+ columns failing!), I would expect, assumingperfect impact (relevant parts of upper block actually make contact with relevant parts of lower block), that there would be a bump, i.e. the upper block free fall would end, the lower structure would compress, some local failures may occur due overload, ... and that's it. Of course, the lower structure would decompress and push back the upper block a little. But I doubt perfect impact would occur due slipping off and misalignment of upper block/lower structure columns. Then the upper block structure would just get entangled in the lower structure. Evidently an upper block full of air cannot drive a gravity collapse! It is not a solid, rigid upper block we are talking about.


You have no idea?

Please allow me to give you options.

1. A massive explosion caused the upper block that weighed in at 33000 tons to actually start moving.
2. A second enormous explosion totally disintegrated the 33000 ton upper block.
3. Further explosions occurred to ensure the collapse took place.

Now,how much explosives, in layman’s terms if you wish, do you think that would take?

a. A little bit
b. Quite a bit
c. A lot.
d. An enormous amount
e. So much so that not only would everybody in New York have heard it but so would the rest of the planet, as the event was being broadcast live.

Any idea yet,Hiewa? Please take give me your laymans opinion.

You second point is the same rubbish you have been spouting for the last ten pages and requires zero comment, it speaks for itself.

[phunk]

1. Free fall and impact imply that the supports (the 280+ load bearing columns) disappear instantaneously in the fire zone. I would have expected gradual deformation of the supports due to heat/fire and no free fall/impact and that the columns, still connected to the upper block and lower structure would dampen any movement and get entangled in the lower structure, i.e. no sudden release of PE, no enormous velocity, etc.

2. See 1. I would expect the failed columns still to be connected both ends. Only IF they sheared off both ends - in order to support Bazant, Seffen - I would expect that they will never meet again.


You seem to be suggesting that while they deform, they retain their load bearing capacity. In reality, when a column buckles, once it gets past a certain point it's failure will rapidly accelerate. And your use of the word 'simultaneously' seems to imply that you don't understand progressive collapse. Generally, a progressive collapse starts slowly, with columns slowing deforming as you suggest above. But as each column loses it's load bearing capacity, the load on the remaining structure increases, so the remaining columns each fail faster than the previous ones. The result is a structure slowly losing its integrity, possibly with little visible from the outside, until it reaches a threshold where the remaining columns fail very rapidly. This was seen in all 3 WTC collapses. In 1 & 2, the columns of the outer walls could be seen slowly bowing inward until they reached the threshold and failed, at which point the rest of the structure at that level was quickly overwhelmed and failed. The fact that the upper block tilted shows that it was not 280 simultaneous failures, but a progressive failure starting on the side that buckled first and progressed towards the opposite side where the 'pivot' was.


3. An impact is a force exerted by one object when striking against another. If a 4000 m² large upper floor strikes against another 4000 m² large floor below, it is only the upper floor that strikes! Not the 15-20 other floors above. The weight of the other floors above is being transmitted to the columns ... that strike nothing.


The weight of the other 15-20 floors does not magically disapear. Like you said, it is being transmitted to the columns. If the upper block is moving, the whole thing has momentum and whatever those columns impact will have to absorb the impact of most of the structure, not just the lowest floor. It is completely impossible for them to 'strike nothing'.


4. See 3. No, it is only one floor involved.

And the rest magically levitating above?

5. ?? Evidently the upper block cannot disappear or get damaged prior local failures occur in the fire/heat zone below. Same with the structure below the fire/heat zone. Time for the upper block to free fall one storey is 0.8-0.9 seconds ... and is not seen on any video. And after these 0.8-0.9 seconds the lowest floor of the upper block is supposed to impact the uppermost floor of the structure below. Do you see that on any video? OK, smoke and dust are ejected (between intact wall columns)! Is that when the lowest floor of the upper block drops down? Nothing else has happened above?


How do you expect to see the actual impact? You can only see the outer facade of the buildings, which is immediately obscured by dust & smoke as soon as the upper block begins to move downward.

6. So why was smoke/dust ejected? Floor dropping down?

Yes, the upper block dropping causes the ejections. As the upper block moves downward, the inside volume of the building decreases. Air pressure rises, and the smoke/dust is blown out whatever openings it can find, which is the already broken facade from the plane crash, and the remaining windows that are destroyed in the initial collapse zone as soon as movement begins.

7. So a complete wall section failed first and the upper block tipped? And then the floor dropped down only on that side? OK! So the smoke and dust were mainly ejected on the side where the wall failed! On the other hand I see big amounts of smoke and dust on the opposite side.

See my answer to 1 & 2. The floor didn't only drop on that side. That side fell a fraction of a second before the other side, as proven by the tilt of the upper block. The smoke and dust were ejected wherever there were openings. Air pressure changes transmit at the speed of sound, the whole floor overpressurized at once.

8. No, Bazant/Seffen treat problem in 1-D that does not allow any elastic deformations anywhere. Everything is supposed to be rigid except at the crush front (one storey) where brittle fractures or something occur - not very clear actually from their papers - ripping columns apart like spaghetti. And when the crush front arrives at ground ... the upper block (rigid, uniform density) should just stop there. It was the gravity force of the upper block - always intact - that was driving the crush front to ground.

Again, rigidity would hamper the progression of the collapse, not aid it. The mass doesn't change if the upper block is in 1 piece or 10000, only the impact duration. But if the upper block disintegrates, you have a different problem, where all of the mass of the upper block is no longer supported by the only thing that could hold it, the columns, and instead is overloading the floors and the non load-bearing members of the structure. Had there only been a 'crush up' with no 'crush down', then the result would have been a pancake collapse once enough of the upper block piled onto the top floor of the lower block.

9. Uniform density, particularly of the upper block, is a basic assumption by Bazant/Seffen in their 1-D analysises. It suits them fine. But has nothing to do with reality. See 1.

It's a valid simplification. Reality can not be duplicated, you can only create models that approximate it.


Thanks phunk for good comments that really clarify topic.

You're welcome!

[Architect]

Ah phunk, he's toying with your affections. You'll be on the scrapheap with me and NB soon, and the Daves, you just wait and see......

[Heiwa]

1. You seem to be suggesting that while they deform, they retain their load bearing capacity. In reality, when a column buckles, once it gets past a certain point it's failure will rapidly accelerate. And your use of the word 'simultaneously' seems to imply that you don't understand progressive collapse. Generally, a progressive collapse starts slowly, with columns slowing deforming as you suggest above. But as each column loses it's load bearing capacity, the load on the remaining structure increases, so the remaining columns each fail faster than the previous ones. The result is a structure slowly losing its integrity, possibly with little visible from the outside, until it reaches a threshold where the remaining columns fail very rapidly. This was seen in all 3 WTC collapses. In 1 & 2, the columns of the outer walls could be seen slowly bowing inward until they reached the threshold and failed, at which point the rest of the structure at that level was quickly overwhelmed and failed. The fact that the upper block tilted shows that it was not 280 simultaneous failures, but a progressive failure starting on the side that buckled first and progressed towards the opposite side where the 'pivot' was.

2. The weight of the other 15-20 floors does not magically disapear. Like you said, it is being transmitted to the columns. If the upper block is moving, the whole thing has momentum and whatever those columns impact will have to absorb the impact of most of the structure, not just the lowest floor. It is completely impossible for them to 'strike nothing'.


3. And the rest magically levitating above?


4. How do you expect to see the actual impact? You can only see the outer facade of the buildings, which is immediately obscured by dust & smoke as soon as the upper block begins to move downward.

5. Yes, the upper block dropping causes the ejections. As the upper block moves downward, the inside volume of the building decreases. Air pressure rises, and the smoke/dust is blown out whatever openings it can find, which is the already broken facade from the plane crash, and the remaining windows that are destroyed in the initial collapse zone as soon as movement begins.

6. See my answer to 1 & 2. The floor didn't only drop on that side. That side fell a fraction of a second before the other side, as proven by the tilt of the upper block. The smoke and dust were ejected wherever there were openings. Air pressure changes transmit at the speed of sound, the whole floor overpressurized at once.

7. Again, rigidity would hamper the progression of the collapse, not aid it. The mass doesn't change if the upper block is in 1 piece or 10000, only the impact duration. But if the upper block disintegrates, you have a different problem, where all of the mass of the upper block is no longer supported by the only thing that could hold it, the columns, and instead is overloading the floors and the non load-bearing members of the structure. Had there only been a 'crush up' with no 'crush down', then the result would have been a pancake collapse once enough of the upper block piled onto the top floor of the lower block.

8. It's a valid simplification. Reality can not be duplicated, you can only create models that approximate it.

You're welcome!

1. According my calculations the primary structure will not bucklebend below yield stress. It means that they will fail when they are being plastically deformed at a stress above yield. But the stresses are very low! <30% yield at ambient temperature. Heating them will reduce the yield stress but not much. So I query the whole sequence, local failures of primary structure (columns) in the fire/heat zone, progressive collapse of remaining primary structure in the same area. It is not seen on any videos.

2. The upper floors of the upper block do not participate in the impact (if it occurs)!!! They are hanging on the columns, etc. There are many elastic connections. Regard the upper block as a rubber ball (full of air, not solid, not rigid, no uniform density) being dropped on a floor. Only a small part of the ball 'impacts' and the other parts are deformed, etc. And then there is a bounce. Most PE of the ball is consumed deforming itself ... after the impact.
Nist & Co assumes the upper block is SOLID and that it transmits all its PE to the lower structure ... at every storey. Big difference!

3. See 2 above. But yes ... they are still hanging in the air. Not participating in the impact.

4. Between local failures start and impact there is 0.9 seconds of free fall time. Just watch the videos of that time ... if you can find the starting time and the impact time. You won't - because there is no free fall!

5. All windows appear broken in the 'drop zone'. It has 4000 m² floor area. Height 3.7 m. Thus volume 14 800 m3 (forgetting furniture, etc). Drop time 0.9 seconds. How big are all openings - windows, lift shafts, in the drop zone? Say 700 m². So the air/smoke will be ejected at an average velcocity of 24 m/s. Not very big. And dust? No impact has yet taken place. There is no dust. I would only expect som smoke puffs. Not the squibs being seen far below a second later, big dust clouds, etc. Too much dust and squibs, too quickly. Gravity alone does not produce it!

6. See 5. Speed of sound? Gravity is taking its time at much lower speed.

7. ?? As there is no free fall, no impact, gravity would only entangle the upper block parts in the lower structure. The upper block would be supported, all the time! , by the lower structure.

8. It is not a valid simplification. It is much, much worse. Reality is quite easy to duplicate with proper calculations, simulations and model tests. Nist's PE>SE is just plain stupid.

[Heiwa]

You have no idea?

Please allow me to give you options.

1. A massive explosion caused the upper block that weighed in at 33000 tons to actually start moving.
2. A second enormous explosion totally disintegrated the 33000 ton upper block.
3. Further explosions occurred to ensure the collapse took place.

Now,how much explosives, in layman’s terms if you wish, do you think that would take?

a. A little bit
b. Quite a bit
c. A lot.
d. An enormous amount
e. So much so that not only would everybody in New York have heard it but so would the rest of the planet, as the event was being broadcast live.

Any idea yet,Hiewa? Please take give me your laymans opinion.

You second point is the same rubbish you have been spouting for the last ten pages and requires zero comment, it speaks for itself.

Layman's opinion? I simply explain in layman's terms in my article for children and contributions to JREF that gravity force alone cannot produce the destruction/tower collapse of the WTCs. And a crop of bigoted zealots ready to work untold horror in the interests of some narrow creed objects! No problem with me. I know that such fanaticisms are largely due to hate. They have a problem I am glad that I do not have.

[Architect]

Layman's opinion? I simply explain in layman's terms in my article for children and contributions to JREF that gravity force alone cannot produce the destruction/tower collapse of the WTCs. And a crop of bigoted zealots ready to work untold horror in the interests of some narrow creed objects! No problem with me. I know that such fanaticisms are largely due to hate. They have a problem I am glad that I do not have.

Firstly, that's gibberish.

More pertinently, you have been challenged time and time again to post substantive calculations demonstrating the structural issues behind your argument. You have consistently failed to do so, either ignoring points put to you or spuriously claiming that they have been so phrased "for children".

We are not children. We are engineers. We are architects. Let us see your calculations. Let us see your rough working. Make your case to us in proper, professional terms.

Either put up, or shut up.

[Architect]

For those who haven't delved into Heiwa's other CT fantasy, the sinking of the Estonia (note to Merikans; the ship, not the country), here's some authors complaining about his lack of clarity and so on:

http://www.safety-at-sea.co.uk/mvestonia/downloads/VIES01-RE-001-AJ-e.pdf

[X]

... and no global collapse due to PE>SE.


Shouldn't that read "KE", not "PE"?

I mean, the thing was moving. Motion = kinetic energy.

[stateofgrace]

Layman's opinion? I simply explain in layman's terms in my article for children and contributions to JREF that gravity force alone cannot produce the destruction/tower collapse of the WTCs. And a crop of bigoted zealots ready to work untold horror in the interests of some narrow creed objects! No problem with me. I know that such fanaticisms are largely due to hate. They have a problem I am glad that I do not have.

I am sorry I forgot to give you option f.

Option f. Reply with words that have no meaning, make even less sense and hope that nobody notices I have completely dodged the question.

Again.

You have stated that an enormous explosion took place in the initiation zone. You have stated that the upper section of the lower completely missed the lower sections because it was totally disintegrated. The only way collapse can continue under this scenario is with a controlled demolition. You have stated that a gravity driven collapse is impossible because the upper portion was filled with air and completely missed the lower portion.

Now, take a deep breath, relax and tell me how much explosives would have to be used for your theory to work.

A little bit.
Quite a bit.
A lot.
An enormous amount.
An amount so massive it would have been impossible for anybody to miss it.Please try to refrain from option f, as it is no longer an option. I look forward to your expert opinion.

[Heiwa]

For those who haven't delved into Heiwa's other CT fantasy, the sinking of the Estonia (note to Merikans; the ship, not the country), here's some authors complaining about his lack of clarity and so on:

http://www.safety-at-sea.co.uk/mvestonia/downloads/VIES01-RE-001-AJ-e.pdf

OT but more clearly and better described at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/news.htm . It will be updated after 3 April 2008.
One of my innocent occupations to improve safety at sea. If something good will come of doing so, we will see then.

[Heiwa]

I am sorry I forgot to give you option f.

Option f. Reply with words that have no meaning, make even less sense and hope that nobody notices I have completely dodged the question.

Again.

You have stated that an enormous explosion took place in the initiation zone. You have stated that the upper section of the lower completely missed the lower sections because it was totally disintegrated. The only way collapse can continue under this scenario is with a controlled demolition. You have stated that a gravity driven collapse is impossible because the upper portion was filled with air and completely missed the lower portion.

Now, take a deep breath, relax and tell me how much explosives would have to be used for your theory to work.

A little bit.
Quite a bit.
A lot.
An enormous amount.
An amount so massive it would have been impossible for anybody to miss it.Please try to refrain from option f, as it is no longer an option. I look forward to your expert opinion.

OK - g! An amount so massive it would be possible for anybody to miss it unless you, like me, know the physics involved.

[stateofgrace]

OK - g! An amount so massive it would be possible for anybody to miss it unless you, like me, know the physics involved.

Really?

So everybody missed the enormous explosion in impact zone and the enormous explosion that completly disintegrated 33000 ton of building?

Why do you think that is?

[stateofgrace]

OK - g! An amount so massive it would be possible for anybody to miss it unless you, like me, know the physics involved.
Heiwa, I have revisited this thread and wish to be absolutely clear on your theory.

Just so I get this absolutely correct, please allow me to summarise it as I see it.

A massive explosion took place inside the impact zone that caused the remaining external columns and inner core to give way. As the massive static weight above became dynamic and started to fall, another massive explosion occurred which resulted in the total disintegration of 33,000 tons of building. It then follows that a top down demolition occurred by further explosives. This occurred in the centre of New York, in broad day light with the world’s media in attendance. Nobody noticed these massive explosions, except you, who looked at a video, years later.

Doesn’t this seem slightly odd to you?

[ElMondoHummus]

...the sinking of the Estonia (note to Merikans; the ship, not the country)...

Gee, thanks for clarifying. I was about to Google a map, just to make sure it didn't pull an Atlantis!

:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:boggled::p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p

[padragan]

Ok... first of all, I'm a computer geek with very limited knowledge of design of large buildings, but from the sideline it is VERY obvious who is running from hard questions and who seems to know what they talk about (hint, the answer to one of those is HEIWA and it is not the second one).

Anyway, one thing that puzzles me greatly is why Heiwa is constantly using density in his reasoning, so I thought of an example to prove my point.

Imagine that we extended one of the towers by by 20 or 30 stories, simply by adding plastic tent walls and roof. That is, we would have a block above the impact zone with basicly the same mass as the real case, but obviously the density would be MUCH smaller, since we have so much more space.

So, the questions (and I'd appreciate answers from Heiwa as well as real professionals):

1. Would the plastic extension make a difference? Would the impact be more gentle because of the density issue?

If YES then:

2a: Could that be used as a principal of strengthening buildings in the future to prevent collapses?

If NO then:

2b. If the extension wouldn't affect the collapse, why shold the density in the real case be of any consequence? Isn't mass the only thing that actually matters?

[Architect]

Padragan

No the plastic extension would make very little difference as it would add little mass to the building. And you're right, density isn't an issue but rather mass, design loads, and load paths during the collapse sequence.

I did rather like the way you put it in layman's terms....

[Heiwa]

Heiwa, I have revisited this thread and wish to be absolutely clear on your theory.

Just so I get this absolutely correct, please allow me to summarise it as I see it.

A massive explosion took place inside the impact zone that caused the remaining external columns and inner core to give way. As the massive static weight above became dynamic and started to fall, another massive explosion occurred which resulted in the total disintegration of 33,000 tons of building. It then follows that a top down demolition occurred by further explosives. This occurred in the centre of New York, in broad day light with the world’s media in attendance. Nobody noticed these massive explosions, except you, who looked at a video, years later.

Doesn’t this seem slightly odd to you?

You have apparently not read my article about why gravity force alone cannot globally collapse a multiparts steel structure? I do not speculate about what really caused the WTC collapses, only conclude gravity force alone (PE=KE>SE) cannot do it.
One mystery is the WTC1 upper block telescoping into itself prior any damage occurs in the structure below the fire/heat zone. The upper block and its PE is supposed to be intact before, during and after the complete collapse. The collapse is supposed to start with the lower structure being crumpled due to gravity force.
Another mystery is that the wall columns in the fire/heat zone (except those cut earlier where you can see two persons looking out) are intact, when smoke and dust are ejected some seconds later. Very strange! Was only the core collapsing? Why?
One thing is certain. The vertical core columns were massive and very strong. To just bend one (I have not seen any) and then cut it off (many examples seen) requires plenty of force, work and energy applied at the right locations. Gravity force does not work like that. It slips off. So you need something else. And it need not cause a massive explosion. There are many ways to cut steel without noise.

BTW - many odd things occurred on 911. But topic is tower collapse issues and gravity alone could not do it.

[Architect]

Heiwa

You have ignored post after post pointing to serious flaws in your interpretation of the building structure, of the initiation sequence, and indeed of the initiation zone. All of these undermine your case.

Likewise you have been unable, or unwilling, to post real structural calculations. I believe this is because you are unable to do so, and that references to "layman's terms" and "children's explanations" are a crude attempt to disguise this.

Now, put up or shut up.

[Heiwa]

Ok... first of all, I'm a computer geek with very limited knowledge of design of large buildings, but from the sideline it is VERY obvious who is running from hard questions and who seems to know what they talk about (hint, the answer to one of those is HEIWA and it is not the second one).

Anyway, one thing that puzzles me greatly is why Heiwa is constantly using density in his reasoning, so I thought of an example to prove my point.

Imagine that we extended one of the towers by by 20 or 30 stories, simply by adding plastic tent walls and roof. That is, we would have a block above the impact zone with basicly the same mass as the real case, but obviously the density would be MUCH smaller, since we have so much more space.

So, the questions (and I'd appreciate answers from Heiwa as well as real professionals):

1. Would the plastic extension make a difference? Would the impact be more gentle because of the density issue?

If YES then:

2a: Could that be used as a principal of strengthening buildings in the future to prevent collapses?

If NO then:

2b. If the extension wouldn't affect the collapse, why shold the density in the real case be of any consequence? Isn't mass the only thing that actually matters?

Density? According Bazant/Seffen uniform density of the complete upper block is a basic requirement for gravity driven collapse by the same upper block of structure below. Apart from it being rigid and solid and intact all the time. It simplifies the math, we are told.

Putting up a plastic extension will evidently not change anything. Does not sound either solid or rigid :) .

The upper WTC1 block has a volume of 183 000 m3, weight about 33 000 tons and thus uniform density of 0.18 tons/m3 (like baled wool).

If the volume of the upper block was only 64 m3, e.g. a block 4 x 4 x 4 metres the uniform density would be ... 516 tons/m3.

Now, if you drop this latter block/mass (33 000 tons) on floor 95 of WTC1, what happens? Global collapse? Or a 16 m² hole through the building? Probably the latter. And the block is probably intact after cutting this hole through 95 floors.

The reason is that the block was only applied to the floor.

But according to Bazant/Seffen math the 64 m3 solid block (33 000 tons) would cause global collapse! But it didn't. Only a hole.

So mass didn't matter either?

So there must be a hole in the Bazant's/Seffen's math!

Or does the scientists mean that the upper mass must be uniformly applied to the lower structure? As explained earlier it is only 8.25 tons/m². But how would you do that? The upper block can never apply a uniform pressure on the lower structure. Etc, etc.

[einsteen]

Probably that hole would be in all floors down and the building loses its stability and the tower is doomed, there is always a debunk workaround Heiwa, think about it!

I don't know whether the uniform density is a requirement, I always thought it was a simplification in order to setup differential equations to describe the non uniform mass distribution, because everyone knows a uniform structure cannot crush down and collect mass on its way down.

[Architect]

Now, if you drop this latter block/mass (33 000 tons) on floor 95 of WTC1, what happens? Global collapse? Or a 16 m² hole through the building? Probably the latter. And the block is probably intact after cutting this hole through 95 floors.
.

And where, pray, do you get a 4x4m/16m2 hole from. Does the upper portion compress by a massive factor as well as magically slide off?

[padragan]

Density? According Bazant/Seffen uniform density of the complete upper block is a basic requirement for gravity driven collapse by the same upper block of structure below. Apart from it being rigid and solid and intact all the time. It simplifies the math, we are told.

Putting up a plastic extension will evidently not change anything. Does not sound either solid or rigid :) .

The upper WTC1 block has a volume of 183 000 m3, weight about 33 000 tons and thus uniform density of 0.18 tons/m3 (like baled wool).

If the volume of the upper block was only 64 m3, e.g. a block 4 x 4 x 4 metres the uniform density would be ... 516 tons/m3.

Now, if you drop this latter block/mass (33 000 tons) on floor 95 of WTC1, what happens? Global collapse? Or a 16 m² hole through the building? Probably the latter. And the block is probably intact after cutting this hole through 95 floors.

The reason is that the block was only applied to the floor.

But according to Bazant/Seffen math the 64 m3 solid block (33 000 tons) would cause global collapse! But it didn't. Only a hole.

So mass didn't matter either?

So there must be a hole in the Bazant's/Seffen's math!

Or does the scientists mean that the upper mass must be uniformly applied to the lower structure? As explained earlier it is only 8.25 tons/m². But how would you do that? The upper block can never apply a uniform pressure on the lower structure. Etc, etc.

I see that two linked questions were to hard for you to cope with... And even though you say that the extension hadn't changed anything you keep going on about the importance of density and your old worn out hay bale.

The big problem is that if your hay bale should stay any chance to survive you need to explain why density would make a difference in the real example but not with the extension.

In reality as I look at it the only thing that would matter would be:

- The mass of whatever drops
- The kinetic energy this mass can develop during the fall
- The strength of whatever is supposed to hold it up
- The size of the area that the load is distributed on
- Strength distribution (which points can best cope with the load/stress)
- The reisistance of air (which I think can be safely ignored in this case)

These are the factors that the engineers and architects in this thread have included and shown calculations about. Density is simply not a factor.

So... from the sideline it's obvious that you are wrong. Your rambling on a 64m3 block is of no use whatsoever. The area of the upper block matched the area of the lower part (duh? Same house, remember?).

[Apollo20]

Heiwa:

You just posted this comment: "One thing is certain. The vertical core columns were massive and very strong. To just bend one (I have not seen any) and then cut it off (many examples seen) requires plenty of force, work and energy applied at the right locations."

Well, you know this is NOT certain!

I would ask you to look at Figures 4.1 and 4.2 of NCSTAR 1-3C. These are photos of CORE columns from the impact zones of WTC 1 & 2. The column sections are badly bent and in one case the column has been torn, (yes torn!) in half.

Under the action of 30,000 tonnes of crushing force I guess those columns weren't so strong after all!

[Architect]

I predict more hand-waving and wanton ingoring of technical issues from our Scandanavian pal.

[ElMondoHummus]

I would ask you to look at Figures 4.1 and 4.2 of NCSTAR 1-3C. These are photos of CORE columns from the impact zones of WTC 1 & 2. The column sections are badly bent and in one case the column has been torn, (yes torn!) in half...

Just to help the poor, foolish readers (like ME!) who accidentally opened the NCSTAR 1-3C appendixes and couldn't figure out where the images were :o: The pictures Dr. Greening refers to are on pages 201 and 202 of the actual NCSTAR1-3C report. NOT the appendixes!

But in all seriousness, everyone, draw your attention to the fact that Figure 4.1 shows a pretty badly distorted column - bent and twisted around its long axis - and figure 4.2 shows one bent back on itself. Dr. Greening - and everyone else who's been commenting on this issue - has a strong point about the forces involved in the collapse.

[X]

Density? According Bazant/Seffen uniform density of the complete upper block is a basic requirement for gravity driven collapse by the same upper block of structure below. Apart from it being rigid and solid and intact all the time. It simplifies the math, we are told.

Putting up a plastic extension will evidently not change anything. Does not sound either solid or rigid :) .

The upper WTC1 block has a volume of 183 000 m3, weight about 33 000 tons and thus uniform density of 0.18 tons/m3 (like baled wool).

If the volume of the upper block was only 64 m3, e.g. a block 4 x 4 x 4 metres the uniform density would be ... 516 tons/m3.

Now, if you drop this latter block/mass (33 000 tons) on floor 95 of WTC1, what happens? Global collapse? Or a 16 m² hole through the building? Probably the latter. And the block is probably intact after cutting this hole through 95 floors.

The reason is that the block was only applied to the floor.

But according to Bazant/Seffen math the 64 m3 solid block (33 000 tons) would cause global collapse! But it didn't. Only a hole.

So mass didn't matter either?

So there must be a hole in the Bazant's/Seffen's math!

Or does the scientists mean that the upper mass must be uniformly applied to the lower structure? As explained earlier it is only 8.25 tons/m². But how would you do that? The upper block can never apply a uniform pressure on the lower structure. Etc, etc.


You are arguing two completely different situations.

1) The upper block, weighing 33,000 tons with a square cross-section of 63.4 meters to a side (4020 m2).

2) A very dense block weighing 33,000 tons but measuring 4 meters to a side (16 m2).

These are not the same.
The static pressure loads will be completely different. As will the applied forces.

Further, the reason the simplified model was chosen has been explained to you repeatedly.


Now, you are willing to admit your tiny block will cause damage (holes in the floor).

Yet you maintian that the upper block will fall into the floors, impacting sans impact, and will somehow stop.

Provide calculations showing that the tower has enough strength to stop a 33,000 ton mass moving downwards at an appropriate speed.

[Heiwa]

In reality as I look at it the only thing that would matter would be:

1. - The mass of whatever drops
2. - The kinetic energy this mass can develop during the fall
3. - The strength of whatever is supposed to hold it up
4. - The size of the area that the load is distributed on
5. - Strength distribution (which points can best cope with the load/stress)
6. - The reisistance of air (which I think can be safely ignored in this case)

These are the factors that the engineers and architects in this thread have included and shown calculations about. Density is simply not a factor.

So... from the sideline it's obvious that you are wrong. Your rambling on a 64m3 block is of no use whatsoever. The area of the upper block matched the area of the lower part (duh? Same house, remember?).

1. There are many masses that drop - connected to one another one way or another. Do not simplify and say it is one mass (like Bazant/Seffen/Nist). Let's say that the number of masses of the upper block are n.

2. Yes, if these masses drop, their PE becomes KE. Each mass n has its own PE/KE due to gravity. And each mass starts at different locations.

3. The lower structure is fairly complex - 280+ columns, 94 floors, etc. Cannot be treated as one spring or a party ballon or similar (like Bazant/Seffen/Nist)

4. Here is a crunch! The columns only occupy 0.14% of the total cross area of the tower. What loads are put on them? None? OK. The uppermost floor of the lower structure thus occupy 99.86% of the cross area. What loads are put on it and where and when? See 1. There are many masses dropping down. Which one will be applied first? Right - the one that was closest above. Will there be ONE impact or many?

5. ?? The strength of the lower intact structure (all parts/connections, etc) is known. And according 4. we know the various loads n that are put on the uppermost floor of the lower structure in a certain order (depending where the started from).

So we start with load number 1 (the one that is applied first!). What happens to the uppermost floor! Any deformations? Local failures? Is the floor still connected the 280+ columns? Then we apply load number 2, etc. Some loads may drop down beside the building. After a while the uppermost floor in the intact structure will probably collapse, serious local failure, and then we have to see what happens at the next floor applying the n loads there in proper order. The first collapsed floor will probably deflect many of the loads coming first and later from above outside the structure or inwards, against each other causing jamming 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 are just nonsense.

In my view the first 5% of the loads/masses from above applied on the uppermost may locally damage the uppermost floor of the intact structure. The horizontal floor then becomes sloping. The first 5% loads/masses will probably then change direction from vertical to sideways due to the slope and may be stopped, e.g. entangled in the columns. Some may drop on the next floor, but it will obviously resist or only fail locally where the loads/masses are applied!

You need all the 5% of the first loads to damage one floor. The next 5% of the loads/masses coming dropping from above will not hit the uppermost floor, but something else, guess? Yes, the mess of the first 5% of the loads/masses. Some sort of compacting of these 10% masses should now take place due to gravity. There is a lot of damping, friction, etc. in this mess.

But I agree - the second uppermost floor may alse collapse, similar to the uppermost floor when the next 5% of the masses above have dropped on the first 5% load/mass/mess. The second floor will also deflect the loads from above as the first. After a while, in my opinion, the top part of the lower structure is completely jammed with the first 10% of the loads/masses that have dropped down and have been deflected. I doubt very much that the remaining 90 % masses will do much harm. Some will drop down outside. The rest will rest on top. No global collapse. This is the beauty of airy tower steel structures of non uniform density. Some local parts my fail (e.g. floors) and then any other lose parts just get entangled in the mess.

6. You can forget the air (and any Bazant/Seffen simplifications - they are just air).

[Heiwa]

;3566633']You are arguing two completely different situations.

1) The upper block, weighing 33,000 tons with a square cross-section of 63.4 meters to a side (4020 m2).

2) A very dense block weighing 33,000 tons but measuring 4 meters to a side (16 m2).

These are not the same.
The static pressure loads will be completely different. As will the applied forces.

Further, the reason the simplified model was chosen has been explained to you repeatedly.


Now, you are willing to admit your tiny block will cause damage (holes in the floor).

Yet you maintian that the upper block will fall into the floors, impacting sans impact, and will somehow stop.

Provide calculations showing that the tower has enough strength to stop a 33,000 ton mass moving downwards at an appropriate speed.

Applying the Bazant/Seffen theories and math it evidently doesn't matter if the 33 000 tons upper block has uniform density 0.18 tons/m3 (like a bale of wool) or 518tons/m3 (of superdense material). Global collapse is always assured and ensues when all of it is suddenly applied to the lower structure. But evidently it is neither true, not so easy. Apply common sense.

Re Provide calculations showing that the tower has enough strength to stop a 33,000 ton mass moving downwards at an appropriate speed - read my article. Using certain assumptions the 33 000 tons will bump into the lower structure and elastically compress it ... and then be stopped and pushed up a little. The bump may cause some local failures of the top floors - see previous - message, but a global collapse will never start.

[Newtons Bit]

Using certain assumptions the 33 000 tons will bump into the lower structure and elastically compress it ... and then be stopped and pushed up a little. The bump may cause some local failures of the top floors - see previous - message, but a global collapse will never start.

Can you provide the section number in your article of that? Thanks.

[Heiwa]

Heiwa:

You just posted this comment: "One thing is certain. The vertical core columns were massive and very strong. To just bend one (I have not seen any) and then cut it off (many examples seen) requires plenty of force, work and energy applied at the right locations."

Under the action of 30,000 tonnes of crushing force I guess those columns weren't so strong after all!

Read my article - an intact wall column carries 70 tons and can handle 350 tons. An average itact core column carries 280 tons and just to compress it to yield you need a force of 1000 tons.

Where would it come from? Dropping from the sky? How would it be applied to the column?

[Heiwa]

Can you provide the section number in your article of that? Thanks.

No! Suggest you re-read the whole article from start as it is being improved at regular intervals thanks to you.

[phunk]

4. Here is a crunch! The columns only occupy 0.14% of the total cross area of the tower.


BINGO! And those columns are the only thing that can hold up the weight of the upper block!


What loads are put on them? None? OK. The uppermost floor of the lower structure thus occupy 99.86% of the cross area. What loads are put on it and where and when? See 1. There are many masses dropping down. Which one will be applied first? Right - the one that was closest above. Will there be ONE impact or many?


It doesn't matter if it's one impact or many. If you take the mass off the columns and place it anywhere else in the structure, even if you gently lower it so there's no KE, the structure will fail! The columns are the only thing that can hold up that mass, the floors are designed only to hold their own contents, not the rest of the building above them! So once that upper mass moves, it is nearly impossible for it to end up on top of the columns in such a way that they can still hold it up.

[Architect]

No! Suggest you re-read the whole article from start as it is being improved at regular intervals thanks to you.


Correction:


No! Suggest you rip-up whole article from the start as it is being ripped to shreds at regular intervals thanks to you.

[Newtons Bit]

No! Suggest you re-read the whole article from start as it is being improved at regular intervals thanks to you.

Edit: Found it.

[Alferd_Packer]

Read my article - an intact wall column carries 70 tons and can handle 350 tons. An average itact core column carries 280 tons and just to compress it to yield you need a force of 1000 tons.

Where would it come from? Dropping from the sky? How would it be applied to the column?

Heiwa, as an engineer, can you tell me if the lower structure be able to deflect downward from the impact the the falling mass.

If so, then how much deflection downward would be acceptable before the structure failed?


1 meter?

0.5 meter?

0.1 meter?

Remember we are talking about the strucutre as a whole, which incudes bolted connections as well as welded clip angles, etc.

For instance, I don't know off hand the distance from the bolt holes to the edge of the clip angles, but I think we can assume that it is less than 0.1 meter.


if we drop a 70 ton mass, 3.66 feet (one floor height) and we only allow a deflection of 0.1 meter to absorb the impact, the impact force will be equivelent to a load of 2560 tons.

What will fail first, the floor or the columns?

[X]

... 3.66 feet (one floor height) ...


que?

[Minadin]

;3567544']que?

I'm pretty sure he meant 3.66 meters, which would be almost exactly 12 feet.

[Newtons Bit]

This is hilarious, but I suppose it is the goal that I had in mind all along: get Heiwa to do an ACTUAL calculation and then use it to show that the collapse would progress behold, from section 7.0 (http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist1.htm) (a new one!):

It is quite simple to calculate the elastic strain energy that could be absorbed by the primary structure. It is a function of distance d of compression of the structure below after Teffect due to energy input from above starting at Tcause. Let's assume that the structure below with actual cross area 4 000 m² and 280+ columns spread around (with cross area 5.64 m² (it is less higher up and more lower down) behaves like a 'spring' with average stiffness or spring constant C = 2 GN/m. Note that only 0.141% of the total cross area of the 'spring' consists of steel (the columns) - the rest is air. It is like a mattress. And this compression also takes time (which is not considered here)!

As shown above the theoretical energy E input to compress the 'spring' is only 340 kWh or 1.22 GNm, when the top part hits the 'spring' instantaneously at Teffect. Let's assume only half this energy is used to compress the 'spring' and that the other half was lost destroying the columns in the initiation zone and sweeping them out of the way and that the upper part breaks up at impact absorbing energy. Let's assume the 'spring' below is suddenly compressed by E = 0.61 GNm at time Teffect.

The maximum compression d of the 'spring' due to energy E then becomes 78 centimeters (because d² = 2 E/C) and after that all the 0.61 GNm or 170 kWh of energy is absorbed as compression! And any motion has stopped! This is a good indication of the elastic strain energy that could be absorbed by a 'spring' without any permanent deformations. The total length (or depth) of the 'spring' is abt 370 meters all the way down to the basement and it is thus temporarily compressed 0.21%. In the basement the energy is also transmitted into the ground and will be recorded as such by any seismograph in the vicinity.

To compress the 'spring' d = 78 centimeters you need a force F corresponding to 1.56 GN (because F = d C) and as the spring cross area at the top is 5.64 m², the compressive stress in the spring becomes temporarily 277 MPa which is above yield stress (248 MPa) but below the rupture stress. So maybe the 'spring' deforms plastically a little at the top just below the initiation zone but hardly lower down, where the spring cross area is 20 - 35 m² and the yield stress is higher and thus the force in the spring will produce much smaller stresses

Emphasis mine. Heiwa's own calculation here shows that the tower above collapses. Imagine that. He does this in two ways: the first is by stating that the tower compresses 0.21%. At this strain, a large amount of the steel (the core) will have failed. Secondly, he states that the stress in the columns is above the yield stress. The yield stress is important for two things:

a) It is the point in which the steel buckles, develops plastic hinges along it's length, and breaks at the splice points.

b) The Modulus of Elasticity, or the stiffness of the spring in his calculation, nearly flatlines after yield. The steel has much, much, much less stiffness and thus the tower moves a whole lot more.

I can argue about some of his assumptions, and how he takes out huge amounts of energy, but it's not even worth it. His own assumptions show that the collapse progresses. His own CALCULATION shows this. Why he doesn't see this, I don't know.

[padragan]

<1 -6 Snipped! Many words of nonsense>

I gave you one more chance and you failed miserably to give a straight answer to a pretty straightforward question.

You can try again, but I will keep pointing it out every time you post junk instead of straight answers.

(if you forgot I can repeat the question, if we've established that the lower density of a plastic extension wouldn't have had any effect on the events, why do you keep insisting on using density in your descriptions? That is, before I can take any talk about hay bales or wood bales seriously I need a plausible explanation why density would be a factor, I thought the energy that impacted the lower parts only derived from speed and mass).

So, new try!

[stateofgrace]

You have apparently not read my article about why gravity force alone cannot globally collapse a multiparts steel structure? I do not speculate about what really caused the WTC collapses, only conclude gravity force alone (PE=KE>SE) cannot do it.
One mystery is the WTC1 upper block telescoping into itself prior any damage occurs in the structure below the fire/heat zone. The upper block and its PE is supposed to be intact before, during and after the complete collapse. The collapse is supposed to start with the lower structure being crumpled due to gravity force.
Another mystery is that the wall columns in the fire/heat zone (except those cut earlier where you can see two persons looking out) are intact, when smoke and dust are ejected some seconds later. Very strange! Was only the core collapsing? Why?
One thing is certain. The vertical core columns were massive and very strong. To just bend one (I have not seen any) and then cut it off (many examples seen) requires plenty of force, work and energy applied at the right locations. Gravity force does not work like that. It slips off. So you need something else. And it need not cause a massive explosion. There are many ways to cut steel without noise.

BTW - many odd things occurred on 911. But topic is tower collapse issues and gravity alone could not do it.

Once more you are avoiding the question and using option f as a cope out.

You have stated that massive explosions not only started the collapse but actually disintegrated the massive upper portion of the towers. The massive upper portion weighed in at some 33000 tons.

Now again, what caused 33000 tons of building to totally disintegrate. You are now stating that other things cut steel but the upper section, if your theory is to work was totally disintegrate. So what caused it?

Explosives? Space beams? Thermite? Guys with angle grinders? What?

What caused 33000 tons of steal framed building to totally disintegrate in mid air and completely miss the lower section?

There is only one thing that will cause such massive damage , so why are you trying to avoid stating it?

[Alferd_Packer]

I'm pretty sure he meant 3.66 meters, which would be almost exactly 12 feet.

Correct. thanks.

[Heiwa]

This is hilarious, but I suppose it is the goal that I had in mind all along: get Heiwa to do an ACTUAL calculation and then use it to show that the collapse would progress behold, from section 7.0 (http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist1.htm) (a new one!):



Emphasis mine. Heiwa's own calculation here shows that the tower above collapses. Imagine that. He does this in two ways: the first is by stating that the tower compresses 0.21%. At this strain, a large amount of the steel (the core) will have failed. Secondly, he states that the stress in the columns is above the yield stress. The yield stress is important for two things:

a) It is the point in which the steel buckles, develops plastic hinges along it's length, and breaks at the splice points.

b) The Modulus of Elasticity, or the stiffness of the spring in his calculation, nearly flatlines after yield. The steel has much, much, much less stiffness and thus the tower moves a whole lot more.

I can argue about some of his assumptions, and how he takes out huge amounts of energy, but it's not even worth it. His own assumptions show that the collapse progresses. His own CALCULATION shows this. Why he doesn't see this, I don't know.

?? Assuming that a rigid, solid upper block actually impacts a flexible, elastic lower structure, it is shown that the lower structure, after the upper block bumps into it, actually compresses and then de-compresses = no global collapse. If the lower structure actually is overloaded, it will only break in one location, etc. Not splinter in 1000's of pieces.

But there is no impact after free fall, of course. No evidences for that And no huge amounts of energy. The amounts of energy evidently origin from the various parts of the the upper block (walls, floors, etc) and they are applied one after the other, get deflected by some locally failed, sloping floors in the lower structure and then just get jammed together at the top of the lower structure. No global collapse. Should not be to difficult to grasp.

[Architect]

?? Assuming that a rigid, solid upper block actually impacts a flexible, elastic lower structure, it is shown that the lower structure, after the upper block bumps into it, actually compresses and then de-compresses = no global collapse. If the lower structure actually is overloaded, it will only break in one location, etc. Not splinter in 1000's of pieces.


Well to be frank that's a simply ludicrous proposition. However, there's a simple solution to this Heiwa. Produce calculations. Proper structural analysis. Tell us the imposed and design loads on the individual joints within the lower structure under the dynamic loading and then show us (haha!) that they have sufficient capacity. Show us a calculation proving that the floors can carry impact loads.

Put up, or shut up.

But there is no impact after free fall, of course.

Remind us what happens to the 33,000t of upper tower again? Just bounces off, does it? Floats around?

...get deflected by some locally failed, sloping floors in the lower structure and then just get jammed together at the top of the lower structure. No global collapse. Should not be to difficult to grasp.

Aha, that's right. The lower structure catches it gently. No impact....hmmm. Catches it very, very gently? Is there a big crash mat there or something?

[Heiwa]

Well to be frank that's a simply ludicrous proposition. However, there's a simple solution to this Heiwa. Produce calculations. Proper structural analysis. Tell us the imposed and design loads on the individual joints within the lower structure under the dynamic loading and then show us (haha!) that they have sufficient capacity. Show us a calculation proving that the floors can carry impact loads.

Put up, or shut up.



Remind us what happens to the 33,000t of upper tower again? Just bounces off, does it? Floats around?



Aha, that's right. The lower structure catches it gently. No impact....hmmm. Catches it very, very gently? Is there a big crash mat there or something?

Yes, it is ludicrous to assume that the upper block is rigid, solid, of uniform density and can be regarded as ONE mass that free falls due to gravity and impacts something weak. Simple calculations in my article show what happens. Also provides ideas how to make proper calculations based on correct assumtions. Not too difficult.

And you are right about the upper block. The lower structure should catch it gently. I use other words of similar precise meaning and explain why in the article. No reason to get virulently passionate about it. I like to be neutral and, of course, cynical. In layman's terms.

[padragan]

Yes, it is ludicrous to assume that the upper block is rigid, solid, of uniform density and can be regarded as ONE mass that free falls due to gravity and impacts something weak. Simple calculations in my article show what happens. Also provides ideas how to make proper calculations based on correct assumtions. Not too difficult.

And you are right about the upper block. The lower structure should catch it gently. I use other words of similar precise meaning and explain why in the article. No reason to get virulently passionate about it. I like to be neutral and, of course, cynical. In layman's terms.

I think you missed the "put up or shut up" part...

I'd also like to know your definition of "gently".

[Disbelief]

And you are right about the upper block. The lower structure should catch it gently. I use other words of similar precise meaning and explain why in the article. No reason to get virulently passionate about it. I like to be neutral and, of course, cynical. In layman's terms.

"Gently" is a precise word to describe something? You have strange definitions. By the way, how does something gently catch 33,000t? There is nothing gentle about it, at least in the real world where most of us are living.

[tsig]

"Gently" is a precise word to describe something? You have strange definitions. By the way, how does something gently catch 33,000t? There is nothing gentle about it, at least in the real world where most of us are living.

You need a really big catcher's mitt.

Heiwa doesn't seem to grasp that the lower floors where the same density as the upper, not that density matters. I wonder what would happen if you just lifted the top floors off and then dropped 30,000 tons of water on the stub?

I suspect they would collapse.

[Zorglub]

You have apparently not read my article about why gravity force alone cannot globally collapse a multiparts steel structure? I do not speculate about what really caused the WTC collapses, only conclude gravity force alone (PE=KE>SE) cannot do it.


No you don´t. That makes the discussion so much easier for you. What happened to your theory about thousands of gallons of hidden gasoline cans cunningly sneaked into the WTC-complex? You used to promote that as a plausible cause for the explosion you claimed was not caused by the two planes.

[Belz...]

And you are right about the upper block. The lower structure should catch it gently.

How gently would that be ? Cushion-like ?

[Architect]

Maybe it wafts down?

[Minadin]

Well, with a uniform density of 0.18 and all, it's a darned good thing that the building was bolted to the ground . . .

[Heiwa]

You need a really big catcher's mitt.



You caught it! It wasn't too difficult, was it?

[Heiwa]

I think you missed the "put up or shut up" part...

I'd also like to know your definition of "gently".

JREF is a place to discuss in a friendly and lively way so I ignore some comments.

I do not actually use the word 'gently' in my article, I carefully avoided it and used some other ones.

[rwguinn]

Maybe it wafts down?
Like a paper airplane from spac (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=109937)e...

[Heiwa]

No you don´t. That makes the discussion so much easier for you. What happened to your theory about thousands of gallons of hidden gasoline cans cunningly sneaked into the WTC-complex? You used to promote that as a plausible cause for the explosion you claimed was not caused by the two planes.

You must have misread my article? Only mention of fuel there is that you need abt 40 kgs (or 55 litres) of diesel oil to pull up 33 000 tons of upper block 3.7 metres (using a big crane). Topic is tower collapse. I just do it in reverse, pulling the upper block up again to have a look at what could have gone wrong. And that fuel must be injected in the engine of the crane, of course.

[padragan]

JREF is a place to discuss in a friendly and lively way so I ignore some comments.

I know. You ignore every single post that points out where you are wrong or asks for proper calculations.

In my case this is the third reply where you fail to answer my question on density. And like I promised I will point it out to you every single time you do that.

I do not actually use the word 'gently' in my article, I carefully avoided it and used some other ones.

You used it in your posting above, something that got you another stundie nomination. I don't care much for what you call it in you so called paper, either you think it's a fitting description or you don't. Obviously you think it's a fair description since you used it.

[stateofgrace]

JREF is a place to discuss in a friendly and lively way so I ignore some comments.

I do not actually use the word 'gently' in my article, I carefully avoided it and used some other ones.

Please allow me to be friendly, lively and equally so gentle with my following post.

Heiwa, I can honestly say that in the entire history of absurd theories, yours is without a doubt the most absurd. It stands head and shoulders above absurdity. In fact you have actually redifined absurdity.

For your theory to be remotely workable and be carried out, let alone be passed as a working plan defies all rationality.

Lunging from one desperate attempt to another to dismiss the massive dynamic weight that fell, you have stated it should have slide off, bounced off, stopped, fallen gently, become entangled and the most absurd of all have actually said it was totally disintegrated in mid air before it even fell on the lower section of the building. For 33000 tons of steel framed building to simply disintegrate would require an enormous amount of explosive power, but you simply hand wave this away, because it does not fit in with your theory, it simply destroys your theory, because you know that no such event happened.

Guess what? Most people know that if no weight fell and totally missed the section below nothing will happen. But this is where your mind blowing theory has and will continue to fail. The massive dynamic weight did not simply disappear, no matter how much you try to hand wave it away. It was very real and really did fall onto the floor trusses below.

Simply repeating the same nonsense over and over again will not make it go away, just like the massive weight/s that fell onto of the non load bearing floor trusses.

Heiwa. I would actually like to thank you for submitting the most insane, absurd, unworkable, laughable demolition theory I personally have ever seen.

[rwguinn]

Please allow me to be friendly, lively and equally so gentle with my following post.

Heiwa, I can honestly say that in the entire history of absurd theories, yours is without a doubt the most absurd. It stands head and shoulders above absurdity. In fact you have actually redifined absurdity.

For your theory to be remotely workable and be carried out, let alone be passed as a working plan defies all rationality.

Lunging from one desperate attempt to another to dismiss the massive dynamic weight that fell, you have stated it should have slide off, bounced off, stopped, fallen gently, become entangled and the most absurd of all have actually said it was totally disintegrated in mid air before it even fell on the lower section of the building. For 33000 tons of steel framed building to simply disintegrate would require an enormous amount of explosive power, but you simply hand wave this away, because it does not fit in with your theory, it simply destroys your theory, because you know that no such event happened.

Guess what? Most people know that if no weight fell and totally missed the section below nothing will happen. But this is where your mind blowing theory has and will continue to fail. The massive dynamic weight did not simply disappear, no matter how much to try to hand wave it away. It was very real and really did fall onto the floor trusses below.

Simply repeating the same nonsense over and over again will not make it go away, just like the massive weight/s that fell onto of the non load bearing floor trusses.

Heiwa. I would actually like to thank you for submitting the most insane, absurd, unworkable, laughable demolition theory I personally have ever seen.
Nominated!

[Heiwa]

Lunging from one desperate attempt to another to dismiss the massive dynamic weight that fell, you have stated it should have slide off, bounced off, stopped, fallen gently, become entangled and the most absurd of all have actually said it was totally disintegrated in mid air before it even fell on the lower section of the building. For 33000 tons of steel framed building to simply disintegrate would require an enormous amount of explosive power, but you simply hand wave this away, because it does not fit in with your theory, it simply destroys your theory, because you know that no such event happened.

Guess what? Most people know that if no weight fell and totally missed the section below nothing will happen. But this is where your mind blowing theory has and will continue to fail. The massive dynamic weight did not simply disappear, no matter how much you try to hand wave it away. It was very real and really did fall onto the floor trusses below.

Simply repeating the same nonsense over and over again will not make it go away, just like the massive weight/s that fell onto of the non load bearing floor trusses.

Heiwa. I would actually like to thank you for submitting the most insane, absurd, unworkable, laughable demolition theory I personally have ever seen.

Thanks for comments. You also seem to have misread the article? The upper blocks of WTC1,2 seem to be a problem. They are according Bazant/Seffen supposed to be rigid, stiff, solid, of uniform density, indestructible, etc., in order to first free fall, then impact and finally drive two global collapses of intact steel structures that have never been seen before and after 911.
So I just point out that neither block was rigid, stiff ... and so on. And that the indestructible blocks disappeared!

The weights of these blocks were not massive! Why use such words? They just compressed the structure below to <30% yield when intact. And the load bearing structure below only occupied 0.13% of the total foot print (WTC1 at the initiation zone), which is an indication how strong it was! And plenty of space/volume to get entangled in.

Nist could not explain the collapses except that PE = KE < SE. Complete nonsense as PE/KE has nothing to do with SE. Bazant and Seffen came to assistance as outlined above. But they assume that the load bearing structure occupy 100% of the total foot print (uniform density, you know) and no space/volume for entanglement. Quite insane, actually. Like many other aspects of 911. And sadly, many participants at JREF seem to be sect members of this cult of insanity.

[Architect]

33,000t is not massive?!?!?!?!

[uk_dave]

33,000t is not massive?!?!?!?!

Not when compared to Heiwa's ego.

[Zorglub]

You must have misread my article? Only mention of fuel there is that you need abt 40 kgs (or 55 litres) of diesel oil to pull up 33 000 tons of upper block 3.7 metres (using a big crane). Topic is tower collapse. I just do it in reverse, pulling the upper block up again to have a look at what could have gone wrong. And that fuel must be injected in the engine of the crane, of course.
No I haven´t misread you "article". And I wasn´t even talking about what you might have written in it.
You have claimed, not on this forum though, that the explosion was caused by thousands of hidden gasoline cans/barrels within the WTC. Nowadays you refuse to debate what you think really caused the collapse. And I understand why. You don´t know. But you refuse to admit to yourself that you have no scenario where your theories will fit in.
Therefore you have hidden behind calculations and numbers hoping they will provide you with some sort pro-verbal guile suit.
You are little man living in France, without job or a place in this world, uneducated and confused. Sad really. Well, except that you claim that no planes hit the WTC and every person on Manhattan that day was paid by GWB to lie about the planes.

[Heiwa]

You have claimed, not on this forum though, that the explosion was caused by thousands of hidden gasoline cans/barrels within the WTC.

??? Sorry, you are mistaken.

[Heiwa]

33,000t is not massive?!?!?!?!

Not really - uniform density was only 0.18 ton/m3 = not massive. But large, yes. Plenty of air. Thus not solid. 70-80% of the 33 000 tons was just concrete, glass, furniture, insulation, etc.
The real strength of the towers were the load bearing columns of steel (massive - density 7.8 ton/m3) but only <1% of the volume and cross area. Could never be damaged by all the light weight rubbish in the towers. But according Bazant/Seffen this rubbish is indestructible. Rubbish of course!

Any local failures causing some shifting of weights would have been arrested very quickly by these columns.

You have not read my article have you? http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm ! Does your sect leader forbid it? (Should I start a new thread about that?).

[peteweaver]

Ah, but with the outer columns bowing inwardly, the inner core exposed to fire, those load bearing columns of steel, around the impact area were severely weakened. And thus, their ability to support the load applied to them was diminished, this led to a collapse, and the load they had held, fell, becoming a dynamic load and as you should know by now, a dynamic load is made heavier by the speed at which it impacts the stuff below. And as the stuff below was not indestructible, it was not built to withstand the impact from a dynamic load. It couldn't arrest the collapse, failed and fell too.

[Heiwa]

Ah, but with the outer columns bowing inwardly, the inner core exposed to fire, those load bearing columns of steel, around the impact area were severely weakened. And thus, their ability to support the load applied to them was diminished, this led to a collapse, and the load they had held, fell, becoming a dynamic load and as you should know by now, a dynamic load is made heavier by the speed at which it impacts the stuff below. And as the stuff below was not indestructible, it was not built to withstand the impact from a dynamic load. It couldn't arrest the collapse, failed and fell too.

Yes, yes - the load bearing columns around the impact area were weakened and could not support the load applied to them (from above). You mean loads? Every column carried its load. Plenty of loads. Gravity at work.
And the loads fell. OK. Free fall = accelerating = increasing speed, or - due to deformation of support = no acceleration = low speed?
Impact the stuff below? OK, it must have been free fall.
Free fall would take 0.8-0.9 seconds = 20 frames on any video. Can you supply any? I would like to see the free falls and the impacts. And what happened to the load bearing columns that failed and permitted free fall.

And the stuff below couldn't arrest the collapse? What collapse? Of the lower structure. It has not yet started!

Before further collapse starts, the loads from above must be applied to the structure below. Not so easy! It is nothing there!! Except for a big floor. The uppermost floor of the structure below.

Very good, actually. This floor will probably fail as part of the first step of the progressive collapse and divert the loads that made it fail from above in all directions ... and slow down the collapse. The next floor will really arrest the progressive collapse.

At this time 90% of the loads from above have not yet touched anything below. They are too late to participate in the action! The local collapse has already stopped. Read my article and you will understand why. Link in my previous message.

[Corsair 115]

Not really - uniform density was only 0.18 ton/m3 = not massive.And we're back to the ridiculous density argument... good grief, even I can plainly see what's wrong with it, and I'm no structural engineer or architect. How on earth can you not see what's wrong with it?

[Heiwa]

And we're back to the ridiculous density argument... good grief, even I can plainly see what's wrong with it, and I'm no structural engineer or architect. How on earth can you not see what's wrong with it?

Dear sect member. According to the prophets Bazant and Seffen on behalf of Nist uniform density, be it O.18 or 516 tons/m3 is an absolute requirement for total, global collapse due to gravity. Now, when you see it is wrong, pls reconsider your sect membership. Be finally free.

[Architect]

Yes, yes, the whole world is wrong except you. All these trained structural engineers - what do they know?

Now, where are those structural calculations we've been waiting for? Put up, or shut up.

[AZCat]

Yes, yes, the whole world is wrong except you. All these trained structural engineers - what do they know?

Now, where are those structural calculations we've been waiting for? Put up, or shut up.


I don't think either of your options will ever happen. </cynic>

[stateofgrace]

( More nonsense) And sadly, many participants at JREF seem to be sect members of this cult of insanity.

( More nonsense). Rubbish of course!

Does your sect leader forbid it?

Dear sect member. ( More nonsense) Now, when you see it is wrong, pls reconsider your sect membership. Be finally free.

Hello,welome to ignore,goodbye,fool.

[padragan]

Not really - uniform density was only 0.18 ton/m3 = not massive. But large, yes. Plenty of air. Thus not solid. 70-80% of the 33 000 tons was just concrete, glass, furniture, insulation, etc.

So IS density an important factor in this case or not? If you say yes you must also explain why my plastic extension wouldn't have helped the tower, if you say no you must explain why you keep dragging density in your postings.

Put up or shut up.

[twinstead]

Padragan, you might as well say 'put up or shut up' in Swedish; Heiwa doesn't understand.

[Heiwa]

Yes, yes, the whole world is wrong except you. All these trained structural engineers - what do they know?

Now, where are those structural calculations we've been waiting for? Put up, or shut up.

You will get any structural calculations of failures of collapse start, when I get the photos and times of

1. Free falls starting (supports of upper blocks lost), and

2. Free falls ending with impacts (and collapses start), and why not

3. The failures of the uppermost floor of the lower structure.

It is difficult to do proper structural calculations of progressive failures, if you do not have descriptions and a proper time table of alleged events (as pointed out in my article).

But I am glad that you support the idea of clear thinking and proper structural calculations in lieu of

KE > SE (Nist's law why global collapse ensues).

[Heiwa]

So IS density an important factor in this case or not? If you say yes you must also explain why my plastic extension wouldn't have helped the tower, if you say no you must explain why you keep dragging density in your postings.

Put up or shut up.

I put up! According Bazant/Seffen uniform density of complete upper block is a necessity for progressive collapse resulting in global collapse (total destruction). Read my article.

If the density of upper block is not uniform, evidently the conclusion is not valid.

And evidently the upper blocks do not have uniform density! Nist in its FAQ December 2007 admits that and suggests that 6-11 floors of the upper blocks suddenly dropped down on the uppermost floor of the lower structure ... and initiated something ... not clear what.

Maybe you should ask Nist for further clarifications?

[Architect]

You will get any structural calculations of failures of collapse start, when I get the photos and times of

1. Free falls starting (supports of upper blocks lost), and

2. Free falls ending with impacts (and collapses start), and why not

3. The failures of the uppermost floor of the lower structure.

It is difficult to do proper structural calculations of progressive failures, if you do not have descriptions and a proper time table of alleged events (as pointed out in my article).

But I am glad that you support the idea of clear thinking and proper structural calculations in lieu of

KE > SE (Nist's law why global collapse ensues).

Are you guaranteeing that if we show pictures of all of these that you wiull not prevaricate, hand-wave, or move the goalposts but rather that you wil post detailed structural calculations?

[Heiwa]

Are you guaranteeing that if we show pictures of all of these that you wiull not prevaricate, hand-wave, or move the goalposts but rather that you wil post detailed structural calculations?

Of course. And to simplify for you; just WTC1. Thus four pictures (one of each wall) when free fall starts. And time of course. And that all the supports are missing. The upper block is free! To fall 3.7 meters. Would be nice with four pictures of that. You would be able to see through the whole tower, if the view angle is right and if there is no smoke inside. But there is smoke at least on the lee side.

And then 0.8-0.9 seconds later. The famous impact. When the rigid, solid upper block - intact - has reached the lower structure. One picture of each wall would be nice. And time of course.

And then another 0.1-0.5 seconds later showing the first failures of the lower structure top floor and columns below and when collapse of the lower structure really is initiated by the upper block. I will do a structural analysis of that.

If you have some photos of progressive collapse of the second floor below the uppermost floor of the lower structure due to the upper block, they are also welcome.

This info is very important. I will update my article with it accordingly.

Thanks for your assistance.

[DGM]

Of course. And to simplify for you; just WTC1. Thus four pictures (one of each wall) when free fall starts. And time of course. And that all the supports are missing. The upper block is free! To fall 3.7 meters. Would be nice with four pictures of that. You would be able to see through the whole tower, if the view angle is right and if there is no smoke inside. But there is smoke at least on the lee side.

And then 0.8-0.9 seconds later. The famous impact. When the rigid, solid upper block - intact - has reached the lower structure. One picture of each wall would be nice. And time of course.

And then another 0.1-0.5 seconds later showing the first failures of the lower structure top floor and columns below and when collapse of the lower structure really is initiated by the upper block. I will do a structural analysis of that.

If you have some photos of progressive collapse of the second floor below the uppermost floor of the lower structure due to the upper block, they are also welcome.

This info is very important. I will update my article with it accordingly.

Thanks for your assistance.
I don't see the calculations for the loading on the columns in the impact zone (post impact). Could you direct me to the section of your article that shows these? Thanks in advance.

[Architect]

Of course. And to simplify for you; just WTC1. Thus four pictures (one of each wall) when free fall starts. And time of course. And that all the supports are missing. The upper block is free! To fall 3.7 meters. Would be nice with four pictures of that. You would be able to see through the whole tower, if the view angle is right and if there is no smoke inside. But there is smoke at least on the lee side.

And then 0.8-0.9 seconds later. The famous impact. When the rigid, solid upper block - intact - has reached the lower structure. One picture of each wall would be nice. And time of course.

And then another 0.1-0.5 seconds later showing the first failures of the lower structure top floor and columns below and when collapse of the lower structure really is initiated by the upper block. I will do a structural analysis of that.

If you have some photos of progressive collapse of the second floor below the uppermost floor of the lower structure due to the upper block, they are also welcome.

This info is very important. I will update my article with it accordingly.

Thanks for your assistance.

I see. Now the prevaration begins.

It has to be a photograph of each and every elevation.

It has to be a photograph showing "all" the supports missing

It has to be a photograph right through the tower, from one side to another.

And then we have to provide a repeat set for each part of the collapse sequence.


You are a joke, Heiwa. You know that photgraphs exist, and you know that they debunk your ludicrous theory just as much as any calculations do. So when someone offers to provide photographic evidence, you begin to qualify your demands, to twist and squirm.

There is no intellectual or professional righour here. You have arrived at a theory uninformed by meaningful structural analysis and, like all belief systems, it will not be easily shaken.

You can't put up, yet clearly you won't shut up.

[Zorglub]

??? Sorry, you are mistaken.

No. I am not mistaken. Although i should correct myself. You did not promote hidden cans. You promoted a room within WTC filled with gasoline, the planes, the crashes and so forth was staged and perfomed by a magician.

Roughly translated this is what you wrote 070728
Magic and illusions performed by magicians skillfully manipulating the witnesses. Explosions a.s.o are prepared , for example a bomb within the wall of Pentagon or a [B]room filled with gasoline in WTC2 etc. Making people (the witnesses] believing they saw a plane crash into Pentagon and WTC2 is easy as well if you have made the effort to plant the explosives beforehand. Ask any magician. They know how to trick the public. But in front of a public aware of the tricks.
The total lack of parts from the planes at Pentagon and WTC2 is, according to my point of view a clear evidence of no planes crashing at these sites. If there had been any planes the authoroties would have no problem presenting these parts correctly identified - the lots. So far they have not even showed us a bolt. A real magician would have no problems with that.

No, my translation aint that bad.. It´s just that Heiwa writes in a sort of skewed way. So I tried to translate as true to your original text as possible. Either way the text is confusing. You still haven´t found a magician willing to tell you how he or she would have staged 9/11 have you?

Too bad we only can see 300 of your posts. I´m quite sure that you have written something about the no-planes and whatever that caused the fireball must have been hidden inside WTC2.

[Heiwa]

I don't see the calculations for the loading on the columns in the impact zone (post impact). Could you direct me to the section of your article that shows these? Thanks in advance.

The article ( http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm ) evidently shows and calculates the loadings on the columns and their stressess in the impact zone pre impact. The loads produce compressive stresses <30% yield in the columns, i.e. very safe. No big deal! Then there is some destruction due alleged plane crash and a fire. Nist advices the small redistribution of loadings due to that = all is still safe. All described in the article;

Then there is the mysterious free fall/impact. The loadings in the impact zone just prior, i.e. pre impact are then ZERO. The upper block is detached from the lower structure and has not yet impacted = ZERO loads.

In the article an impact is assumed, energy/force/loads are transmitted to the lower structure and ... generally only elastic compression takes place according calculations. Some plastic failures may occur, but the loads are then diverted sideways and ... the progressive collapse is arrested as excpected.

Hope this clarifies your questions? Thanks for your interest.

[Heiwa]

I see. Now the prevaration begins.

It has to be a photograph of each and every elevation.

It has to be a photograph showing "all" the supports missing

It has to be a photograph right through the tower, from one side to another.

And then we have to provide a repeat set for each part of the collapse sequence.


You are a joke, Heiwa. You know that photgraphs exist, and you know that they debunk your ludicrous theory just as much as any calculations do. So when someone offers to provide photographic evidence, you begin to qualify your demands, to twist and squirm.

There is no intellectual or professional righour here. You have arrived at a theory uninformed by meaningful structural analysis and, like all belief systems, it will not be easily shaken.

You can't put up, yet clearly you won't shut up.

You mean prevarications?

Just provide some evidence/times of free fall and impact and initial failures and I will do the structural calculations. I cannot do structural calculations without some agreed input. Do not complicate things! Layman's terms. And polite manners are always appreciated.

[Heiwa]

No. I am not mistaken. Although i should correct myself. You did not promote hidden cans. You promoted a room within WTC filled with gasoline, the planes, the crashes and so forth was staged and perfomed by a magician.

Roughly translated this is what you wrote 070728
Magic and illusions performed by magicians skillfully manipulating the witnesses. Explosions a.s.o are prepared , for example a bomb within the wall of Pentagon or a [B]room filled with gasoline in WTC2 etc. Making people (the witnesses] believing they saw a plane crash into Pentagon and WTC2 is easy as well if you have made the effort to plant the explosives beforehand. Ask any magician. They know how to trick the public. But in front of a public aware of the tricks.
The total lack of parts from the planes at Pentagon and WTC2 is, according to my point of view a clear evidence of no planes crashing at these sites. If there had been any planes the authoroties would have no problem presenting these parts correctly identified - the lots. So far they have not even showed us a bolt. A real magician would have no problems with that.

No, my translation aint that bad.. It´s just that Heiwa writes in a sort of skewed way. So I tried to translate as true to your original text as possible. Either way the text is confusing. You still haven´t found a magician willing to tell you how he or she would have staged 9/11 have you?

Too bad we only can see 300 of your posts. I´m quite sure that you have written something about the no-planes and whatever that caused the fireball must have been hidden inside WTC2.

Topic is tower collapse/layman's terms. Regarding events prior to that my views are already clear as the links in the end of my article we discuss show. What you have seen on TV 911 and what has been reported by the 911 Commission are just magic - Hollywood style. 100% fabrications in my opinion.

But this magic cannot cause global collapses of WTC1,2 only due to gravity that we discuss. There is further magic of some kind. I only demonstrate that gravity alone can not produce the WTC1,2 collapses based on common sense and 40 years experience of steel structural design, etc.

The perpetrators of the 911 Hollywood magic apparently do not like that. So let's continue the discussion.

[pomeroo]

Topic is tower collapse/layman's terms. Regarding events prior to that my views are already clear as the links in the end of my article we discuss show. What you have seen on TV 911 and what has been reported by the 911 Commission are just magic - Hollywood style. 100% fabrications in my opinion.

But this magic cannot cause global collapses of WTC1,2 only due to gravity that we discuss. There is further magic of some kind. I only demonstrate that gravity alone can not produce the WTC1,2 collapses based on common sense and 40 years experience of steel structural design, etc.

The perpetrators of the 911 Hollywood magic apparently do not like that. So let's continue the discussion.


The real engineers here have demonstrated that you lack the competence to contribute to this discussion.

[padragan]

I put up!

No, you are not. You dodge the straightforward question, that's what you do.

IS density a factor or not? That's the first simple yes/no question. I'm not asking about your interpretation of the reports, I'm asking about the actual collapse.

Leverera eller var tyst (following twinsteads advice).

[Architect]

Heiwa is incapable of either answering a straight question or of posting structural calculations.

I find it interesting to learn that he's a no-planer (always assuming that Zorgulb's post is a fair transaltion).

[Architect]

Leverera eller var tyst


Seconded.

[Heiwa]

No, you are not. You dodge the straightforward question, that's what you do.

IS density a factor or not? That's the first simple yes/no question. I'm not asking about your interpretation of the reports, I'm asking about the actual collapse.

Leverera eller var tyst (following twinsteads advice).

Put sb up to sth = inform him of it. E.g. 911 was a put-up! That many puts up with. Not me though. So I put you up to my observations.

Yes, density, uniform, is an important factor for Bazant/Seffen and Nist to prove collapse. Without it, no collapse of any kind. I show in my article that density was not uniform. Plenty of air in the structure, where the KE should have been dispersed in lieu of attacking the columns (0.13% of the foot print).
Only if the density was uniform the KE apparently had no choice but to be applied to the structure below and shake it into 1000 000's of pieces. It happens only in Hollywood productions, though.

It's a pity that Architect & Co cannot show any evidence of this infamous uniform density mass, when it free fell and impacted the structure below. Reason is that it never happened! Because the upper block was not a uniform density mass.

Hoppas du är nöjd med dessa uppgifter.

[Heiwa]

The real engineers here have demonstrated that you lack the competence to contribute to this discussion.

Are you joking?

[funk de fino]

Are you joking?

No-one laughs at Poms posts but plenty are laughing at yours, so maybe you are the joker?

[padragan]

Put sb up to sth = inform him of it. E.g. 911 was a put-up! That many puts up with. Not me though. So I put you up to my observations.

Yes, density, uniform, is an important factor for Bazant/Seffen and Nist to prove collapse. Without it, no collapse of any kind. I show in my article that density was not uniform. Plenty of air in the structure, where the KE should have been dispersed in lieu of attacking the columns (0.13% of the foot print).
Only if the density was uniform the KE apparently had no choice but to be applied to the structure below and shake it into 1000 000's of pieces. It happens only in Hollywood productions, though.

It's a pity that Architect & Co cannot show any evidence of this infamous uniform density mass, when it free fell and impacted the structure below. Reason is that it never happened! Because the upper block was not a uniform density mass.

Hoppas du är nöjd med dessa uppgifter.


Nej, inte nöjd (no, not satisfied).

You still didn't answer the simple yes/no question and the follow-up based on your first answer. I fail to see what the trouble is to answer YES or NO depending on YOUR opinion on what happened without dragging in your pseudo analysis of Bazant/Seffen. And I have a hard time outlining the question in a more simple fashion.