The Heiwa Challenge

[Heiwa]

is the Hewia challenge about a structure like this?
http://algoxy.com/conc/images/wtccoreshilouette.jpg
doesn't sound like it

Any structure is allowed in The Heiwa Challenge! Look around! You'll soon learn that the structure must be fragile to start with! Easy to break!

Only problem is that part C will be as easy to break as part A!

And it must be heavy! Heavy? Yes, to provide plenty of energy when dropped. A light structure will not provide plenty of energy when dropped. The WTC 1 was very light!! Uniform density <0.2. Like cotton or wool! Like the photo! Lots of air in that structure.

So heavy and fragile! Does it exist? And will a part C of it one-way crush down part A. Why is it so difficult to find a structure that will defeat The Heiwa Challenge?

Maybe it doesn't exist? For you to find out. Use your brains!!

[Justin39640]

Any structure is allowed in The Heiwa Challenge! Look around! You'll soon learn that the structure must be fragile to start with! Easy to break!

Only problem is that part C will be as easy to break as part A!

And it must be heavy! Heavy? Yes, to provide plenty of energy when dropped. A light structure will not provide plenty of energy when dropped. The WTC 1 was very light!! Uniform density <0.2. Like cotton or wool! Like the photo! Lots of air in that structure.

So heavy and fragile! Does it exist? And will a part C of it one-way crush down part A. Why is it so difficult to find a structure that will defeat The Heiwa Challenge?

Maybe it doesn't exist? For you to find out. Use your brains!!

Seeing this is a 911 forum
maybe you should try a relevant challenge
your paper (i think it was illus 1.3) does NOT represent the towers properly

[Jackanory]

Any structure is allowed in The Heiwa Challenge! Look around! You'll soon learn that the structure must be fragile to start with! Easy to break!

Only problem is that part C will be as easy to break as part A!

And it must be heavy! Heavy? Yes, to provide plenty of energy when dropped. A light structure will not provide plenty of energy when dropped. The WTC 1 was very light!! Uniform density <0.2. Like cotton or wool! Like the photo! Lots of air in that structure.

So heavy and fragile! Does it exist? And will a part C of it one-way crush down part A. Why is it so difficult to find a structure that will defeat The Heiwa Challenge?

Maybe it doesn't exist? For you to find out. Use your brains!!

Two prime examples ceased to exist on a sad Sep day in 2001. That is the only evidence i need. Game over.

[Heiwa]

Seeing this is a 911 forum
maybe you should try a relevant challenge
your paper (i think it was illus 1.3) does NOT represent the towers properly

If you think the towers' structure fulfil The Heiwa Challenge conditions just copy it and drop part C on part A, etc. Any test done after 9/12/2001 is permitted but better one made NOW! Ask NIST for assistance! They must have Standards for structures that one-way crushes after Testing them! Or ask Bazant! He has produced a theory of self-destructing structures so why can't he produce a sample of this strange material?

I would love to have access to such structure! You use it for whatever purpose and when you do not need it any longer, you just drop a part of it on the rest and POUFF - the structure is gone! Powder! Just sweep it up and sell it to China!

[Heiwa]

Two prime examples ceased to exist on a sad Sep day in 2001. That is the only evidence i need. Game over.

The Heiwa Challenge is just a new game! Old stuff doesn't comply. Think ahead! Look forward!

[Jackanory]

If you think the towers' structure fulfil The Heiwa Challenge conditions just copy it and drop part C on part A, etc. Any test done after 9/12/2001 is permitted but better one made NOW! Ask NIST for assistance! They must have Standards for structures that one-way crushes after Testing them! Or ask Bazant! He has produced a theory of self-destructing structures so why can't he produce a sample of this strange material?

I would love to have access to such structure! You use it for whatever purpose and when you do not need it any longer, you just drop a part of it on the rest and POUFF - the structure is gone! Powder! Just sweep it up and sell it to China!

We think the implied structure in your game/fairytale is more in comparison with Jacks beanstork, which may come as a surprise to you as also having no relevence to WTC 1 or 2.

The only challenge here Heiwa is to see how long you can realistically continue with your fairytale.

[tfk]

Bill is consciously and deliberately adopting the single most irritating and provocative position he can dream up, post to post. It's his idea of fun.

.
And since knowledge, reason & facts are beyond his capacity and honesty beyond his concern, this is his only remaining tactic.

Not a pretty site.

But there's always a "lol" around the corner...

tom

Especially for you T.- because you're worth it.
.
No one is ever going to accuse you of being particularly bright, bill.

Nice job completely validating Glenn's original point...

[tfk]

The Heiwa Challengeis just a new game! Old stuff doesn't comply. Think ahead! Look forward!

And this is what eliminates you from the ranks of real engineers.

Old stuff ALWAYS applies.

tom

[bill smith]

.
No one is ever going to accuse you of being particularly bright, bill.

Nice job completely validating Glenn's original point...

I have never claimed to be prticularly bright T. What was Glenn's point again ?

[bill smith]

And this is what eliminates you from the ranks of real engineers.

Old stuff ALWAYS applies.

tom

That's what makes you so effective T. lol

[Newtons Bit]

If you think the towers' structure fulfil The Heiwa Challenge conditions just copy it and drop part C on part A, etc. Any test done after 9/12/2001 is permitted but better one made NOW! Ask NIST for assistance! They must have Standards for structures that one-way crushes after Testing them! Or ask Bazant! He has produced a theory of self-destructing structures so why can't he produce a sample of this strange material?

I would love to have access to such structure! You use it for whatever purpose and when you do not need it any longer, you just drop a part of it on the rest and POUFF - the structure is gone! Powder! Just sweep it up and sell it to China!

There is nothing in the original rules about the structure collapsing after 9/12/01. The original conditions of the challenge have been met. WTC1&2 met the conditions of your "challenge".

It's over. No one is going to play your game and spend thousands of dollars when you will just change the rules again (as you have already been shown to have done).

It's over. You lose. Good day, sir.

[bill smith]

There is nothing in the original rules about the structure collapsing after 9/12/01. The original conditions of the challenge have been met. WTC1&2 met the conditions of your "challenge".

It's over. No one is going to play your game and spend thousands of dollars when you will just change the rules again (as you have already been shown to have done).

It's over. You lose. Good day, sir.

It looks like you may have gotten Bazant off the hook. You should call and give him the glad tidings.

[Newtons Bit]

It looks like you may have gotten Bazant off the hook. You should call and give him the glad tidings.

HUH?!?! :confused::confused::confused:

[Heiwa]

There is nothing in the original rules about the structure collapsing after 9/12/01. The original conditions of the challenge have been met. WTC1&2 met the conditions of your "challenge".

It's over. No one is going to play your game and spend thousands of dollars when you will just change the rules again (as you have already been shown to have done).

It's over. You lose. Good day, sir.

It was a clarification of The Heiwa Challenge conditions, which evidently WTC1&2 do not meet. So the Challenge is still there! Have a go, Bit!

[Dave Rogers]

HUH?!?! :confused::confused::confused:

NB, it's bill smith posting. Don't expect any connection with reality.

Dave

[Newtons Bit]

it was a clarification of the heiwa challenge conditions, which evidently wtc1&2 do not meet. So the challenge is still there! Have a go, bit!

I said good day, sir!

[FineWine]

Could we get back to the topic of this thread?
Have any debunkers even tried to complete the challenge?


Yes, several debunkers offered models that exposed Heiwa's "challenge" as bogus. Several debunkers showed why his "challenge" has nothing to do with the events of 9/11.

Perhaps you can find an adult to read and explain for you a few of the posts you were unable to understand.

[FineWine]

We think the implied structure in your game/fairytale is more in comparison with Jacks beanstork, which may come as a surprise to you as also having no relevence to WTC 1 or 2.

The only challenge here Heiwa is to see how long you can realistically continue with your fairytale.


Well, when the real engineers at the ASCE journal take him apart, he will start a thread calling them religious fundamentalists. His mindless parrots will--surprise!-- agree.

[Regnad Kcin]

I sometimes get the impression that they were very determiined to keep damage to adjacent non-WTC buildings to an absolute minimum. Remember when the top of WTC2 started to tip over and it looked like it would fall off to one side ? In my mind's eye I can virtually see the guy pushing the button that blew the rest of the building underneath away allowing the tipping section to fall straight down. That was a dead giveaway. Even on the day I noticed that. Maybe in WTC1 they didn't want the 30-storey antenna to fall independently.I don't suppose you really believe any of the above, considering any "inside job" conspiracy to demolish the Twins would be 100% impossible, so I ask again:

What is your agenda?

[Regnad Kcin]

Oh, and heiwa? Seeing as how you have more than once not responded to this question:Considering what you propose did not take place with either of the Twin Towers, what is the point of your "challenge?"...I'll consider it answered. Silence being deafening and all that.

[Regnad Kcin]

Bill is consciously and deliberately adopting the single most irritating and provocative position he can dream up, post to post. It's his idea of fun.

Possibly a turn on for him.Hmm, I hadn't thought of that.http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4783626&postcount=1272

[Shalamar]

The 'challenge' that Heiwa is proposing is actually a "gotcha".

If no-one does the challenge, then it is a 'Gotcha!' proving that buildings cannot collapse like WTC 1 and 2, thus proving an inside jobby job.

If someone DOES successfully do the challenge, then it is a 'Gotcha!' proving that WTC 1 and 2 were designed to collapse like they did, thus proving an inside jobby job.

I think the whole concept of 'Upper part cannot crush lower part'. I am given to understand that this did not happen. The supports at point of impact and fires weakened due to heat and damage. This is shown through pictures showing the sagging floors, and the slight twist. What seems to have happened is that upper part of WTC 1 and 2 indeed fell.. onto the floor beneath it.

So, what would by the mass of the 'upper part' and what is the load capacity of a single floor?

[Justin39640]

what is the load capacity of a single floor?

zero
when its mountings are broken and the outer walls are shearing away

[Juniversal]

The 'challenge' that Heiwa is proposing is actually a "gotcha".

If no-one does the challenge, then it is a 'Gotcha!' proving that buildings cannot collapse like WTC 1 and 2, thus proving an inside jobby job.

If someone DOES successfully do the challenge, then it is a 'Gotcha!' proving that WTC 1 and 2 were designed to collapse like they did, thus proving an inside jobby job.

I think the whole concept of 'Upper part cannot crush lower part'. I am given to understand that this did not happen. The supports at point of impact and fires weakened due to heat and damage. This is shown through pictures showing the sagging floors, and the slight twist. What seems to have happened is that upper part of WTC 1 and 2 indeed fell.. onto the floor beneath it.

So, what would by the mass of the 'upper part' and what is the load capacity of a single floor?What truthers don't seem to understand is the way it was designed in large part contributed to why AND how it collapsed.

[beachnut]

The 'challenge' that Heiwa is proposing is actually a "gotcha".

If no-one does the challenge, then it is a 'Gotcha!' proving that buildings cannot collapse like WTC 1 and 2, thus proving an inside jobby job.

If someone DOES successfully do the challenge, then it is a 'Gotcha!' proving that WTC 1 and 2 were designed to collapse like they did, thus proving an inside jobby job.

I think the whole concept of 'Upper part cannot crush lower part'. I am given to understand that this did not happen. The supports at point of impact and fires weakened due to heat and damage. This is shown through pictures showing the sagging floors, and the slight twist. What seems to have happened is that upper part of WTC 1 and 2 indeed fell.. onto the floor beneath it.

So, what would by the mass of the 'upper part' and what is the load capacity of a single floor?
29,000,000 million pounds; see FAQs from NIST.

You could tell truthers anything they have no clue; math is prohibited in 911TruthLies.

1. Was there enough gravitational energy present in the World Trade Center Towers to cause the collapse of the intact floors below the impact floors? Why was the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 not arrested by the intact structure below the floors where columns first began to buckle?
Yes, there was more than enough gravitational load to cause the collapse of the floors below the level of collapse initiation in both WTC Towers. The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 11 additional floors if the load was applied gradually and 6 additional floors if the load was applied suddenly (as was the case). Since the number of floors above the approximate floor of collapse initiation exceeded six in each WTC Tower (12 and 29 floors, respectively), the floors below the level of collapse initiation were unable to resist the suddenly applied gravitational load from the upper floors of the buildings. Details of this finding are provided below:
Consider a typical floor immediately below the level of collapse initiation and conservatively assume that the floor is still supported on all columns (i.e., the columns below the intact floor did not buckle or peel-off due to the failure of the columns above). Consider further the truss seat connections between the primary floor trusses and the exterior wall columns or core columns. The individual connection capacities ranged from 94,000 lb to 395,000 lb, with a total vertical load capacity for the connections on a typical floor of 29,000,000 lb (See Section 5.2.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6C). The total floor area outside the core was approximately 31,000 ft2, and the average load on a floor under service conditions on September 11, 2001 was 80 lb/ft2. Thus, the total vertical load on a floor outside the core can be estimated by multiplying the floor area (31,000 ft2) by the gravitational load (80 lb/ft2), which yields 2,500,000 lb (this is a conservative load estimate since it ignores the weight contribution of the heavier mechanical floors at the top of each WTC Tower). By dividing the total vertical connection capacity (29,000,000 lb) of a floor by the total vertical load applied to the connections (2,500,000 lb), the number of floors that can be supported by an intact floor is calculated to be a total of 12 floors or 11 additional floors.
This simplified and conservative analysis indicates that the floor connections could have carried only a maximum of about 11 additional floors if the load from these floors were applied statically. Even this number is (conservatively) high, since the load from above the collapsing floor is being applied suddenly. Since the dynamic amplification factor for a suddenly applied load is 2, an intact floor below the level of collapse initiation could not have supported more than six floors. Since the number of floors above the level where the collapse initiated, exceeded 6 for both towers (12 for WTC 1 and 29 for WTC 2), neither tower could have arrested the progression of collapse once collapse initiated. In reality, the highest intact floor was about three (WTC 2) to six (WTC 1) floors below the level of collapse initiation. Thus, more than the 12 to 29 floors reported above actually loaded the intact floor suddenly.


http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_12_2007.htm

[bill smith]

29,000,000 million pounds; see FAQs from NIST.

You could tell truthers anything they have no clue; math is prohibited in 911TruthLies.



http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_12_2007.htm

Is NIST forgetting anything here ? Do you think that is possible ? Suppse they WERE forgetting something absolutely critical to this theory they have laid out here ? Could that REALLY be accidental or an oversight ?

If you say 'no' then obvously it was a deliberate omission and therefore a lie and a coverup.

[beachnut]

Is NIST forgetting anything here ? Do you think that is possible ? Suppse they WERE forgetting something absolutely critical to this theory they have laid out here ? Could that REALLY be accidental or an oversight ?

If you say 'no' then obvously it was a deliberate omission and therefore a lie and a coverup.
What lie are you trying to support now? Oops, you failed to understand NIST, failed to read NIST, and failed to make a valid point on anything 911. You are short 6 years of education, unable to understand the engineering, not able to make a rational statement or question on this topic save the moronic junk Heiwa posts.


Cover-up? You "Suppse" it is "obvously" a cover-up? Too bad you are stuck with nano-evidence that burns up before you can use it and too small to see.

[FineWine]

Is NIST forgetting anything here ? Do you think that is possible ? Suppse they WERE forgetting something absolutely critical to this theory they have laid out here ? Could that REALLY be accidental or an oversight ?

If you say 'no' then obvously it was a deliberate omission and therefore a lie and a coverup.


Would it hurt to make an attempt to read NIST's FAQ? Is learning really that painful for you?

[Shalamar]

Thank you Beachnut.

[Shalamar]

Is NIST forgetting anything here ? Do you think that is possible ? Suppse they WERE forgetting something absolutely critical to this theory they have laid out here ? Could that REALLY be accidental or an oversight ?

If you say 'no' then obvously it was a deliberate omission and therefore a lie and a coverup.

Are you forgetting anything here ? Do you think that is possible ? Suppose you WERE forgetting something absolutely critical to this theory you have laid out here ? Could that REALLY be accidental or an oversight ?

If you say 'no' then obvously it was a deliberate omission and therefore a lie and the official story is in fact what actually happened.

[Regnad Kcin]

...it was a deliberate omission and therefore a lie and a coverup.Pssst: there was no cover up. 100% impossible, remember?

[MIKILLINI]

I sometimes get the impression that they were very determiined to keep damage to adjacent non-WTC buildings to an absolute minimum. Remember when the top of WTC2 started to tip over and it looked like it would fall off to one side ? In my mind's eye I can virtually see the guy pushing the button that blew the rest of the building underneath away allowing the tipping section to fall straight down. That was a dead giveaway. Even on the day I noticed that. Maybe in WTC1 they didn't want the 30-storey antenna to fall independently.

Who would that be Bill? You seem quite certain about this allegation, but you keep on ignoring Regnad's question. Are you unable to acknowledge it?

[MIKILLINI]

The 'challenge' that Heiwa is proposing is actually a "gotcha".

If no-one does the challenge, then it is a 'Gotcha!' proving that buildings cannot collapse like WTC 1 and 2, thus proving an inside jobby job.

If someone DOES successfully do the challenge, then it is a 'Gotcha!' proving that WTC 1 and 2 were designed to collapse like they did, thus proving an inside jobby job.

I think the whole concept of 'Upper part cannot crush lower part'. I am given to understand that this did not happen. The supports at point of impact and fires weakened due to heat and damage. This is shown through pictures showing the sagging floors, and the slight twist. What seems to have happened is that upper part of WTC 1 and 2 indeed fell.. onto the floor beneath it.



Exactly: Heiwa's challenge is flawed.

[MIKILLINI]

Would it hurt to make an attempt to read NIST's FAQ? Is learning really that painful for you?

Remaining ignorant is less painful for Bill.

[Heiwa]

The 'challenge' that Heiwa is proposing is actually a "gotcha".

If no-one does the challenge, then it is a 'Gotcha!' proving that buildings cannot collapse like WTC 1 and 2, thus proving an inside jobby job.

If someone DOES successfully do the challenge, then it is a 'Gotcha!' proving that WTC 1 and 2 were designed to collapse like they did, thus proving an inside jobby job.

I think the whole concept of 'Upper part cannot crush lower part'. I am given to understand that this did not happen. The supports at point of impact and fires weakened due to heat and damage. This is shown through pictures showing the sagging floors, and the slight twist. What seems to have happened is that upper part of WTC 1 and 2 indeed fell.. onto the floor beneath it.

So, what would by the mass of the 'upper part' and what is the load capacity of a single floor?

The Heiwa Challenge is what it is - see post #1. Just provide a structure that behaves like Bazant & Co postulate in their theory or where a part C can apply energy through gravity that exceeds the strain energy that can be absorbed (the NIST cause of global collapse) and you are a winner!

[UNLoVedRebel]

The Heiwa Challenge is what it is - see post #1. Just provide a structure that behaves like Bazant & Co postulate in their theory or where a part C can apply energy through gravity that exceeds the strain energy that can be absorbed (the NIST cause of global collapse) and you are a winner!
Part C one-way crushed down part A! I assume you're getting your finances in order. You're already 4 days late!
p22OkclAU3o

[bill smith]

1. Was there enough gravitational energy present in the World Trade Center Towers to cause the collapse of the intact floors below the impact floors? Why was the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 not arrested by the intact structure below the floors where columns first began to buckle?
Yes, there was more than enough gravitational load to cause the collapse of the floors below the level of collapse initiation in both WTC Towers. The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 11 additional floors if the load was applied gradually and 6 additional floors if the load was applied suddenly (as was the case). Since the number of floors above the approximate floor of collapse initiation exceeded six in each WTC Tower (12 and 29 floors, respectively), the floors below the level of collapse initiation were unable to resist the suddenly applied gravitational load from the upper floors of the buildings. Details of this finding are provided below:
Consider a typical floor immediately below the level of collapse initiation and conservatively assume that the floor is still supported on all columns (i.e., the columns below the intact floor did not buckle or peel-off due to the failure of the columns above). Consider further the truss seat connections between the primary floor trusses and the exterior wall columns or core columns. The individual connection capacities ranged from 94,000 lb to 395,000 lb, with a total vertical load capacity for the connections on a typical floor of 29,000,000 lb (See Section 5.2.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6C). The total floor area outside the core was approximately 31,000 ft2, and the average load on a floor under service conditions on September 11, 2001 was 80 lb/ft2. Thus, the total vertical load on a floor outside the core can be estimated by multiplying the floor area (31,000 ft2) by the gravitational load (80 lb/ft2), which yields 2,500,000 lb (this is a conservative load estimate since it ignores the weight contribution of the heavier mechanical floors at the top of each WTC Tower). By dividing the total vertical connection capacity (29,000,000 lb) of a floor by the total vertical load applied to the connections (2,500,000 lb), the number of floors that can be supported by an intact floor is calculated to be a total of 12 floors or 11 additional floors.
This simplified and conservative analysis indicates that the floor connections could have carried only a maximum of about 11 additional floors if the load from these floors were applied statically. Even this number is (conservatively) high, since the load from above the collapsing floor is being applied suddenly. Since the dynamic amplification factor for a suddenly applied load is 2, an intact floor below the level of collapse initiation could not have supported more than six floors. Since the number of floors above the level where the collapse initiated, exceeded 6 for both towers (12 for WTC 1 and 29 for WTC 2), neither tower could have arrested the progression of collapse once collapse initiated. In reality, the highest intact floor was about three (WTC 2) to six (WTC 1) floors below the level of collapse initiation. Thus, more than the 12 to 29 floors reported above actually loaded the intact floor suddenly.
******************************

So does nobody want to have a guess what NIST might have omitted in the above explanation ? Or maybe comment on the liklihood of whether that omission could have occurred accidentally ? Does the omission totally invalidate this explanation and if so who will be the first to call NIST and damand a rectification?

[releaseeabode]

Your support of the moronic ideas of Heiwa without evidence or calculations is standard for non engineers and 911TruthLies.

Heiwa's challenged was met twice on 911. Your inability to understand this fact is your problem.

I see that you still believe that bluster, arrogance and aggression are substitutes for rational debate.

Have a nice life.

[releaseeabode]

Yes. For example, you are a gigantic fraud.

Yes and one day you might actually make a reasonable and rational contribution.

Have a nice life.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Yes and one day you might actually make a reasonable and rational contribution.

Have a nice life.
Have you seen this post?
WTC1:s structure was very much like a cheese.

[Dave Rogers]

So does nobody want to have a guess what NIST might have omitted in the above explanation ? Or maybe comment on the liklihood of whether that omission could have occurred accidentally ? Does the omission totally invalidate this explanation and if so who will be the first to call NIST and damand a rectification?

You know that video of the F-4 hitting the concrete block? I have a funny feeling something like that is about to happen to bill.

Dave

[bill smith]

You know that video of the F-4 hitting the concrete block? I have a funny feeling something like that is about to happen to bill.

Dave

Not to back you into a corner or anything Dave but do you think that NIST made a glaring omission in this explanation above ? And do you think that that omission could have been accidental ?

[bill smith]

You know that video of the F-4 hitting the concrete block? I have a funny feeling something like that is about to happen to bill.

Dave
Just rereading this post Dave I noticed that it could be seen as a very threatening remark. Would you mind explaining exactly what you mean by it ?

[Dave Rogers]

Not to back you into a corner or anything Dave but do you think that NIST made a glaring omission in this explanation above ? And do you think that that omission could have been accidental ?

I'm happy to let you go first. Please feel free to enlighten us as to the glaring error NIST made.

Just rereading this post Dave I noticed that it could be seen as a very threatening remark. Would you mind explaining exactly what you mean by it ?

I'm suggesting that you're working your way up to full speed on this issue, in blissful ignorance of a large and extremely solid obstacle in your way, and your line of argument is about to crash and burn in a very spectacular way. I may be wrong; you may actually have found a significant omission in the NIST FAQ, and therefore may be able to demonstrate that the simplified explanation of the collapse is very slightly over-simplified, which, let's face it, though insignificant, would be one of the greatest victories that the truth movement has ever won. On past performance, though, it's more likely that you've failed to understand some absurdly obvious point, and it'll be pointed out to you in a way that would make anyone else retire from the forum out of sheer embarrassment (a response you seem immune to, in general).

As I say, I may be wrong. Tell us what you think NIST has left out, and we'll see.

Dave

[bill smith]

I'm happy to let you go first. Please feel free to enlighten us as to the glaring error NIST made.



I'm suggesting that you're working your way up to full speed on this issue, in blissful ignorance of a large and extremely solid obstacle in your way, and your line of argument is about to crash and burn in a very spectacular way. I may be wrong; you may actually have found a significant omission in the NIST FAQ, and therefore may be able to demonstrate that the simplified explanation of the collapse is very slightly over-simplified, which, let's face it, though insignificant, would be one of the greatest victories that the truth movement has ever won. On past performance, though, it's more likely that you've failed to understand some absurdly obvious point, and it'll be pointed out to you in a way that would make anyone else retire from the forum out of sheer embarrassment (a response you seem immune to, in general).

As I say, I may be wrong. Tell us what you think NIST has left out, and we'll see.

Dave

Some people would find your answer evasive Dave and a lot less than a resounding vote of confidence in the above NIST explanation of the collapse dynamic.

Seeing that you are unwilling to give the NIST exlanation your unqualified support I must explain the vital omission made by NIST as I see it.

In my opinion no analysis of the collapse can exclude the 47 upstanding massive core columns. Nor the offset descending 47 core columns in the disconnected upper block. Both upper and lower columns will chew the concrete floors that they meet into a rain of loose rubble that has little concentrated force, just like a bag of loose nails, while heavier will never drive a nail into a plank. So the overall destructive power of the descending upper block on the lower intact 90% of the building is massively diluted by comparison with a rigid and intact upper block.

NIST does not take the upstanding or descending core columns into account in this way at all and of course that is a vital and glaring omission.

So can I ask you again ?...Could this omission have been accidental ?

[funk de fino]

Dave was right.

[Heiwa]

I remind you that topic is The Heiwa Challenge! Maybe NIST has the solution how to win the Challenge?

NIST suggests in its FAQ: 'Since the number of floors above the level where the collapse initiated, exceeded 6 for both towers (12 for WTC 1 and 29 for WTC 2), neither tower could have arrested the progression of collapse once collapse initiated. In reality, the highest intact floor was about three (WTC 2) to six (WTC 1) floors below the level of collapse initiation. Thus, more than the 12 to 29 floors reported above actually loaded the intact floor suddenly.'

So it seems that you only need a structure with one intact floor, say A97, that is suddenly loaded by many other floors, say C1 - C13 ... and global collapse ensues!

But how do you do that by gravity alone? I can put/drop one floor, C1, on the intact floor, A97, if I remove all supports in between, but the other floors, C2-C13, are still high above! They are not loading A97. C2-C13 are putting their loads into the columns!

NIST only talks about initiation! Floor C1 drops on A97 ... and therefore global collapse ensues. But what about the columns?

The Heiwa Challenge is the opportunity to test the NIST fuzzy ideas!

It seems you only need a structure with floors (A1-A97 + C1-C13) and then you only have to remove a top assembly of floors, C1-C13, and drop it on A97 ... and you are a winner!

But maybe A97 destroys C1? And do not forget the vertical elements.

PS - Bazant ... and Mackey (where has he gone?) make it very easy. C1-C13 is just one rigid mass M !!! and it destroys anything. But - reminder - rigid mass M is not permitted in The Heiwa Challenge. The structure must be real!

[Dave Rogers]

Both upper and lower columns will chew the concrete floors that they meet into a rain of loose rubble that has little concentrated force, just like a bag of loose nails, while heavier will never drive a nail into a plank. So the overall destructive power of the descending upper block on the lower intact 90% of the building is massively diluted by comparison with a rigid and intact upper block.

F-4, meet concrete block.

Although this is not in fact true - such a rain of loose rubble still has exactly the same amount of momentum, that still has to be absorbed by the floor below, whether it's in one piece or many - you may notice that the NIST report also points out that each floor could support at most 11 additional floors, and that 12 floors of WTC1 were falling. (Do I need to point out that 12 is a bigger number than 11?) In other words, had the upper structure been broken into small pieces and lowered gently on to the highest undamaged floor, it still would have collapsed. Since every subsequent floor would have had to support a greater weight, the collapse would still have propagated. And this has been explained and reiterated so many times on this forum, in threads that you have frequented, that wilful ignorance is the only possible explanation for you even bothering to discuss it.

Incidentally, the reason a bag of nails won't drive a single nail into a plank is that most of the moving nails miss the stationary one and hence can't transfer momentum to it. There was no possible way for the overwhelming majority of the mass of the upper block to miss the lower block.

Dave

[bill smith]

F-4, meet concrete block.

Although this is not in fact true - such a rain of loose rubble still has exactly the same amount of momentum, that still has to be absorbed by the floor below, whether it's in one piece or many - you may notice that the NIST report also points out that each floor could support at most 11 additional floors, and that 12 floors of WTC1 were falling. (Do I need to point out that 12 is a bigger number than 11?) In other words, had the upper structure been broken into small pieces and lowered gently on to the highest undamaged floor, it still would have collapsed. Since every subsequent floor would have had to support a greater weight, the collapse would still have propagated. And this has been explained and reiterated so many times on this forum, in threads that you have frequented, that wilful ignorance is the only possible explanation for you even bothering to discuss it.

Incidentally, the reason a bag of nails won't drive a single nail into a plank is that most of the moving nails miss the stationary one and hence can't transfer momentum to it. There was no possible way for the overwhelming majority of the mass of the upper block to miss the lower block.

Dave

I suggest that any reader of this post of Dave's looks for the word 'column' in his post. As a reply to a post about NIST ignoring the upstanding and descending core columns in WTC1 this will obviously not suffice and can be taken as the rubbish it appears to be .

Concerned Citizens who are reading along should bear this in mind when assessing future posts from Dave.


Additionally in the following oiece of rubbish you say :-

''....a rain of loose rubble still has exactly the same amount of momentum, that still has to be absorbed by the floor below, whether it's in one piece or many ''

What you should have said if you were not being deliberately misleading is that each and every piece of rubble had it's OWN momentum and struck independently. Lots of little blows do not have the same effect as one large one.

[funk de fino]

Lots of little blows do not have the same effect as one large one.


Do you watch boxing Bill?

[Dave Rogers]

Lots of little blows do not have the same effect as one large one.

Pretending that's true, let's forget the lots of little blows and go for the one big one. Your argument is that, because the core columns would have broken the floors, the floors wouldn't have broken.

Dave

[Regnad Kcin]

Some people would find your answer evasive Dave......says the guy who won't step up and articulate why he promotes a conspiracy theory that is 100% impossible.

[Regnad Kcin]

Concerned Citizens who are reading along should bear this in mind when assessing future posts from Dave.Concerned Citizens who are reading along should be amazed that heiwa continues to stumble along promoting some silly little "challenge" that has little-to-no relation to what happened to the Twin Towers.

And that bill smith won't spell out what his agenda is with regard to giving support to a conspiracy theory that is 100% impossible.

[tfk]

QUESTION:
1. Was there enough gravitational energy present in the World Trade Center Towers to cause the collapse of the intact floors below the impact floors? Why was the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 not arrested by the intact structure below the floors where columns first began to buckle?

ANSWER:
Yes, there was more than enough gravitational load to cause the collapse of the floors below the level of collapse initiation in both WTC Towers. The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 11 additional floors if the load was applied gradually and 6 additional floors if the load was applied suddenly (as was the case). Since the number of floors above the approximate floor of collapse initiation exceeded six in each WTC Tower (12 and 29 floors, respectively), the floors below the level of collapse initiation were unable to resist the suddenly applied gravitational load from the upper floors of the buildings. Details of this finding are provided below:

Consider a typical floor immediately below the level of collapse initiation and conservatively assume that the floor is still supported on all columns (i.e., the columns below the intact floor did not buckle or peel-off due to the failure of the columns above). Consider further the truss seat connections between the primary floor trusses and the exterior wall columns or core columns. The individual connection capacities ranged from 94,000 lb to 395,000 lb, with a total vertical load capacity for the connections on a typical floor of 29,000,000 lb (See Section 5.2.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6C). The total floor area outside the core was approximately 31,000 ft2, and the average load on a floor under service conditions on September 11, 2001 was 80 lb/ft2. Thus, the total vertical load on a floor outside the core can be estimated by multiplying the floor area (31,000 ft2) by the gravitational load (80 lb/ft2), which yields 2,500,000 lb (this is a conservative load estimate since it ignores the weight contribution of the heavier mechanical floors at the top of each WTC Tower). By dividing the total vertical connection capacity (29,000,000 lb) of a floor by the total vertical load applied to the connections (2,500,000 lb), the number of floors that can be supported by an intact floor is calculated to be a total of 12 floors or 11 additional floors.

This simplified and conservative analysis indicates that the floor connections could have carried only a maximum of about 11 additional floors if the load from these floors were applied statically. Even this number is (conservatively) high, since the load from above the collapsing floor is being applied suddenly. Since the dynamic amplification factor for a suddenly applied load is 2, an intact floor below the level of collapse initiation could not have supported more than six floors. Since the number of floors above the level where the collapse initiated, exceeded 6 for both towers (12 for WTC 1 and 29 for WTC 2), neither tower could have arrested the progression of collapse once collapse initiated. In reality, the highest intact floor was about three (WTC 2) to six (WTC 1) floors below the level of collapse initiation. Thus, more than the 12 to 29 floors reported above actually loaded the intact floor suddenly.

.
[bill issues a challenge]

So does nobody want to have a guess what NIST might have omitted in the above explanation ? Or maybe comment on the liklihood of whether that omission could have occurred accidentally ? Does the omission totally invalidate this explanation and if so who will be the first to call NIST and damand a rectification?
.
[Several posters immediatly predict bill's impending "crash & burn"]
.
[bill reveals his "Gotcha"]

In my opinion no analysis of the collapse can exclude the 47 upstanding massive core columns. Nor the offset descending 47 core columns in the disconnected upper block. Both upper and lower columns will chew the concrete floors that they meet into a rain of loose rubble that has little concentrated force, just like a bag of loose nails, while heavier will never drive a nail into a plank. So the overall destructive power of the descending upper block on the lower intact 90% of the building is massively diluted by comparison with a rigid and intact upper block.

.
[Predictions come true.]
.
Here's your "thought for the day", bill:
"Arrogant and aggressive" does NOT constitute lipstick for "ignorant's" pig.

1st error: NIST does NOT "exclude the 47 upstanding massive core columns" from their discussion.

The "47 upstanding massive core columns" are key components of the "vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor". Without the upstanding massive core columns, the vertical capacity of the connections is zero.
___

2nd (minor) error: NIST does NOT completely exclude the "descending 47 core columns in the disconnected upper block" from their discussion either.

While they are not tallied in this explicitly "SIMPLIFIED" analysis, they are a component in addition to the top hat assembly that makes their weight estimates "conservative".
___

3rd major error: Your charmingly quaint assumption that you possess the knowledge or experience to dictate to a bunch of PhD Structural Engineers what is, and is not, significant.


NIST does not take the upstanding or descending core columns into account in this way at all and of course that is a vital and glaring omission.

So can I ask you again ?...Could this omission have been accidental ?


No, bill. It was not an accident.

NIST states explicitly that this is a "simplified and conservative analysis". It is neither necessary nor desirable to discuss all the myriad effects going on. It's the forest vs. the trees, bill. If you identify ONE point of certain failure that leads inextricably to total collapse, you're done. Additional discussion blurs focus for the non-professional.

The structural engineers have identified such a single point of certain failure: the carrying capacity of the cross truss to column connectors. They have shown that these components would have been overloaded no matter how non-traumatic any other effect might have been.

There are dozens of other effects that might be considered. All of them (including your cherished "massive core columns") are rendered irrelevant by the total failure of the connectors.

"Painting the lily & gilding the gold..."
___

I DO have one bitch with this explanation. It's the "... the dynamic amplification factor for a suddenly applied load is 2 ... " comment. This is a gross understatement. Another conservative simplification. If you think that it is accurate, I'll invite you to lay on the ground, and I'll gently lower a 40 lbs cement block onto your chest. Then, with your arms strapped to your side, I'll drop a 20 lb block cement block from 12 feet onto your chest. And then I'll ask you which one you'd prefer I do 10 additional times.

But again, this is a "simplified and conservative analysis". So I won't bitch too vocally.
___

Finally:


Some people would find your answer evasive Dave and a lot less than a resounding vote of confidence in the above NIST explanation of the collapse dynamic.


4th error: This was NOT NIST's "explanation of the collapse dynamic". It was one condition that was - on its own - sufficient for total collapse.

Furthermore, unlike you idjits and your teenage YouTube-ology, we don't take NIST as holy-writ. We'll actually listen to, and participate in, critiques of the report. In fact, there have been many competent critiques, such as the much-discussed Dr. Quintiere's.

So Dave gave you the option of presenting your "gotcha" moment. Meanwhile, predicting (along with the vast majority) your imminent crash & burn.

Dave was right on the money.

1. You misunderstood what NIST was saying here.
2. You baselessly attributed malevolent intentions to NIST as a result of [B]your misunderstanding.
3. Your "gotcha" exposé fell on its face.
4. You expressed the quaint delusion that you could "paint into a corner" anybody except yourself.

In other words, SNAFU.

tom

[SteveAustin]

If 29,000,000 pounds is the carrying capacity of 1 floor (not doubting you)...

Is this why the floor could not support the weight of the collapsing top section? Because the top section weighed more than 29,000,000 pounds?

That is the essential NIST theory boiled down in a nutshell is it not?

[Newtons Bit]

Pretending that's true, let's forget the lots of little blows and go for the one big one. Your argument is that, because the core columns would have broken the floors, the floors wouldn't have broken.

Dave

It doesn't even have to be "blows". The floor connections will break under the static load of 11 floors above them (according to NIST). This is the upper-limit of what the floors can resist as a static load: the floor trusses and the concrete deck will fail before this point.

And columns aren't even part of the equation. One could pretend a completely invulnerable building below (such as in the ridiculous Heiwa Axiom), but the build-up of debris on the top most floor would eventually cause that floor to collapse.

[tuc0]

If 29,000,000 pounds is the carrying capacity of 1 floor (not doubting you)...

Is this why the floor could not support the weight of the collapsing top section? Because the top section weighed more than 29,000,000 pounds?

That is the essential NIST theory boiled down in a nutshell is it not?

No.

[GlennB]

If 29,000,000 pounds is the carrying capacity of 1 floor (not doubting you)...

Is this why the floor could not support the weight of the collapsing top section? Because the top section weighed more than 29,000,000 pounds?

That is the essential NIST theory boiled down in a nutshell is it not?

Static + dynamic are the words you need to appreciate here. The NIST faq makes it clear. Try reading it.

"This simplified and conservative analysis indicates that the floor connections could have carried only a maximum of about 11 additional floors if the load from these floors were applied statically"

p.s. while you're here ... I did ask some time back how it was that 'barely a day passes' in your life when you don't find someone who's surprised to hear that WTC7 also collapsed on 9/11. I find this strange. I go for years at a time with no mention of the subject at all in conversation, even though I have an interest. How come you're getting into the subject most days?

[beachnut]

I see that you still believe that bluster, arrogance and aggression are substitutes for rational debate.
Have a nice life.
Bring some physics next time you troll. Your a game? Your empty support of Heiwa's failed pizza box engineering is showing. Do you need some help to understand why the WTC tower fell on 911?
So does nobody want to have a guess what NIST might have omitted in the above explanation ? Or maybe comment on the liklihood of whether that omission could have occurred accidentally ? Does the omission totally invalidate this explanation and if so who will be the first to call NIST and damand a rectification? You forgot to say what they got wrong and you can't. Do you have any engineering background? No your post prove you don't. Go ahead educate the world with more posts proving you will not bring engineering, math, or physics to this discussion to support your delusions or Heiwa failed ideas.
If 29,000,000 pounds is the carrying capacity of 1 floor (not doubting you)...

Is this why the floor could not support the weight of the collapsing top section? Because the top section weighed more than 29,000,000 pounds?

That is the essential NIST theory boiled down in a nutshell is it not? Did you forget to read NIST before commenting on something you don't understand? Read NIST and try again to form a rational question. Do you need help?

[Heiwa]

It doesn't even have to be "blows". The floor connections will break under the static load of 11 floors above them (according to NIST). This is the upper-limit of what the floors can resist as a static load: the floor trusses and the concrete deck will fail before this point.

And columns aren't even part of the equation. One could pretend a completely invulnerable building below (such as in the ridiculous Heiwa Axiom), but the build-up of debris on the top most floor would eventually cause that floor to collapse.

Aha, an NB structure for The Heiwa Challenge!

"columns aren't even part of the equation"

LOL!

Yes, a structure only with horizontal elements not supported by anything will have little resistance against global collapse!

Can you provide an example of such a structure!

[Dave Rogers]

If 29,000,000 pounds is the carrying capacity of 1 floor (not doubting you)...

Is this why the floor could not support the weight of the collapsing top section? Because the top section weighed more than 29,000,000 pounds?

That is the essential NIST theory boiled down in a nutshell is it not?

No, there's a good deal more to it than that. For a start, there's the difference between static and dynamic loading. Everything has some elasticity, and hence will deform under load. If a weight is placed on top of an undeformed object, that object will be compressed by the load. However, that compression means that the weight moves downwards, so, at the point where the object has deformed enough to bear the weight, the weight is moving. The object then has to exert a force to stop it moving, and it can be shown that the maximum force exerted is twice that of the static weight. Therefore, the top section not only weighed more than 29,000,000 pounds, but also it exerted at least twice that force on the lower section. "At least", because it wasn't placed gently on the top of the lower block - in which case it would have exerted exactly twice its weight at maximum deflection - but rather it fell on the lower block, which means that even more force was required to decelerate it to a standstill. Therefore, the floors wouldn't have been able to resist the static loading of the upper section, the dynamic loading was twice that, and the actual loading was even higher; estimates of the actual loading indicate that it was enough to collapse not only the floors, but the support columns as well. However, that wasn't necessary for collapse propagation; the columns were only able to stand when braced by the floor trusses, and were too slender to stand unsupported.

Dave

[Newtons Bit]

Aha, an NB structure for The Heiwa Challenge!

"columns aren't even part of the equation"

LOL!

Yes, a structure only with horizontal elements not supported by anything will have little resistance against global collapse!

Can you provide an example of such a structure!

Now that is a dismal display of reading comprehension.

[SteveAustin]

No, there's a good deal more to it than that. For a start, there's the difference between static and dynamic loading. Everything has some elasticity, and hence will deform under load. If a weight is placed on top of an undeformed object, that object will be compressed by the load. However, that compression means that the weight moves downwards, so, at the point where the object has deformed enough to bear the weight, the weight is moving. The object then has to exert a force to stop it moving, and it can be shown that the maximum force exerted is twice that of the static weight. Therefore, the top section not only weighed more than 29,000,000 pounds, but also it exerted at least twice that force on the lower section. "At least", because it wasn't placed gently on the top of the lower block - in which case it would have exerted exactly twice its weight at maximum deflection - but rather it fell on the lower block, which means that even more force was required to decelerate it to a standstill. Therefore, the floors wouldn't have been able to resist the static loading of the upper section, the dynamic loading was twice that, and the actual loading was even higher; estimates of the actual loading indicate that it was enough to collapse not only the floors, but the support columns as well. However, that wasn't necessary for collapse propagation; the columns were only able to stand when braced by the floor trusses, and were too slender to stand unsupported.

Dave


Thanks for that clear and precise response Dave. Beachnut are you paying attention? Do you see what a response should look like? Or are you too caught up in the "beachnut mantra"?

OK Dave let me see if I can explain my thinking about this, and yes I do understand exactly what you said.

First of all, I have often heard that the collapse continued because each floor could not support the weight dropped on it. That is that when taking the collapse into consideration it falls only on ONE floor at a time.

How is it that ONE floor ...say floor number 5 can hold a static load many many times it's 29,000,000 pound carrying capacity? (it does have the other 105 floors above it after all) Which of course means that it is not ONE floor alone that carries the static load but a number of floors connect to each other working together as a "block".

I mean anyway you look at it floor number 5 is supporting 105 floors above it and it does not do it alone, since a floors carrying capacity is only 29,000,000 pounds.

So if we take floor number 94 and ask how did a floor with a carrying capacity of only 29,000,000 pounds carry the static load of the 16 floors above it the answer is obvious in that it did not...at least not alone.

So why then when taking the collapse into consideration does everyone seem to say that it is only that top floor you need to account for in the collapse progression as it only hits ONE floor at a time? Obviously ONE floor cannot support all the weight of the building above it alone so it is not that every floor supports the entire weight of every floor above it by itself, and in the same way when the upper portion collapses (and here I'm ignoring the fact that that upper portion turns nearly completely to dust before the bottom portion begins it's collapse) it is not just the carrying capacity of each floor alone ONE AT A TIME that has to be taken into consideration for slowing and stopping the collapse of the upper section.

Of course we all know it's not the floors themselves that hold the building up, the floors simply support whatever is put on that floor, it's the steel perimeter columns and core columns that hold up the building. So when the "collapse" begins why do the core columns not seem to have any effect in even slowing down the collapse? The floors may only have a 29,000,000 pound carrying capacity but the core and perimeter columns at the level of floor 5 have been carrying 105 floors of weight for a very long time

[Seymour Butz]

Could we get back to the topic of this thread?
Have any debunkers even tried to complete the challenge?

How about a new Heiwa challenge then?

Let's have HIM prove his theory correct.

Let's have Heiwa construct the tower, have it inspected and analyzed to be an accurate model of the towers, and then let's see what happens.

If his tower fails to accurately model the towers (like the lemons, sponges, pizza boxes, etc) then he has to do it over again.

When it finally passes, let's see what happens.

This is my official entry to Randi's challenge: Heiwa will now say that lemons, pizza boxes, and sponges are an accurate model.....

I await my million.

[Minadin]

How is it that ONE floor ...say floor number 5 can hold a static load many many times it's 29,000,000 pound carrying capacity? (it does have the other 105 floors above it after all) Which of course means that it is not ONE floor alone that carries the static load but a number of floors connect to each other working together as a "block".

I mean anyway you look at it floor number 5 is supporting 105 floors above it and it does not do it alone, since a floors carrying capacity is only 29,000,000 pounds. <snip>



Those loads aren't being held by the floor. They're being transmitted into the basement, sub-basement, and then into the ground, by the columns.

Each actual floor structure was only designed to carry the live and dead load for that particular floor of building contents; also to provide lateral bracing to the columns.

When the upper part of the building begins to move, it falls on the floor as well as the columns, and it greatly exceeds the capacity of the floor, so the floors break. This removes lateral bracing from the columns and makes it much easier for them to collapse.

[Heiwa]

Each actual floor structure was only designed to carry the live and dead load for that particular floor of building contents; also to provide lateral bracing to the columns.

When the upper part of the building begins to move, it falls on the floor as well as the columns, and it greatly exceeds the capacity of the floor, so the floors break. This removes lateral bracing from the columns and makes it much easier for them to collapse.

Good advice for The Heiwa Challenge structure builders/designers! Yes, horizontal structural elements like floors don't do very much! They just transmit their local loads (400 kgs/m² vertically in WTC at any floor level 1 or 109) to the really strong elements, guess what? And they may 'brace' these strong elements too.

In a The Heiwa Challenge structure you can do what you like to make any element fail due to gravity forces applied, just remember that top part C must be similar to bottom part A, when you drop C on A assisted by gravity.

Please note that in WTC 1 floor 1 is as strong as floor 109! They just transmit own weight and stuff on them to the really strong elements anywhere in the structure. If you believe, like NIST, that removing weak floors by gravity will produce global collapse of the strong elements, please have a try. New Challengers to The Heiwa Challenge are always welcome.

Bazant & Co have some ideas that the weak elements of an upper part C have the ability to compress anything below in a part A. C produces rubble of A that becomes a part B - rubble - that is really awful ... on paper. The rubble + gravity destroy A. Hilarious. LOL!

[GlennB]

How about a new Heiwa challenge then?

Let's have HIM prove his theory correct.

Let's have Heiwa construct the tower, have it inspected and analyzed to be an accurate model of the towers, and then let's see what happens.


Something similar was tried way back.

Heiwa was proposing a project for kids ( :eek: )over on his website. This involved welding substantial steel plates to form a water tank, stuck on steel legs. Below the tank would be a platform on which wood, fabric etc would be set alight with diesel as accelerant. The idea was to show that the contraption would not collapse through heat-weakening of the steel.

Naturally, folks asked him to demonstrate that he'd tried this himself and to provide evidence. As expected he blustered and evaded for weeks until people lost interest in the subject. His MO, basically.

Heiwa is a fraud.

[Dave Rogers]

OK Dave let me see if I can explain my thinking about this, and yes I do understand exactly what you said.

First of all, I have often heard that the collapse continued because each floor could not support the weight dropped on it. That is that when taking the collapse into consideration it falls only on ONE floor at a time.

How is it that ONE floor ...say floor number 5 can hold a static load many many times it's 29,000,000 pound carrying capacity? (it does have the other 105 floors above it after all) Which of course means that it is not ONE floor alone that carries the static load but a number of floors connect to each other working together as a "block".

I mean anyway you look at it floor number 5 is supporting 105 floors above it and it does not do it alone, since a floors carrying capacity is only 29,000,000 pounds.

So if we take floor number 94 and ask how did a floor with a carrying capacity of only 29,000,000 pounds carry the static load of the 16 floors above it the answer is obvious in that it did not...at least not alone.

So why then when taking the collapse into consideration does everyone seem to say that it is only that top floor you need to account for in the collapse progression as it only hits ONE floor at a time? Obviously ONE floor cannot support all the weight of the building above it alone so it is not that every floor supports the entire weight of every floor above it by itself, and in the same way when the upper portion collapses (and here I'm ignoring the fact that that upper portion turns nearly completely to dust before the bottom portion begins it's collapse) it is not just the carrying capacity of each floor alone ONE AT A TIME that has to be taken into consideration for slowing and stopping the collapse of the upper section.

Actually, yes, it is. The point is that the load is normally borne by the columns, not by the floors. Once the columns disconnect, they aren't bearing the load any more. Unless the top block falls perfectly vertically and without rotation, the columns can never resume their load bearing role, because the upper part of the column will either glance off the part below it or miss it completely. So we have to look at the only other part of the structure capable of arresting the collapse, which is the floor (i.e. the horizontal trusses and the concrete / steel slab between them).

Looking at videos of the collapse, it appears that the actual mechanism was a good deal more complex than a simple pancake collapse; we model it as that simply because it's more amenable to calculation. Most likely there was an internal collapse wave of the floors ahead of the collapse of the perimeter columns, which then fell away because they were incapable of standing unsupported by the bracing of the floor trusses, and we know that the core columns were the last part to collapse because spires were left standing for several seconds after the floors and perimeters had completely collapsed. However, even if we model the collapse using a set of assumptions that are unrealistically biased in favour of the building surviving, we still find that there is more than enough potential energy released in the course of the collapse to destroy the structure completely. In scientific language this means that the WTC towers were metastable; they contained enough energy to destroy themselves, but needed an initial supply of energy to do so. Therefore, the only real issue for NIST to investigate was not how the collapse continued, but how it began; once a metastable state has been supplied with enough energy to overcome the barrier to decay, it will inevitably do so.

Of course we all know it's not the floors themselves that hold the building up, the floors simply support whatever is put on that floor, it's the steel perimeter columns and core columns that hold up the building. So when the "collapse" begins why do the core columns not seem to have any effect in even slowing down the collapse?

There's really no substitute here for doing the maths. A36 steel typically reaches its elastic limit at about a quarter of one per cent compression, at which point it starts to buckle inelastically; as I understand it, it then absorbs about 10-15 times the energy in inelastic deformation that it's absorbed in elastic deformation. This can all be calculated as a loss of kinetic energy of the lower block, and the expected slowing of the collapse can be worked out. As a simplified handwaving explanation, though, consider a ten foot steel support breaking when a weight falls on it. It will break after shortening by only a few inches, after which it isn't exerting any upward force. Averaging the force out over the fall of the weight, the average force exerted upwards by the steel support is therefore only a few per cent of the maximum force it can exert; most of the time in the course of the collapse, the steel isn't slowing the weight at all, because it's already broken. The effect in slowing the collapse isn't exactly zero, but in the case of the WTC towers it only appears ot account for a second or so of the collapse time. Conservation of momentum, as each floor is accelerated up to the speed of the falling block and decelerates the falling block as it does so, accounts for significantly more.

The floors may only have a 29,000,000 pound carrying capacity but the core and perimeter columns at the level of floor 5 have been carrying 105 floors of weight for a very long time

Static weight, yes. Once that weight starts moving, it's a lot harder to stop it than it was to keep it still in the first place.

Dave

[Heiwa]

So we have to look at the only other part of the structure capable of arresting the collapse, which is the floor (i.e. the horizontal trusses and the concrete / steel slab between them).


Dave


Maybe the strong, intact columns below are capable to arrest the collapse, too? You know, they carry the thin, weak floors that are supposed to arrest the collapse! Maybe they work together. By joining The Heiwa Challenge with a real structure you'll soon find out!

[Grizzly Bear]

Maybe the strong, intact columns below are capable to arrest the collapse, too? You know, they carry the thin, weak floors that are supposed to arrest the collapse! Maybe they work together. By joining The Heiwa Challenge with a real structure you'll soon find out!

The floors are unable to transfer loads to the columns if the connections fail before the collapse can be arrested even assuming the floors themselves could carry the loads in the first place.

[Heiwa]

Heiwa was proposing a project for kids ( :eek: )over on his website. This involved welding substantial steel plates to form a water tank, stuck on steel legs. Below the tank would be a platform on which wood, fabric etc would be set alight with diesel as accelerant. The idea was to show that the contraption would not collapse through heat-weakening of the steel.

Naturally, folks asked him to demonstrate that he'd tried this himself and to provide evidence.

The result was as expected. See http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist1.htm#6 Has been tested several times.

[Heiwa]

The floors are unable to transfer loads to the columns if the connections fail before the collapse can be arrested even assuming the floors themselves could carry the loads in the first place.

Or it is the other way around. Join The Heiwa Challenge with a suitable structure and you'll find out. I know what happens, but a real test is more convincing for feable souls believing in magic.

[Dave Rogers]

Maybe the strong, intact columns below are capable to arrest the collapse, too?

No, because they never have a horizontal surface of contact with the columns of the upper block and cannot therefore exert a force on it directly; they can only exert a force transmitted through the floor structure, and this is limited by the strength of the floor structure. And in any case, even if the assumption is made that the support columns themselves are able to resist collapse, calculations show that, after a single storey drop of the upper block, even the undamaged columns are insufficiently strong to do so. This has been a common feature of all such calculations with the exception of two: Gordon Ross's, which inexplicably concludes that collapse is arrested because the kinetic energy of the upper block after collapse of the supports is insufficient to cause a collapse of the supports that it has just collapsed; and yours, which assumes without supporting calculations that half the potential energy of the upper block is not transmitted to the lower structure, and then miscalculates the elastic deformation energy of the lower structure.

Dave

[bill smith]

Or it is the other way around. Join The Heiwa Challenge with a suitable structure and you'll find out. I know what happens, but a real test is more convincing for feable souls believing in magic.
Heiwa here's a good video for the collection.

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/north_tower_collapse.mpeg

[Jackanory]

Heiwa here's a good video for the collection.

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/north_tower_collapse.mpeg

Yes Bill. Another video showing no sign of explosives. Recording no noise from explosives and clearly showing the mast listing backwards. Many thanks.

[bill smith]

So who's for a ' rigid and íntact upper block ' then ? lol
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/north_tower_collapse.mpeg

[bill smith]

Yes Bill. Another video showing no sign of explosives. Recording no noise from explosives and clearly showing the mast listing backwards. Many thanks.

Any time Jack Sweetie.

[GlennB]

The result was as expected. See http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist1.htm#6 Has been tested several times.

Provide evidence. You have a history of deception. Without evidence nobody can believe you.

[Regnad Kcin]

Say, Mr. Smith:

What is your agenda?

Love,

RK

[Jackanory]

So who's for a ' rigid íntact block ' then ? lol
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/north_tower_collapse.mpeg


A 'rigid intact block' mmmmmmmmmmmmm. Now where did i see it quoted as being such mmmmmmmmmmmmm?

[Newtons Bit]

Something that truthers don't understand is the concept of a load path.

[GlennB]

Something that truthers don't understand is the concept of a load path.

Could that be where a breeze block lands on my shoulder and breaks a few bones but I'm OK in the long run, but a breeze block landing on my head breaks my neck and leaves me quadriplegic? Even though my torso, hips and legs are supporting me much the same both ways?

I could be well wrong here, but I like analogies.

[Justin39640]

Provide evidence. You have a history of deception. Without evidence nobody can believe you.

his whole "water table' test is again (and not surprisingly) not comparable to the construction of the Twin Towers

The purpose of the model test is of course to establish the stiffness of the table leg pipes (the columns of the initiation zone) under heat and to see if suddenly, at, e.g. temperature 500° C, the mass above (luckily most water in this test for children) drops down, at a significant speed and with an enormous kinetic energy, and impacts on the cement floor with an enormous dynamic load.

Or does nothing of that sort happen? Maybe the table legs will just bulge. You will find out (the latter)!

now
the real test is to make a structure that represents the subject at hand (The Twin Towers)
but instead of steel plates covering the entire top
make lattice work horizontally so that the structure cant stand without it (cross members)
and make sure other than a central core you have open floor spaces

id also use square stock not pipes maybe square tube for the legs but def square stock for the lattice since that would be similar to the towers
make sure the cross members are at least half the thickness of the legs
light that up and let it burn for over an hour
make sure the legs are sectional
4 sections (skylobbies)
light the fire on the 2nd tier

you (Hewia) said the LEGS were what you were testing
unfortunately the cross members (floors) in the towers was what the fire caused to sag
the connections from the core to the outer tube were lost along with structural integrity

i read you paper and there's several instances that show you really dont understand (or care to) the construction of the towers and how they actually failed

(if he says its not about the towers then he's posted a challenge that has nothing to do with 911 conspiracies and should be banned for wasting 40 pages to an off topic challenge)

[Justin39640]

Provide evidence. You have a history of deception. Without evidence nobody can believe you.

his whole "water table' test is again (and not surprisingly) not comparable to the construction of the Twin Towers

The purpose of the model test is of course to establish the stiffness of the table leg pipes (the columns of the initiation zone) under heat and to see if suddenly, at, e.g. temperature 500° C, the mass above (luckily most water in this test for children) drops down, at a significant speed and with an enormous kinetic energy, and impacts on the cement floor with an enormous dynamic load.

Or does nothing of that sort happen? Maybe the table legs will just bulge. You will find out (the latter)!

now
the real test is to make a structure that represents the subject at hand (The Twin Towers)
but instead of steel plates covering the entire top
make lattice work so that the structure cant stand without it

id also use square stock not pipes maybe square tube for the legs but def square stock for the lattice since that would be similar to the towers
make sure the cross members are at least half the thickness of the legs
light that up and let it burn for over an hour
make sure the legs are sectional
4 sections (skylobbies)
light the fire on the 2nd tier

you (Heiwa) said the LEGS were what you were testing
unfortunately the cross members (floors) in the towers was what the fire caused to sag
the connections from the core to the outer tube were lost along with structural integrity

i read you paper and there's several instances that show you really dont understand (or care to) the construction of the towers and how they actually failed

(if he says its not about the towers then he's posted a challenge that has nothing to do with 911 conspiracies and should be banned for wasting 40 pages to an off topic challenge)

[tfk]

Heiwa,

Maybe the strong, intact columns below are capable to arrest the collapse, too? You know, they carry the thin, weak floors that are supposed to arrest the collapse! Maybe they work together. By joining The Heiwa Challenge with a real structure you'll soon find out!

Well, let's see if you can do a little figgerin', Mr. Engineer.

According to Greg Urich (WTC Energetics), the mass of the upper 12 stories of WTC1 is 3.42x10^7 Kg. Which equates to a weight of 1.55x10^7 pounds. There were approximately 82 peripheral columns stubs and 16 core stubs on the 99th floor. Therefore, when each of these columns hits the floor of the 98th floor, they carry a total of approximately 1.6x10^5 lbs per column. The cross sectional area of each column is about 2" x (14" + 13") x 0.6" = 32 in^2. This gives about 710,000 psf. If we use NIST's estimate of a factor of 2 for dynamic load, each column would produce about 1.4 million psf dynamic load. Now, the concrete floors were rated at about 300 psf.

So, you tell me. Do you think that the cement floor will be able to withstand the spearing impact of the strong columns & arrest the upper block?

C'mon, Heiwa. Show me a little engineering judgment...

tom

[FineWine]

Heiwa here's a good video for the collection.

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/north_tower_collapse.mpeg


What's the point of "adding" videos? Real engineers have examined all the videos. Your nutty guru still doesn't have a clue.

[FineWine]

Heiwa,



Well, let's see if you can do a little figgerin', Mr. Engineer.

According to Greg Urich (WTC Energetics), the mass of the upper 12 stories of WTC1 is 3.42x10^7 Kg. Which equates to a weight of 1.55x10^7 pounds. There were approximately 82 peripheral columns stubs and 16 core stubs on the 99th floor. Therefore, when each of these columns hits the floor of the 98th floor, they carry a total of approximately 1.6x10^5 lbs per column. The cross sectional area of each column is about 2" x (14" + 13") x 0.6" = 32 in^2. This gives about 710,000 psf. If we use NIST's estimate of a factor of 2 for dynamic load, each column would produce about 1.4 million psf dynamic load. Now, the concrete floors were rated at about 300 psf.

So, you tell me. Do you think that the cement floor will be able to withstand the spearing impact of the strong columns & arrest the upper block?

C'mon, Heiwa. Show me a little engineering judgment...

tom



Isn't it frustrating to expose and refute someone who isn't smart enough to notice?

[Juniversal]

6EDcH3jPsyA

^..Okay Truthers might be able to understand the dynamics of the collapse with this simple example. ;)

[tfk]

Isn't it frustrating to expose and refute someone who isn't smart enough to notice?
.
FW,

These issues are trivial for pretty much anybody. If it were an issue of smarts, even Heiwa would have gotten it a long time ago.

So, THAT's not the problem.

It takes a real streak of perversity & arrogance & self-superiority to smugly cling to ideas that are obviously wrong.

Heiwa (& the twoofers) have a completely different problem. And, as we've all seen, trying to put things into more & more understandable terms is utterly futile. Because that's addressing the wrong problem.

Which proves my point.

tom

PS. It ain't frustrating, because twoofers' silliness ain't my problem. Now, if it were my kid, that'd be a horse of a different color. I'd have to break out a giant can of whoop-ass. ;-)

[FineWine]

.
FW,

These issues are trivial for pretty much anybody. If it were an issue of smarts, even Heiwa would have gotten it a long time ago.

So, THAT's not the problem.

It takes a real streak of perversity & arrogance & self-superiority to smugly cling to ideas that are obviously wrong.

Heiwa (& the twoofers) have a completely different problem. And, as we've all seen, trying to put things into more & more understandable terms is utterly futile. Because that's addressing the wrong problem.

Which proves my point.

tom

PS. It ain't frustrating, because twoofers' silliness ain't my problem. Now, if it were my kid, that'd be a horse of a different color. I'd have to break out a giant can of whoop-ass. ;-)



Heiwa jumped the shark in submitting his idiocy to the ASCE journal where more real engineers can comment on it. Now he has to pretend that the contributors to that prestigious journal are all religious fundamentalists. His mindless parrots here will, of course, swallow any nonsense he spouts and keep carrying his water, but he's sealed his own doom and he knows it.

[Heiwa]

Heiwa,



Well, let's see if you can do a little figgerin', Mr. Engineer.

According to Greg Urich (WTC Energetics), the mass of the upper 12 stories of WTC1 is 3.42x10^7 Kg. Which equates to a weight of 1.55x10^7 pounds. There were approximately 82 peripheral columns stubs and 16 core stubs on the 99th floor. Therefore, when each of these columns hits the floor of the 98th floor, they carry a total of approximately 1.6x10^5 lbs per column. The cross sectional area of each column is about 2" x (14" + 13") x 0.6" = 32 in^2. This gives about 710,000 psf. If we use NIST's estimate of a factor of 2 for dynamic load, each column would produce about 1.4 million psf dynamic load. Now, the concrete floors were rated at about 300 psf.

So, you tell me. Do you think that the cement floor will be able to withstand the spearing impact of the strong columns & arrest the upper block?

C'mon, Heiwa. Show me a little engineering judgment...

tom

As described in my papers about WTC 1, assuming part C drops on A, the columns of both parts C and A evidently locally damage the floors at contact and the locally damaged floors get entangled into one another and then, mainly due to friction, further destruction is arrested. Note that no connections between columns/floors are damaged - just the weakest elements; the floors (in both parts).

In The Heiwa Challenge you can evidently make the horizontal elements stronger than the vertical elements (Myriad is trying that) and the result will be that the vertical elements in upper part C fail (and the horizontal elements of C just get stacked on top of A or slides off).

Any way you do it, upper part C cannot one-way crush down lower part A by gravity alone.

[Heiwa]

his whole "water table' test is again (and not surprisingly) not comparable to the construction of the Twin Towers



now
the real test is to make a structure that represents the subject at hand (The Twin Towers)
but instead of steel plates covering the entire top
make lattice work so that the structure cant stand without it

id also use square stock not pipes maybe square tube for the legs but def square stock for the lattice since that would be similar to the towers
make sure the cross members are at least half the thickness of the legs
light that up and let it burn for over an hour
make sure the legs are sectional
4 sections (skylobbies)
light the fire on the 2nd tier

you (Heiwa) said the LEGS were what you were testing
unfortunately the cross members (floors) in the towers was what the fire caused to sag
the connections from the core to the outer tube were lost along with structural integrity

i read you paper and there's several instances that show you really dont understand (or care to) the construction of the towers and how they actually failed

(if he says its not about the towers then he's posted a challenge that has nothing to do with 911 conspiracies and should be banned for wasting 40 pages to an off topic challenge)

Thanks for studying my papers! Objective of said test was just to observe how the buckling strength of columns under compressive load (at 0.3 yield) is affected by fire/heat and ... the columns do not suddenly buckle/fail/fracture. NIST has suggested that core columns buckled/failed due to heat but it is not possible.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Thanks for studying my papers! Objective of said test was just to observe how the buckling strength of columns under compressive load (at 0.3 yield) is affected by fire/heat and ... the columns do not suddenly buckle/fail/fracture. NIST has suggested that core columns buckled/failed due to heat but it is not possible.
You evidently did not deposit money in my account after I evidently showed you that Part C one-way crushed down Part A!

[FineWine]

As described in my papers about WTC 1, assuming part C drops on A, the columns of both parts C and A evidently locally damage the floors at contact and the locally damaged floors get entangled into one another and then, mainly due to friction, further destruction is arrested. Note that no connections between columns/floors are damaged - just the weakest elements; the floors (in both parts).

In The Heiwa Challenge you can evidently make the horizontal elements stronger than the vertical elements (Myriad is trying that) and the result will be that the vertical elements in upper part C fail (and the horizontal elements of C just get stacked on top of A or slides off).

Any way you do it, upper part C cannot one-way crush down lower part A by gravity alone.


So, when the real engineers at the ASCE journal gently point out that you are spouting nonsense, they will be religious fundamentalists, right?

[tfk]

As described in my papers about WTC 1...


Who cares. Your papers are crap.

I know it. All the technically competent people here know it. Even the non-technical people know it.

And it is PATENTLY CLEAR to everyone that YOU know it too. You've made it obvious to everyone every single time you refuse to discuss the details.

And fall back on this nonsense:

... assuming part C drops on A, the columns of both parts C and A ... blah, blah, blah...

.

But THIS may set a new standard in stupid, Anders.

Note that no connections between columns/floors are damaged - just the weakest elements; the floors (in both parts).


"... no connections are damaged ..."??

Sure. Whatever you say. Shear strength of A325 high strength bolt (Type 1, 2 or 3) is about 60 ksi.

So a 3/4" dia bolt fails at about 50,000 lbs. So, what do you think is gonna happen when a column weighing about 150,000 pounds or so happens to land on one of the cross trusses??

Here. I'll give you a hint.

See: NIST NCSTAR1-3C, page 108. Sec 3.3.1 "Types of Failure Modes"

And photographs of the results.
1. Weld failures (ibid., Fig 3-31)
2. Bolt tear outs (ibid, Fig 3-32 & 3-34)
3. Vertical fracture of the spandrel plate (ibid., Fig 3-35)
4. Bolt failures, various (ibid., Fig 3-36 thru 3-49)

The phogographic HARD EVIDENCE says that you are full of baloney. Better go back & review some Mechanics of Solids 101.


In The Heiwa Challenge ...


Yeah sure, Anders. Whatever...

Nobody gives a rat's butt about your silly nonsense & delusions. People are here to discuss the real world. And especially what happened to the WTC towers on 9/11.

Theory & hard evidence agree on exactly what happens when the towers begin to collapse.

tom

[bill smith]

Who cares. Your papers are crap.

I know it. All the technically competent people here know it. Even the non-technical people know it.

And it is PATENTLY CLEAR to everyone that YOU know it too. You've made it obvious to everyone every single time you refuse to discuss the details.

And fall back on this nonsense:

.

But THIS may set a new standard in stupid, Anders.


"... no connections are damaged ..."??

Sure. Whatever you say. Shear strength of A325 high strength bolt (Type 1, 2 or 3) is about 60 ksi.

So a 3/4" dia bolt fails at about 50,000 lbs. So, what do you think is gonna happen when a column weighing about 150,000 pounds or so happens to land on one of the cross trusses??

Here. I'll give you a hint.

See: NIST NCSTAR1-3C, page 108. Sec 3.3.1 "Types of Failure Modes"

And photographs of the results.
1. Weld failures (ibid., Fig 3-31)
2. Bolt tear outs (ibid, Fig 3-32 & 3-34)
3. Vertical fracture of the spandrel plate (ibid., Fig 3-35)
4. Bolt failures, various (ibid., Fig 3-36 thru 3-49)

The phogographic HARD EVIDENCE says that you are full of baloney. Better go back & review some Mechanics of Solids 101.



Yeah sure, Anders. Whatever...

Nobody gives a rat's butt about your silly nonsense & delusions. People are here to discuss the real world. And especially what happened to the WTC towers on 9/11.

Theory & hard evidence agree on exactly what happens when the towers begin to collapse.

tom

Now that you have gotten that off your chest T. would you like to have a look at the attached videoclip and tell us what you see in terms of whether the upper block stays intact or not ?

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/north_tower_collapse.mpeg

[Dave Rogers]

Now that you have gotten that off your chest T. would you like to have a look at the attached videoclip and tell us what you see in terms of whether the upper block stays intact or not ?

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/north_tower_collapse.mpeg

Oh dear, SteveAustin gave bill a new toy to obsess over. Now we'll have to spend a week explaining to him that you can't see whether things are intact when they're surrounded by completely opaque clouds of dust, something normal human beings generally tend to understand without needing it explained.

Dave

[bill smith]

Oh dear, SteveAustin gave bill a new toy to obsess over. Now we'll have to spend a week explaining to him that you can't see whether things are intact when they're surrounded by completely opaque clouds of dust, something normal human beings generally tend to understand without needing it explained.

Dave

Is that the full extent of your observations of this clip ?- too much smoke ? That sounds suspiciously lke the old copout of the antenna video having been an optical illusion.

[philkensebben]

I cant really be bothered reading through the thread, but will i have to eat some pizza in order to take part in this challenge? If so, from where?

[Heiwa]

Yeah sure, Anders. Whatever...

Nobody gives a rat's butt about your silly nonsense & delusions. People are here to discuss the real world. And especially what happened to the WTC towers on 9/11.

Theory & hard evidence agree on exactly what happens when the towers begin to collapse.

tom

Pls tom, this is The Heiwa Challenge thread, see post #1. You are supposed to design and show a structure that self-destructs in the real world. Historical structures/records do not qualify.

[Heiwa]

I cant really be bothered reading through the thread, but will i have to eat some pizza in order to take part in this challenge? If so, from where?

No pizza in post #1. You are supposed to use your brains!

[Senenmut]

this is alittle of topic but since there are alot of building professionals here, i was wondering what you guys think of this observation by Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl.

He says that, in some places, the fireproofing used to protect the WTC steel has “melted into a glassy residue.” [New York Times, 10/2/2001

http://www.historycommons.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=wtc+steel&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on

i have looked at the msds of blazeshield and it says it melts at greater than 1800F. so i emailed them and underwriters labs about the specific temp. i got an email back from underwriters that just said email blazeshield. they havent responed yet.

anyone know the specific temp that blazeshield melts at?

[bill smith]

this is alittle of topic but since there are alot of building professionals here, i was wondering what you guys think of this observation by Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl.

He says that, in some places, the fireproofing used to protect the WTC steel has “melted into a glassy residue.” [New York Times, 10/2/2001

http://www.historycommons.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=wtc+steel&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on

i have looked at the msds of blazeshield and it says it melts at greater than 1800F. so i emailed them and underwriters labs about the specific temp. i got an email back from underwriters that just said email blazeshield. they havent responed yet.

anyone know the specific temp that blazeshield melts at?

Very interesting question. How long ago did you mail Blazeshield ? Please keep us up to date on their answer. (if they answer)

PS: That NYT article from October 2 2001 was fascinating.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/02/science/scarred-steel-holds-clues-and-remedies.html?pagewanted=1

[tfk]

... the columns of both parts C and A evidently locally damage the floors at contact and the locally damaged floors get entangled into one another and then, mainly due to friction, further destruction is arrested.


Unsurprisingly, you even have this effect ass-backwards.

Why don't you explain, in detail, why you think that friction favors collapse arrest.

Then I'll explain why it favors collapse progression.

tom

[tfk]

Pls tom, this is The Heiwa Challenge thread, see post #1. You are supposed to design and show a structure that self-destructs in the real world. Historical structures/records do not qualify.
.

Is that supposed to read "Please, tom ..."??

"Please" presupposes a certain level of courtesy exists between us, Anders. I've asked you ("please" several times over) to answer dozens of my questions that pertain directly to the topic of this thread.

You have returned my (& everyone else's) polite requests for dialogue by routinely & rudely ignoring them. You've taken yourself completely out of the conversation.

Sorry, Anders, you have not earned the right to feign civility. You've also forfeited any influence you might have had to direct the conversation.

It's called "the consequences of your actions".

tom

[tfk]

Now that you have gotten that off your chest T. would you like to have a look at the attached videoclip and tell us what you see in terms of whether the upper block stays intact or not ?

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/north_tower_collapse.mpeg
.

Seeing that I've already answered this exact question perhaps 8 time (theoretically) and at least twice (evidence based), there seems little point in answering it again for someone who doesn't care about the answer in the first place...

[Senenmut]

Very interesting question. How long ago did you mail Blazeshield ? Please keep us up to date on their answer. (if they answer)

PS: That NYT article from October 2 2001 was fascinating.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/02/science/scarred-steel-holds-clues-and-remedies.html?pagewanted=1

its been a couple of weeks now. underwriters sent an email about 4-5 days later.
yeah, that article is interesting because i think it gives dr sisson and gang a timeframe to work their slag attacking the steel theory. Dr. Astaneh-Asl got to groundzero on sept 19 and from what the article states is that he saw steel "once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized."

plus this steel was most likely on top of the pile and not deep down in the rubble since it was only a week after the collapse. and of coare we had avaris fly over that saw some hot spots on top of the rubble pile where wtc 7 stood (pretty close if not right on where column 79 was) that measured 727C. what temp did jones' chips ignite at again?? haha...i know the answer. how much u wanna bet column 79 looked like swiss cheese when they pulled it out!!

then sisson comes out with this saying "Microstructural examination of a beam from Building 7 showed that temperatures higher than 940 °C were experienced in localized regions. Concurrent examination of the beam surfaces and surface layers showed evidence of extensive metal removal, and the analysis suggests that this removal occurred while the beam was exposed to the fire in the rubble pile after the building had collapsed."
http://www.springerlink.com/content/g5w603461r3078t3/

well ****, looks like aviris only saw temps up to 727c over wtc 7 on sept 16th, maybe sisson has to work with even a faster rate of corrosion.....like less than 5 days.
those were my thought after reading that article.

[Justin39640]

. NIST has suggested that core columns buckled/failed due to heat but it is not possible.

please site page and paragraph
i was under the assumption that fire weakened the trusses that connected the core to the tube and disconnected them
thereby transferring too much load and failure occurred (overloading caused buckling of the core columns not heat)

i believe some around here have posted that the core columns didn't get hot enough to be weakened by heat

unlike some around here (you heiwa)
when i discover something i think to be true is actually wrong
i can change my mind based on the info given
its called learning

why didnt you use square tube?
round tube is stronger vertically

your paper still doesnt properly reflect the collapse
you never responded to this that i pointed out HERE POST 1421 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4789566&postcount=1421)

the only models for a challenge in the 911 CONSPIRACY forums should be the twin towers, 7, or the pentagon
the fact that you say those collapses dont count makes this an off topic thread
it should be moved

[bill smith]

.

Seeing that I've already answered this exact question perhaps 8 time (theoretically) and at least twice (evidence based), there seems little point in answering it again for someone who doesn't care about the answer in the first place...

Not about that video you haven't and well you know it (at least not with me). No matter..there will be anther time.

[Newtons Bit]

please site page and paragraph
i was under the assumption that fire weakened the trusses that connected the core to the tube and disconnected them
thereby transferring too much load and failure occurred (overloading caused buckling of the core columns not heat)

i believe some around here have posted that the core columns didn't get hot enough to be weakened by heat

unlike some around here (you heiwa)
when i discover something i think to be true is actually wrong
i can change my mind based on the info given
its called learning

why didnt you use square tube?
round tube is stronger vertically

your paper still doesnt properly reflect the collapse
you never responded to this that i pointed out HERE POST 1421 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4789566&postcount=1421)

the only models for a challenge in the 911 CONSPIRACY forums should be the twin towers, 7, or the pentagon
the fact that you say those collapses dont count makes this an off topic thread
it should be moved

Read this:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=107267

[bill smith]

no analysis of the collapse can exclude the 47 upstanding massive core columns as NIST's did in their FAQ. Nor the offset descending 47 core columns in the disconnected upper block. Both upper and lower columns will chew the concrete floors that they meet into a rain of loose rubble that has little concentrated force, just like a bag of loose nails, while heavier will never hammer a nail into a plank.

...you may judge for yourself whether there really was a rigid and intact upper 10% left to act as a coherent force to hammer the other and stronger 90% of the building into the ground.(see videoclip)
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/north_tower_collapse.mpeg Hammer ?


So the overall destructive power of the descending upper block on the lower intact stronger 90% of the building is massively diluted by comparison with a rigid and intact upper block

Then, as the upper and lower columns move deeper into each other bodies they will strip some floor connectors off their suporting upstanding core columns but often only on one side and perhaps sometimes only partially on both sides.. The concrete floors themselves, both upper and lower by now have each been shattered nto rubble by the action of the 47 core columns acting on them . So the one-side-attached floor skeletons may swing down to hang off the other column. This should be happening both above AND below so the chance of a friction arrested collapse increases enormously- entnglement in other words.

[FineWine]

Pls tom, this is The Heiwa Challenge thread, see post #1. You are supposed to design and show a structure that self-destructs in the real world. Historical structures/records do not qualify.


If you at last acknowledge that your bogus challenge has no relation to the actual events of 9/11, why is this irrelevant drivel piling up in the 9/11 conspiracies sub-forum?

[FineWine]

no analysis of the collapse can exclude the 47 upstanding massive core columns as NIST's did in their FAQ. Nor the offset descending 47 core columns in the disconnected upper block. Both upper and lower columns will chew the concrete floors that they meet into a rain of loose rubble that has little concentrated force, just like a bag of loose nails, while heavier will never hammer a nail into a plank.

...you may judge for yourself whether there really was a rigid and intact upper 10% left to act as a coherent force to hammer the other and stronger 90% of the building into the ground.(see videoclip)
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/north_tower_collapse.mpeg Hammer ?


So the overall destructive power of the descending upper block on the lower intact stronger 90% of the building is massively diluted by comparison with a rigid and intact upper block

Then, as the upper and lower columns move deeper into each other bodies they will strip some floor connectors off their suporting upstanding core columns but often only on one side and perhaps sometimes only partially on both sides.. The concrete floors themselves, both upper and lower by now have each been shattered nto rubble by the action of the 47 core columns acting on them . So the one-side-attached floor skeletons may swing down to hang off the other column. This should be happening both above AND below so the chance of a friction arrested collapse increases enormously- entnglement in other words.


So, the thousand consultants, all experts in their fields, employed by NIST, the rearchers at Purdue and Berkeley, the FEMA team, the independent academics who concurred--all of these people are making errors obvious to a high school dropout? And not a single scientist or engineer from a country unfriendly to the U.S. has noticed those errors?

You are wrong. You are completely wrong. The real engineers here have explained over and over why you are wrong. The real engineers at the ASCE journal will tell your nutty guru that he is wrong.

But you won't quit. You confessed that in your dream world George Bush is still around, and so your errors are carved in stone. They will never go away.

[Justin39640]

Read this:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=107267

o yeah der
after all this nonsensical back and forth i lost sight of what happened on IMPACT
i did forget that columns were severed before hand and the inward bowing that implies such

nice Pdelta example with the straw

ty :)

[bill smith]

[QUOTE=FineWine;
You are wrong. You are completely wrong. The real engineers here have explained over and over why you are wrong. The real engineers at the ASCE journal will tell your nutty guru that he is wrong.

[/QUOTE]

If you think that we are wrong you should just say so.

[stateofgrace]

If you at last acknowledge that your bogus challenge has no relation to the actual events of 9/11, why is this irrelevant drivel piling up in the 9/11 conspiracies sub-forum?

What Bill fails to realise is that he is actually destroying Heiwa's theory that one way crushing happened. Bill is actually showing that this did not happen.

Maybe he should check in with Heiwa and figure out what he is supposed to say.

[FineWine]

If you think that we are wrong you should just say so.



I've said so. You can't understand why you are wrong, but then neither can your silly guru. I'm asking what your response will be to the ASCE journal's condemnation of Heiwa's mad garble of basic physics. Are you prepared to go on record as stating that any real engineer who points out the obvious errors made by your buffoonish hero must be an agent of the NWO?

[FineWine]

What Bill fails to realise is that he is actually destroying Heiwa's theory that one way crushing happened. Bill is actually showing that this did not happen.

Maybe he should check in with Heiwa and figure out what he is supposed to say.




Bill's head is empty. Heiwa, however, has brought his lunacy to the attention of a journal run by real engineers. I want to know how Heiwa will spin the refutations of his idiocy that will accompany the discussion piece he submitted. I predict that every real engineer in the world will turn out to be a religious fundamentalist.

[bill smith]

If you look at this video you can see pretty clearly that the upper block of WTC1 is in the process of advanced disintegration.
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/north_tower_collapse.mpeg

This next image is a drawing of the hat truss which was spread over the top three floors. As you can see it is a massive tightly knit unit of interlaced steel the size of the top three floors.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/docs/hattruss.jpg

In this video you can see that the antenna, which rested on the top of the hat truss starts to fall before anythng else does. This must mean that the hat truss had come loose and was falling inside the shell of the upper block.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9-owhllM9k

So considering that the hat truss only had to fall the distance of eight floors or so to meet the top of the lower 90% of the building is it not obvious that this massive 'hat' would have become entangled in the upstanding columns and effectively 'capped ' the top of the intact part of the structure bringing immediate collapse arrest ?

[Bluesky]

So considering that the hat truss only had to fall the distance of eight floors or so to meet the top of the lower 90% of the building is it not obvious that this massive 'hat' would have become entangled in the upstanding columns and effectively 'capped ' the top of the intact part of the structure bringing immediate collapse arrest ?

It's not obvious at all. All the experts that reviewed it, and the engineering community in general, appear to believe that the collapse should have progressed as it did. I think that was the point of the investigation.

You are not really addressing any iof the ssues with your movies...but you specifically dont address the angle of impact, momemtum, connection effects and the scale.

The perimeter columns were only 14in wide, so even a small rotation of the top of the building would result in columns hitting floor beams rather than columns below. There are plenty of WTC1 videos that show significant rotations of the mast. So what is your argument when the top of the builing columns impact onto the bar joist trusses.??

The other thing that is worth noting is that once the collapse got going the perimeter columns did not really contribute to resisting the collapse...they got blown outwards and essentially unzipped.

Also the scale is deceptive. Your image of the belt truss implies it was almost solid..its over 99% air.

I am not sure how all this fits into you pizza box model, but I look foward to hearing. And ae911truth should be clear that what they really want is a new government investigation they will explain the collapses with pizza boxes.:boxedin:

[Grizzly Bear]

It's not obvious at all. All the experts that reviewed it, and the engineering community in general, appear to believe that the collapse should have progressed as it did. I think that was the point of the investigation.

<snipped for brevity>

The other thing that is worth noting is that once the collapse got going the perimeter columns did not really contribute to resisting the collapse...they got blown outwards and essentially unzipped.

Also the scale is deceptive. Your image of the belt truss implies it was almost solid..its over 99% air.

Kind of the same concept as why we use say this... (http://www.superiorsteelsupply.com/WideFlange.gif) as opposed to this shape (http://www.unitednuclear.com/block.jpg) for beams. Or perhaps this (http://www.euro-lift.com/images/TR-BD-Truss.jpg) as opposed to a gigantic solid volume.

[Minadin]

no analysis of the collapse can exclude the 47 upstanding massive core columns as NIST's did in their FAQ. <snip> (bolding and emphasis mine)


Try reading the whole report next time, before you attempt to construct an argument that they ignored something.

[Heiwa]

It's not obvious at all. All the experts that reviewed it, and the engineering community in general, appear to believe that the collapse should have progressed as it did. I think that was the point of the investigation.

You are not really addressing any iof the ssues with your movies...but you specifically dont address the angle of impact, momemtum, connection effects and the scale.

The perimeter columns were only 14in wide, so even a small rotation of the top of the building would result in columns hitting floor beams rather than columns below. There are plenty of WTC1 videos that show significant rotations of the mast. So what is your argument when the top of the builing columns impact onto the bar joist trusses.??

The other thing that is worth noting is that once the collapse got going the perimeter columns did not really contribute to resisting the collapse...they got blown outwards and essentially unzipped.

Also the scale is deceptive. Your image of the belt truss implies it was almost solid..its over 99% air.

I am not sure how all this fits into you pizza box model, but I look foward to hearing. And ae911truth should be clear that what they really want is a new government investigation they will explain the collapses with pizza boxes.:boxedin:

Reminder - this is The Heiwa Challenge thread! You are supposed to design a structure that self-destructs, when you drop part C on part A.

It doesn't work, if part C structure is one pizza box and part A structure is nine pizza boxes glued together. Part C structure just bounces on part A structure.

You must design a structure that is much more fragile and heavier than pizza boxes and then remove the top part C and drop it on lower part A, so that part A is one-way crushed down by part C to have a chance in The Heiwa Challenge!

All the experts that have tried, and the engineering community in general, appear to have failed The Heiwa Challenge so far!

But that's the purpose of The Heiwa Challenge!

[GlennB]

But that's the purpose of The Heiwa Challenge!

Have you removed your fraudulent and illegal use of the phrase "European Agency..." and the EU emblem from your website yet?

[FineWine]

Pls tom, this is The Heiwa Challenge thread, see post #1. You are supposed to design and show a structure that self-destructs in the real world. Historical structures/records do not qualify.


Why is your bogus "challenge" in the 9/11 conspiracies forum? It has nothing to do with the events of 9/11/01. The twin towers fell for the reasons explained by NIST, as proved by computer simulations conducted by teams of researchers at Purdue and Berkeley. The Berkeley team was headed by a severe critic of NIST, Professor Astaneh, yet when he simulated the towers exactly as they were built, they collapsed exactly as they did in real life. You made a huge mistake by inviting real engineers at the ASCE journal to rip apart your nonsense. When they are done with you, you will be bleating about religious fundamentalists, your mindless parrots will continue to parade their stupidity, and those of us who haven't already done so will toss you into the dumpster of history.

[Heiwa]

Have you removed your fraudulent and illegal use of the phrase "European Agency..." and the EU emblem from your website yet?

Of course not as I, good European, use it quite legally to brighten up my web site. No risk to confuse Heiwa Co with EMSA, etc. Heiwa Co is furthermore much older than EMSA.

http://flagspot.net/flags/eu_law.html#pro, and so on.

Now, have a go at The Heiwa Challenge. Or does your structural design not self-destruct?

[Heiwa]

Why is your bogus "challenge" in the 9/11 conspiracies forum? It has nothing to do with the events of 9/11/01. The twin towers fell for the reasons explained by NIST, as proved by computer simulations conducted by teams of researchers at Purdue and Berkeley. The Berkeley team was headed by a severe critic of NIST, Professor Astaneh, yet when he simulated the towers exactly as they were built, they collapsed exactly as they did in real life. You made a huge mistake by inviting real engineers at the ASCE journal to rip apart your nonsense. When they are done with you, you will be bleating about religious fundamentalists, your mindless parrots will continue to parade their stupidity, and those of us who haven't already done so will toss you into the dumpster of history.

Let's first ASCE/JEM publish my little article, which is about Bazant's theory, i.e. very much part of the OTC.

And has Purdue produced a structure that self-destructs as per The Heiwa Challenge? Pls, provide a link to this magic structure!

[FineWine]

Let's first ASCE/JEM publish my little article, which is about Bazant's theory, i.e. very much part of the OTC.

And has Purdue produced a structure that self-destructs as per The Heiwa Challenge? Pls, provide a link to this magic structure!


The Heiwa Challenge is bogus. It does not relate in any way to the actual collapses of the twin towers. If you had an ounce of shame, you'd be embarrassed to pontificate about a subject you can't understand, and you'd ask yourself why you are unfamiliar with computer simulations conducted by teams of serious researchers.

[GlennB]

Of course not as I, good European, use it quite legally to brighten up my web site.
http://flagspot.net/flags/eu_law.html#pro, and so on.


Not legally at all. By using the emblem together with the title "European Agency for..." you are breaking the law. You are masquerading as something you are not, i.e. an EU agency. You are lying. Again.

[MIKILLINI]

If you think that we are wrong you should just say so.

Pssst! Hey Bill! The challenge is flawed, so it is wrong.

[bill smith]

Not legally at all. By using the emblem together with the title "European Agency for..." you are breaking the law. You are masquerading as something you are not, i.e. an EU agency. You are lying. Again.
Why so bitter Glenn. Cheer up.

[FineWine]

Why so bitter Glenn. Cheer up.


How cheerful will you be when the buffoon you blindly worship is demolished--again--by the real engineers at the ASCE journal?
Wanna bet that he gets demolished? Why not? Maybe they're all religious fundamentalists, huh, Bill?

[Justin39640]

How cheerful will you be when the buffoon you blindly worship is demolished--again--by the real engineers at the ASCE journal?
Wanna bet that he gets demolished? Why not? Maybe they're all religious fundamentalists, huh, Bill?

whats the ETA on that you think?

[bill smith]

How cheerful will you be when the buffoon you blindly worship is demolished--again--by the real engineers at the ASCE journal?
Wanna bet that he gets demolished? Why not? Maybe they're all religious fundamentalists, huh, Bill?

His aticle has already been examined by some of those engineers you speak of and judged worthy of publication in their journal. That in itself is a kind of peer review. The only questions are whether they will go ahead with publication and when.

[tfk]

whats the ETA on that you think?
.
Let's see...

IF it really does get published... Heiwa, when they told you that they were going to publish your comments, had you sent them your discussion or just an abstract of your discussion?

If they see the whole offering, and thru some massive lapse in judgment still decide to publish it, I can envision the following sequence of events...

They'll notify Bazant that he's got a comment coming & send him a preprint.

It'll probably take a couple of days before Bazant gets around to reading it.

About 4 sentences into it, a "WTF?" expression will gradually take over his face.

It'll take a half hour or so to actually read the comments, trying all along to figure out what Anders is talking about...

Then an hour or so with several re-readings ...

A couple of calendar checks to make sure it isn't April 1st ...

Perhaps a call or two to ASCE to see if someone is pulling his leg...

And then comes a fork in the road for Prof. Bazant...

He might just decide that, if he dignifies this with a thought out response, he'll be answering such unmitigated crap for years. In this case, I'd predict a terse reply along the lines of "Children, STOP...!" Plus a nasty-gram to the editors of the ASCE/JEM.

If he decides to reply, then it's actually going to take him a bit of time. Because Bazant will have to do all of Anders' work for him. Because, of course, there is NO real engineering in anything that we've seen from him thus far.

Of course, he might simply pass it around to a class of freshman engineering students and have them reply. As a bonus, it would serve very well as a cautionary tale of what can happen if they don't pay attention in class.


tom

[Bluesky]

Reminder - this is The Heiwa Challenge thread! You are supposed to design a structure that self-destructs, when you drop part C on part A.

It doesn't work, if part C structure is one pizza box and part A structure is nine pizza boxes glued together. Part C structure just bounces on part A structure.

You must design a structure that is much more fragile and heavier than pizza boxes and then remove the top part C and drop it on lower part A, so that part A is one-way crushed down by part C to have a chance in The Heiwa Challenge!

All the experts that have tried, and the engineering community in general, appear to have failed The Heiwa Challenge so far!

But that's the purpose of The Heiwa Challenge!

Heiwa's response is stupid, and he appears to use it whenever he gets stuck. He loves having his name in bold, doesn't he?

Anyway here is an example of how total collapse can be generated by less than 1/20th of the total weight of a structure:
1. Get 20 Pizza boxes and stack on top of each other.
2. Tape together the sides with a few vertical lines of scotch tape.
3. cut each side vertically into 4, starting at each corner. Add vertical tape to stick the columns together
4. cut out all horizontal cardboard (the floors), and then replace them sticking them back in position with tiny amounts of blu-tak, that is only just able to support the self weight of 1 piece of cardboard.
5. drop the top horizontal piece.

So what happens.
1. the top piece falls and hits the next piece.
2. and because the blu-tak is only strong enough to support one piece of cardboard the next piece falls...
3 and so on, until all the horizontals have fallen
4. at some point during the collapse the outside of the box falls down. The columns will become unstable because they have lost the lateral restraint of the floor thro the blu-tack. The columns will not be able to support their own weight as a single skin of cardboard 20 pizza-boxes tall. The columns will tend to fall outwards because the air is being pushed out of the boxes by the collapse.

Interestingly, the floors will collapse at essentially free-fall speed as they pancake, because the blue-tak offers no real resistance and is massively overloaded, even after the first impact (200% of design load plus impact force to bring it to about 300% of design). The columns will be slower to fall, and will tend to fall radially out from the middle.

Now I am sure Heiwa will say that I am cheating, but not according to "Heiwa's Challenge" . And, of course, this type of failure works even better in steel, although Heiwa did suggest Pizza boxes. The "heiwa challenge" was to cause collapse by using a tiny proportion of the total mass, which this does quite nicely.

Don't ya just love pizza!! If by some miracle Heiwa concedes, then pls donate my winnings to a charity that supports the victims of the Iraq war; both the servicemen and the civilians:boxedin:

[Heiwa]

Heiwa's response is stupid, and he appears to use it whenever he gets stuck. He loves having his name in bold, doesn't he?

Anyway here is an example of how total collapse can be generated by less than 1/20th of the total weight of a structure:
1. Get 20 Pizza boxes and stack on top of each other.
2. Tape together the sides with a few vertical lines of scotch tape.
3. cut each side vertically into 4, starting at each corner. Add vertical tape to stick the columns together
4. cut out all horizontal cardboard (the floors), and then replace them sticking them back in position with tiny amounts of blu-tak, that is only just able to support the self weight of 1 piece of cardboard.
5. drop the top horizontal piece.

So what happens.
1. the top piece falls and hits the next piece.
2. and because the blu-tak is only strong enough to support one piece of cardboard the next piece falls...
3 and so on, until all the horizontals have fallen
4. at some point during the collapse the outside of the box falls down. The columns will become unstable because they have lost the lateral restraint of the floor thro the blu-tack. The columns will not be able to support their own weight as a single skin of cardboard 20 pizza-boxes tall. The columns will tend to fall outwards because the air is being pushed out of the boxes by the collapse.

Interestingly, the floors will collapse at essentially free-fall speed as they pancake, because the blue-tak offers no real resistance and is massively overloaded, even after the first impact (200% of design load plus impact force to bring it to about 300% of design). The columns will be slower to fall, and will tend to fall radially out from the middle.

Now I am sure Heiwa will say that I am cheating, but not according to "Heiwa's Challenge" . And, of course, this type of failure works even better in steel, although Heiwa did suggest Pizza boxes. The "heiwa challenge" was to cause collapse by using a tiny proportion of the total mass, which this does quite nicely.

Don't ya just love pizza!! If by some miracle Heiwa concedes, then pls donate my winnings to a charity that supports the victims of the Iraq war; both the servicemen and the civilians:boxedin:

Very nice! Now get your pizza boxes and blu-tak and make a real demonstration!

[Heiwa]

.
Let's see...

IF it really does get published... Heiwa, when they told you that they were going to publish your comments, had you sent them your discussion or just an abstract of your discussion?

If they see the whole offering, and thru some massive lapse in judgment still decide to publish it, I can envision the following sequence of events...

They'll notify Bazant that he's got a comment coming & send him a preprint.

It'll probably take a couple of days before Bazant gets around to reading it.

About 4 sentences into it, a "WTF?" expression will gradually take over his face.

It'll take a half hour or so to actually read the comments, trying all along to figure out what Anders is talking about...

Then an hour or so with several re-readings ...

A couple of calendar checks to make sure it isn't April 1st ...

Perhaps a call or two to ASCE to see if someone is pulling his leg...

And then comes a fork in the road for Prof. Bazant...

He might just decide that, if he dignifies this with a thought out response, he'll be answering such unmitigated crap for years. In this case, I'd predict a terse reply along the lines of "Children, STOP...!" Plus a nasty-gram to the editors of the ASCE/JEM.

If he decides to reply, then it's actually going to take him a bit of time. Because Bazant will have to do all of Anders' work for him. Because, of course, there is NO real engineering in anything that we've seen from him thus far.

Of course, he might simply pass it around to a class of freshman engineering students and have them reply. As a bonus, it would serve very well as a cautionary tale of what can happen if they don't pay attention in class.


tom

Don't worry! JEM editor Ross Corotis has early June promised publication in issue to follow! Paper was submitted 3 February. Peer review resulted in no comments. I am of course interested in the results. When published I will also copy/paste paper here.

[Bluesky]

Very nice! Now get your pizza boxes and blu-tak and make a real demonstration!

So you agree in principle that this should work. Can you just confirm that you will you will pay out your money to anyone who makes this... or something similar work.

Excellent this is more of a "Heiwa Concedes" than I would expect.

It's easy 20 plates stuck to sticks would work just as easy... but I bet you would argue that I had some invisible thermite charges.

[Heiwa]

So you agree in principle that this should work. Can you just confirm that you will you will pay out your money to anyone who makes this... or something similar work.

Excellent this is more of a "Heiwa Concedes" than I would expect.

It's easy 20 plates stuck to sticks would work just as easy... but I bet you would argue that I had some invisible thermite charges.

Not really. I don't even know what blu-tak is! So, please, make a real blu-tak + pizza boxes structure, number the elements n and connections m and demonstrate. For conditions, see post #1. Do not forget the lateral pre-test.
You may be a winner!

[Bluesky]

Yet another stupid response from Heiwa He loves having his name in bold, doesn't he? Here you go Heiwa.. perhaps you understand it now... because its so easy to come up with a whole bunch of structures that meet your challenge.

Anyway here is an example of how total collapse can be generated by less than 1/20th of the total weight of a structure:
1. Get 20 Pizza boxes and stack on top of each other.
2. Tape together the sides with a few vertical lines of scotch tape.
3. cut each side vertically into 4, starting at each corner. Add vertical tape to stick the columns together
4. cut out all horizontal cardboard (the floors), and then replace them sticking them back in position with tiny amounts of glue, that is only just able to support the self weight of 1 piece of cardboard.
5. drop the top horizontal piece.

So what happens.
1. the top piece falls and hits the next piece.
2. and because the glue is only strong enough to support one piece of cardboard the next piece falls...
3 and so on, until all the horizontals have fallen
4. at some point during the collapse the outside of the box falls down. The columns will become unstable because they have lost the lateral restraint of the floor thro the glue. The columns will not be able to support their own weight as a single skin of cardboard 20 pizza-boxes tall. The columns will tend to fall outwards because the air is being pushed out of the boxes by the collapse.

Interestingly, the floors will collapse at essentially free-fall speed as they pancake, because the glue offers no real resistance and is massively overloaded, even after the first impact (200% of design load plus impact force to bring it to about 300% of design). The columns will be slower to fall, and will tend to fall radially out from the middle.

Now I am sure Heiwa will say that I am cheating, but not according to "Heiwa's Challenge" . And, of course, this type of failure works even better in steel, although Heiwa did suggest Pizza boxes. The "heiwa challenge" was to cause collapse by using a tiny proportion of the total mass, which this does quite nicely.

Don't ya just love pizza!! If by some miracle Heiwa concedes, then pls donate my winnings to a charity that supports the victims of the Iraq war; both the servicemen and the civilians

[Newtons Bit]

His aticle has already been examined by some of those engineers you speak of and judged worthy of publication in their journal. That in itself is a kind of peer review. The only questions are whether they will go ahead with publication and when.

It's a discussion piece, and it'll likely be obliterated by other discussions.

[GlennB]

Anyway here is an example of how total collapse can be generated by less than 1/20th of the total weight of a structure:
1. Get 20 Pizza boxes and stack on top of each other.
2. Tape together the sides with a few vertical lines of scotch tape.
...
<snip for brevity>

Effective and elegant. Also ironic that you managed it with pizza boxes :)

[bill smith]

It's a discussion piece, and it'll likely be obliterated by other discussions.
I doubt that. I can't imagine that there will be a more interesting article than this in a single issue. Now that the Obama administration has restored a little chutzpah in people in general I anticipate active discussions. But I will believe that it will be published only when I see it. Do you happen to know what an average print run of this magazine is ?

[Newtons Bit]

I doubt that. I can't imagine that there will be a more interesting article than this in a single issue. Now that the Obama administration has restored a little chutzpah in people in general I anticipate active discussions. But I will believe that it will be published only when I see it. Do you happen to know what an average print run of this magazine is ?

:dl:

[bill smith]

:dl:

What do you think will happen then ? Realistically ?

[BigAl]

I doubt that. I can't imagine that there will be a more interesting article than this in a single issue. Now that the Obama administration has restored a little chutzpah in people in general I anticipate active discussions. But I will believe that it will be published only when I see it. Do you happen to know what an average print run of this magazine is ?

That must be why at the "9/11 Truth Rally" in Washington D.C. on inauguration day, 20 people showed up out of a million people who were glad to see the end of Bush.

That's the largest "Truth" turnout I've seen in two years. They used to be larger.

[Newtons Bit]

What do you think will happen then ? Realistically ?

There will probably be a reply from Bazant, or another engineer, that totally rips into Heiwa.

Look, I know you don't understand engineering, at all, and you're predisposed to believe Heiwa because you share his beliefs, but what Heiwa does is not backed up by engineering mechanics. What he does is fake. He'll get ripped apart in the journal.

They're going to make an example out of him.

[bill smith]

There will probably be a reply from Bazant, or another engineer, that totally rips into Heiwa.

Look, I know you don't understand engineering, at all, and you're predisposed to believe Heiwa because you share his beliefs, but what Heiwa does is not backed up by engineering mechanics. What he does is fake. He'll get ripped apart in the journal.

They're going to make an example out of him.

I may not be an engineer but I am not stupid either. I don't believe what Heiwa says because it goes against the OCT but because it makes sense to me. I will be happy to hear what these other engineers, especially Bazant have to say. I don't for a minute believe that they will be able to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear but I am open to persuasion.

[Newtons Bit]

I may not be an engineer but I am not stupid either. I don't believe what Heiwa says because it goes against the OCT but because it makes sense to me. I will be happy to hear what these other engineers, especially Bazant have to say. I don't for a minute believe that they will be able to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear but I am open to persuasion.

So you think pizza boxes are a good model for the WTC?

So you think that the upper block of the WTC could be dropped two miles (instead of 12 feet) without destroying the lower block?

[bill smith]

So you think pizza boxes are a good model for the WTC?

So you think that the upper block of the WTC could be dropped two miles (instead of 12 feet) without destroying the lower block?

Those are just analogies. But the heart of Heiwa's argument makes perfect sense to me. I sincerely doubt that anybody will be able to prove him wrong. And if they cannot ?.......

[Grizzly Bear]

http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/60/2217594002b54b99a287.jpg

Pizza boxes, makes this poster hungry

[Newtons Bit]

Those are just analogies. But the heart of Heiwa's argument makes perfect sense to me. I sincerely doubt that anybody will be able to prove him wrong. And if they cannot ?.......

So you think his analogies are rather bogus?

Then what's the heart of his argument? His axiom? The self-described evidence-less statement that was proven incorrect over 7 years before he made it?

[bill smith]

So you think his analogies are rather bogus?

Then what's the heart of his argument? His axiom? The self-described evidence-less statement that was proven incorrect over 7 years before he made it?

Some analogies work better than others but bogus ?...not at all.. Heiwa's axiom is impregnable as far as I can see. I can hardly believe that you believe that the topmost and lightest 10% of a steel-framed building can crush the other 90% right down to the ground by gravity alone.

[Shalamar]

Some analogies work better than others but bogus ?...not at all.. Heiwa's axiom is impregnable as far as I can see. I can hardly believe that you believe that the topmost and lightest 10% of a steel-framed building can crush the other 90% right down to the ground by gravity alone.

Bill, what was the mass of that 'top 10%'? What what was the load capacity of the floor underneath that 10%?

[tsig]

Some analogies work better than others but bogus ?...not at all.. Heiwa's axiom is impregnable as far as I can see. I can hardly believe that you believe that the topmost and lightest 10% of a steel-framed building can crush the other 90% right down to the ground by gravity alone.

Bill, the top 10% only had to crush the floor below it. Then the 11% crushed the floor below that then the 12% crushed the next and so on.

[Heiwa]

There will probably be a reply from Bazant, or another engineer, that totally rips into Heiwa.

Look, I know you don't understand engineering, at all, and you're predisposed to believe Heiwa because you share his beliefs, but what Heiwa does is not backed up by engineering mechanics. What he does is fake. He'll get ripped apart in the journal.

They're going to make an example out of him.

We will see! I just re-read my simple and clear paper to JEM and it is only about the BLGB paper/theory applied to WTC 1 and why the BLGB theory is false! It seems BLGB overlooked some important factors that you would learn by simple pizza box experiments! I really look forward to the JEM publication of my paper and Bazant's and LGB's comments, if any. If BLGB can provide real answers, they should be able to design a structure that fulfills The Heiwa Challenge! I doubt, though, that BLGB will manage that.

Thanks for your encouragement! Without all JREF comments I would never have written my paper for JEM and there would not be any The Heiwa Challenge!

[Heiwa]

Bill, the top 10% only had to crush the floor below it. Then the 11% crushed the floor below that then the 12% crushed the next and so on.

But beware, maybe the 90% below destroys or stops the top 10% before!

[Newtons Bit]

Some analogies work better than others but bogus ?...not at all.. Heiwa's axiom is impregnable as far as I can see. I can hardly believe that you believe that the topmost and lightest 10% of a steel-framed building can crush the other 90% right down to the ground by gravity alone.

What do you mean it's impregnable? "Heiwa's Axiom" is disproved by the WTC1&2 collapse.

WTC1&2 also meet "Heiwa's Challenge" as outlined in post #1 of this thread.

[Newtons Bit]

But beware, maybe the 90% below destroys or stops the top 10% before!

Could you prove that with some math?

[Heiwa]

Yet another stupid response from Heiwa He loves having his name in bold, doesn't he? Here you go Heiwa.. perhaps you understand it now... because its so easy to come up with a whole bunch of structures that meet your challenge.

Anyway here is an example of how total collapse can be generated by less than 1/20th of the total weight of a structure:
1. Get 20 Pizza boxes and stack on top of each other.
2. Tape together the sides with a few vertical lines of scotch tape.
3. cut each side vertically into 4, starting at each corner. Add vertical tape to stick the columns together
4. cut out all horizontal cardboard (the floors), and then replace them sticking them back in position with tiny amounts of glue, that is only just able to support the self weight of 1 piece of cardboard.
5. drop the top horizontal piece.

So what happens.
1. the top piece falls and hits the next piece.
2. and because the glue is only strong enough to support one piece of cardboard the next piece falls...
3 and so on, until all the horizontals have fallen
4. at some point during the collapse the outside of the box falls down. The columns will become unstable because they have lost the lateral restraint of the floor thro the glue. The columns will not be able to support their own weight as a single skin of cardboard 20 pizza-boxes tall. The columns will tend to fall outwards because the air is being pushed out of the boxes by the collapse.

Interestingly, the floors will collapse at essentially free-fall speed as they pancake, because the glue offers no real resistance and is massively overloaded, even after the first impact (200% of design load plus impact force to bring it to about 300% of design). The columns will be slower to fall, and will tend to fall radially out from the middle.

Now I am sure Heiwa will say that I am cheating, but not according to "Heiwa's Challenge" . And, of course, this type of failure works even better in steel, although Heiwa did suggest Pizza boxes. The "heiwa challenge" was to cause collapse by using a tiny proportion of the total mass, which this does quite nicely.

Don't ya just love pizza!! If by some miracle Heiwa concedes, then pls donate my winnings to a charity that supports the victims of the Iraq war; both the servicemen and the civilians

As I just said. Produce your structure and let it self-destruct. Ensure that the glue is very weak, though, and do not make the top part stronger than the bottom. Same glue up top as below.
Result? Top part fails first and cannot produce a one-way crush down. But have a go!
Previously we had a structure with very heavy horizontal elements and weak vertical supports. So the connections between the heavy and weak elements were a problem. Now we have a structure with very light horizontal elements and even weaker vertical supports so maybe the interconnections between elements need not be so strong? But still you have to break the connections and/or the elements ... in the right order. Not easy ... but have a go!

[Heiwa]

What do you mean it's impregnable? "Heiwa's Axiom" is disproved by the WTC1&2 collapse.

WTC1&2 also meet "Heiwa's Challenge" as outlined in post #1 of this thread.

LOL! Only if you assume that the destructions of the WTC 1/2 structures were produced by a small upper part C one-way crushing the lower part A you are right. But you have to prove it. Not assume it or guess it. You talk like a true OCTist with no knowledge of structural damage analysis or design.

[Heiwa]

Could you prove that with some math?

Prove an axiom with some math? LOL! But it applies to millions of structures. Your task is to find a structure that doesn't behave like all the other. Maybe another tower somewhere?

[Justin39640]

You talk like a true OCTist with no knowledge of structural damage analysis or design.

i guess you mean the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) when you say that too?
i guess that will be the pretext to you labeling them shills when your paper gets destroyed lol

[Newtons Bit]

LOL! Only if you assume that the destructions of the WTC 1/2 structures were produced by a small upper part C one-way crushing the lower part A you are right. But you have to prove it. Not assume it or guess it. You talk like a true OCTist with no knowledge of structural damage analysis or design.

Wait, WHAT?!

The towers collapsed Heiwa. There were no explosives or nano-thermites or termites or space-beams. Yes, the lower block did damage the upper block significantly during the collapse (maybe even completely obliterating it to rubble). That doesn't change the fact that your axiom is debunked and your challenge is met.

If you want to actually argue that WTC1&2 don't debunk your axiom and meet your "challenge" then I suggest you actually prove some other form of demolition. Until then, no one is going to waste any money just to prove you, a lunatic, wrong.

[bill smith]

There seem to be only two alternatives;-

1.A one-way crush down using only gravity.
2. A one-way crush down using gravity and explosives.


Bazant says number one applies. Heiwa says number 2 applies because number one can never happen in he real world.

Now that Heiwa has published Bazant must provide some proof that number one can actually happen.

Threfore Bazant must accept the Heiwa Challenge.

....or be seen not to...

[GlennB]

There seem to be only two alternatives;-

1.A one-way crush down using only gravity.
2. A one-way crush down using gravity and explosives.


Bazant says number one applies. Heiwa says number 2 applies because number one can never happen in he real world.

Now that Heiwa has published Bazant must provide some proof that number one can actually happen.

Threfore Bazant must accept the Heiwa Challenge.

....or be seen not to...

3. Bazant's 'one-way crush down' was a limiting case, but shown mathematically to be true. Reality was different. Falling floors ripped out other floors and horizontal bracing was destroyed, felling the finer upper vertical columns and leaving heavier,lower vertical columns unstable. The last remaining parts of both towers were large sections of core. Unstable and impacted at the base, they fell last.

4. The Heiwa challenge, though, is easily met as it stands. See 9/11 and Bluesky's pizza-box structure earlier in this thread.

[Heiwa]

Wait, WHAT?!

The towers collapsed Heiwa. There were no explosives or nano-thermites or termites or space-beams. Yes, the lower block did damage the upper block significantly during the collapse (maybe even completely obliterating it to rubble).

Yes, the towers were destroyed! We agree on that! My only interest is if gravity alone assisted. And that's the whole purpose of The Heiwa Challenge!

Just design a structure that self-destructs - top C one-way crushing-down bottom A - assisted only by a little drop of C on A + gravity.

According Bazant & BLGB this is normal ... under certain strange assumptions ... as demonstrated in their theory. Very well! But isn't it of interest to see this in practice? It could be very useful! To get rid of structures! Just drop a piece on the rest and POUFF ... rubble!

With your alleged superb knowledge of structures and their designs and behaviour I am a little surprised that you just not ... prove it.

[Newtons Bit]

Yes, the towers were destroyed! We agree on that! My only interest is if gravity alone assisted. And that's the whole purpose of The Heiwa Challenge!

Just design a structure that self-destructs - top C one-way crushing-down bottom A - assisted only by a little drop of C on A + gravity.

According Bazant & BLGB this is normal ... under certain strange assumptions ... as demonstrated in their theory. Very well! But isn't it of interest to see this in practice? It could be very useful! To get rid of structures! Just drop a piece on the rest and POUFF ... rubble!

With your alleged superb knowledge of structures and their designs and behaviour I am a little surprised that you just not ... prove it.

I have proved it. See 9/11.

I'm not going to waste money building a model.

And yes, if you destroy all the columns on one floor of building, don't be surprised when the whole thing falls down. Regardless of where those columns were.

[FineWine]

His aticle has already been examined by some of those engineers you speak of and judged worthy of publication in their journal. That in itself is a kind of peer review. The only questions are whether they will go ahead with publication and when.


No, the journal has decided to publish his idiocy to allow the people he slanders to respond. Your comment about peer-review is amazingly stupid, and therefore typical.

[FineWine]

LOL! Only if you assume that the destructions of the WTC 1/2 structures were produced by a small upper part C one-way crushing the lower part A you are right. But you have to prove it. Not assume it or guess it. You talk like a true OCTist with no knowledge of structural damage analysis or design.


But he's a real engineer and you're an incompetent fraud. What do you know that he doesn't?

[FineWine]

Not really. I don't even know what blu-tak is! So, please, make a real blu-tak + pizza boxes structure, number the elements n and connections m and demonstrate. For conditions, see post #1. Do not forget the lateral pre-test.
You may be a winner!



Well, you are certainly a loser!

[FineWine]

I may not be an engineer but I am not stupid either. I don't believe what Heiwa says because it goes against the OCT but because it makes sense to me. I will be happy to hear what these other engineers, especially Bazant have to say. I don't for a minute believe that they will be able to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear but I am open to persuasion.


It makes sense to you that you could drop the top third of a building from a height of two miles (I'm copying almost word-for word from an older thread) onto the bottom two-thirds without doing significant damage? That makes sense to you? And you're not stupid?

Real engineers are not stupid. It sure doesn't make sense to them.

[FineWine]

Those are just analogies. But the heart of Heiwa's argument makes perfect sense to me. I sincerely doubt that anybody will be able to prove him wrong. And if they cannot ?.......



You "doubt" that anybody will be able to prove him wrong??? But real engineers on this forum have totally destroyed his nonsense. He's been proved wrong repeatedly. You know nothing and you can't think, so you can't understand why he's wrong. The people who know a lot understand exactly why he's wrong. They've explained it too often.

[tsig]

But beware, maybe the 90% below destroys or stops the top 10% before!

I guess you missed the part where I said the top 10% only had to crush the floor below it and not all 90% at once.

Is your name Bill?

[FineWine]

But beware, maybe the 90% below destroys or stops the top 10% before!



Most of us can figure out that the top 10% quickly becomes the top 20%...and the top 30%...and the top 50%...and the top 75%...and the top 90%, until what's left of the building is shown quite clearly in ALL the photos of Ground Zero.

[dtugg]

Months ago, when Heiwa first submitted his garbage the ASCE journal, I emailed the editor and told him all about Heiwa and his "experiments" and all the other insane stuff he says here. They are well aware of how crazy he is. I expect him to get thoroughly destroyed. Oh well, I guess the ASCE is a part of the conspiracy too.

[beachnut]

I may not be an engineer but I am not stupid either. I don't believe what Heiwa says because it goes against the OCT but because it makes sense to me. ... Don't let the facts and evidence get in the way of your sense. Heiwa needs support for his delusions.

[FineWine]

Don't let the facts and evidence get in the way of your sense. Heiwa needs support for his delusions.



Bill won't be replying to post #1673.

[Bluesky]

As I just said. Produce your structure and let it self-destruct. Ensure that the glue is very weak, though, and do not make the top part stronger than the bottom. Same glue up top as below.
Result? Top part fails first and cannot produce a one-way crush down. But have a go!
Previously we had a structure with very heavy horizontal elements and weak vertical supports. So the connections between the heavy and weak elements were a problem. Now we have a structure with very light horizontal elements and even weaker vertical supports so maybe the interconnections between elements need not be so strong? But still you have to break the connections and/or the elements ... in the right order. Not easy ... but have a go!

Hey I did it... and it collapsed. I followed the method in post 1641 and it fell down.
Complies with every point of Heiwa's stupid first post!
Heiwa concedes defeat?

Having won, can anyone remind me what the prize was?

[Justin39640]

Hey I did it... and it collapsed. I followed the method in post 1641 and it fell down.
Complies with every point of Heiwa's stupid first post!
Heiwa concedes defeat?

Having won, can anyone remind me what the prize was?

an autographed 8x10 of heiwa and a leather bound copy of his paper

[GlennB]

Hey I did it... and it collapsed. I followed the method in post 1641 and it fell down.
Complies with every point of Heiwa's stupid first post!
Heiwa concedes defeat?

Having won, can anyone remind me what the prize was?

No, Heiwa will invent a new condition. Good work though. I was thinking in terms of a bookcase with 10 shelves lightly attached, and with the dowels and screws holding the vertical planks replaced with something weaker. Once the shelves collapse the 'columns' fall away, like your pizza box arrangement. But your method is superior, what with getting to eat the pizzas. Just don't tell me you've eaten 10 pizzas since posting your design ...... :)

[bill smith]

3. Bazant's 'one-way crush down' was a limiting case, but shown mathematically to be true. Reality was different. Falling floors ripped out other floors and horizontal bracing was destroyed, felling the finer upper vertical columns and leaving heavier,lower vertical columns unstable. The last remaining parts of both towers were large sections of core. Unstable and impacted at the base, they fell last.

4. The Heiwa challenge, though, is easily met as it stands. See 9/11 and Bluesky's pizza-box structure earlier in this thread.

When you say that the sections of core that remained standing were 'impacted' at the base, what exactly do you mean ?

[GlennB]

When you say that the sections of core that remained standing were 'impacted' at the base, what exactly do you mean ?

Countless thousands of tons of debris were hitting them on the way down, then piling up against them at the bottom. All at very high speed. Being unstable from lack of horizontal bracing (and also probably just plain bent) already they were bound to fall.

[bill smith]

Countless thousands of tons of debris were hitting them on the way down, then piling up against them at the bottom. All at very high speed. Being unstable from lack of horizontal bracing (and also probably just plain bent) already they were bound to fall.Do you mean that they were plastically deformed at the bases ?

[GlennB]

Do you mean that they were plastically deformed at the bases ?

You'd need to ask an engineer. But plastic or elastic, once they were no longer vertical their sheer weight would topple them. Think radio mast without the guy wires.

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/wtc1peelingcore.jpg

[Heiwa]

Countless thousands of tons of debris were hitting them on the way down, then piling up against them at the bottom. All at very high speed. Being unstable from lack of horizontal bracing (and also probably just plain bent) already they were bound to fall.

The Heiwa Challenge is quite simple - see post #1. Yes, countless of thousands of grams (or tons) of broken structural parts of C and A ... or B ... are permitted to assist hitting other, very very weak, unbraced elements anywhere in the structure on the way down. At high speed! The elements are also permitted to bend. Or to become unstable for any reason ... except that gravity is only permitted to assist in the one-way crush down destruction to be demonstrated.
Do not forget that the poor connections between all these weak or strong parts/elements have no mass at all! They just have one property! Strength/friction or capability to absorb energy before being ripped apart.

GlennB - why not design a structure to prove all your nonsense?

[dtugg]

GlennB - why not design a structure to prove all your nonsense?

Why would anybody waste time and money building a structure to prove something to some fraud on the Internet who has no idea what he is talking about? After all, you're the guy who says that massive skyscrapers are comparable to stacks of sponges, lemons, and pizza boxes.

[beachnut]

...
GlennB - why not design a structure to prove all your nonsense?
Heiwa, why not design a structure to prove your moronic nonsense? Where is your structure to prove your failed ideas?

[bill smith]

Why would anybody waste time and money building a structure to prove something to some fraud on the Internet who has no idea what he is talking about? After all, you're the guy who says that massive skyscrapers are comparable to stacks of sponges, lemons, and pizza boxes.

I was just thinking...now that it looks like Bazant will be forced to accept Heiwa'a challenge what on Earth is he going to do ?

He has to demonstrate that the impossibe is possible...

There was a time that he could pull the wool over people's eyes but that time is long gone. Reducing the whole thing to impenetrable technical jargon will not work either as eminently qualified Truthers and other Techs will be able to see right through it.

So what CAN he do ?

He can radically alter his explanation by introducing a peviously unknown phenomenon into the equation- A bit ike NIST did with the 'thermal expansion' in WTC7. It will have to be very exoticly exotic to explain WTC1 though.

Or he may decline to answer at all....

[dtugg]

Are you actually crazy or just pretending?

[tuc0]

I was just thinking...now that it looks like Bazant will be forced to ccept Heiwa'a challenge what on Earth is he going to do ?

He has to demonstrate that the impossibe is possible...

There was a time that he could pull the wool over people's eyes but that time is long gone. Reducing the whle thing to impenetrable technical jargon will not work either as eminently qualified Truthers and other Techs will be able to see right through it.

So what CAN he do ?

He can radically alter his explanation by introducing a peviously unknown phenomenon into the equation- A bit ike NIST did with the 'thermal expansion' in WTC7. It will have to be very exoticly exotic to explain WTC1 though.

Or he may decline to answer at all....

There comes a time when your lack of silence becomes great comedy.

[bill smith]

Are you actually crazy or just pretending?

Pretending...

[dtugg]

Pretending...

So you admit that all the crazy things you say are you just trolling for attention?

[beachnut]

I...
He can radically alter his explanation by introducing a peviously unknown phenomenon into the equation- A bit ike NIST did with the 'thermal expansion' in WTC7. It will have to be very exoticly exotic to explain WTC1 though.

Or he may decline to answer at all....
Thermal expansion has been around forever, you have fallen for more lies from the idiots in 911TruthLies.

[GlennB]

GlennB - why not design a structure to prove all your nonsense?

Because BlueSky already has. See above. It worked, with pizza boxes. My bookcase model would just be a more expensive version.

[bill smith]

Thermal expansion has been around forever, you have fallen for more lies from the idiots in 911TruthLies.

Remember when Sunder explained it first though? He introduced it as if it was a new physical law. It's actually quite funny now when I look back. When he said 'thermal expansion' I had to do a double-take. I thought 'isn't that just the normal expansion under heat' ? Even at the end of his lecture I was still wondering if I hadn't misheard him somehow. I wonder will Bazant be as amusing ?

[BigAl]

He can radically alter his explanation by introducing a peviously unknown phenomenon into the equation- A bit ike NIST did with the 'thermal expansion' in WTC7. It will have to be very exoticly exotic to explain WTC1 though.


According to the retired fireman quoted on this page, the question of "How much does a 100 ft beam expand in a fire" has been on the FDNY Lieutenant's test for decades as a risk factor for collapse of steel buildings on fire.

http://snurl.com/j5434

The only "discovery" on the part of NIST (and after much thought) was that only the expansion of a specific cantilever beam could caused a collapse of WTC7 that fit all the evidence.

[Newtons Bit]

Remember when Sunder explained it first though? He introduced it as if it was a new physical law. It's actually quite funny now when I look back. When he said 'thermal expansion' I had to do a double-take. I thought 'isn't that just the normal expansion under heat' ? Even at the end of his lecture I was still wondering if I hadn't misheard him somehow. I wonder will Bazant be as amusing ?

My office has designed a number of structures for thermal expansion. If you don't do very special detailing, the thermal expansion can bring the whole structure down.

Typical office buildings don't have this sort of detailing.

[bill smith]

My office has designed a number of structures for thermal expansion. If you don't do very special detailing, the thermal expansion can bring the whole structure down.

Typical office buildings don't have this sort of detailing.
Can you give any example in the world history of steel framed buildings over 15 floors collapsing from thermal expansion ? 9/11 excluded.

[tfk]

But beware, maybe the 90% below destroys or stops the top 10% before!

1. It turns out that it does not matter if the top is crushed. The mass and kinetic energy of the upper part - even as rubble - is fully capable of crush the lower part completely. As is TRIVIALLY easy to prove.

2. But the destruction does NOT progress more that a couple of stories upward.

And the exact purpose of the analysis that I provided here [ http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4743226#post4743226 ] was to explain - IN DETAIL - why the destruction is not symmetrical. Why not more than a couple of floors of the upper part are destroyed during the crush down.

And that explanation is PRECISELY why you adamantly REFUSED to discuss the issue with me. And are now back to simply making unsupportable assertions.

Coward.

tom

[BigAl]

can you give any example in the world history of steel framed buildings over 15 floors collapsing from thermal expansion ? 9/11 excluded.

Can you name another building that had a cantilever beam at a critical point in the structure?

No?

I didn't think so.

[bill smith]

1. It turns out that it does not matter if the top is crushed. The mass and kinetic energy of the upper part - even as rubble - is fully capable of crush the lower part completely. As is TRIVIALLY easy to prove.

2. But the destruction does NOT progress more that a couple of stories upward.

And the exact purpose of the analysis that I provided here [ http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4743226#post4743226 ] was to explain - IN DETAIL - why the destruction is not symmetrical. Why not more than a couple of floors of the upper part are destroyed during the crush down.

And that explanation is PRECISELY why you adamantly REFUSED to discuss the issue with me. And are now back to simply making unsupportable assertions.

Coward.

tom

Hi there T.

It might be a small thing but something about your drawing here does not seem accurate. To wit;-
In he cartoonlike cutout of the plane on the face of the building I can accept that the perimeter columns are missing as depicted but what about the 45 massive core columns that were still intact ? Not to mention the intact opposite perimeter columns ? There were 47 core columns to start with of which I believe two were severed. The core was around 96% intact then.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_303614a37f8ba7835c.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16704)

Is this a significant and important omission ?

[Newtons Bit]

Can you give any example in the world history of steel framed buildings over 15 floors collapsing from thermal expansion ? 9/11 excluded.

WTC7 was a VERY irregular building. You might even say that it was unique. Can YOU provide a example of a similar building in the world history of steel framed buildings... at all?

The thing that non-engineers don't get, is that different construction and different framing techniques fail in different ways.

I imagine Bill Smith would have reacted to the first block shear failure by saying, "omg it's never happened before, it can't be true!"

[Minadin]

Well you don't have to be en engineer, but I am sure it helps. There are a lot of engineering principles that are counter-intuitive. When I was young, and before I had taken any engineering classes, I actually thought, for instance, that fireproofing on steel was silly, because it didn't burn.

[tfk]

bill smith,


I may not be an engineer but I am not stupid either.


Sorry, the vote on that proposition has been tallied for quite some time. It was a landslide. The news is not good for you.


I don't believe what Heiwa says because it goes against the OCT but because it makes sense to me.


Considering the vote above, "what makes sense to you" is singularly irrelevant to the real world.


I will be happy to hear what these other engineers ... have to say.


You have already heard what many other engineers (Including me) have said.

Heiwa says: Sum of all forces = zero
Engineers say: Sum of all forces = mass * acceleration

Heiwa says: "Equal & opposite forces at contact means [variable at different times] 1. no destruction, 2. destruction of bigger component, 3. destruction of globally stronger component, 4. instantaneous deceleration to zero velocity or 5. bounce.
Engineers say: "Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. And nope."

Heiwa says: "Average stresses in a structure determines what will fail."
Engineers say: "Nope. LOCAL stresses determine what will fail."

Heiwa says: "Dynamic loads = static loads"
Engineers say: "WTF?? Dynamic loads are MUCH higher than static loads."

Heiwa says: "If you drop a bowling ball onto a piece of thin glass, the glass will stop the bowling ball."
Engineers say: "Get the broom & dust pan."

Heiwa says: "Engineers don't know what they are talking about."
Engineers say: "Yeah. Sure kid. Say, did you see that the Sox took another one from the Yankees?"


I will be happy to hear what ... Bazant [has] to say.


Here is a VERY good idea of what Bazant will say.

"The interdisciplinary interests of Bjorkmann, a naval architect with a background in ... , ahh ... , well, a background, are appreciated. Although none of the discusser’s criticisms is scientifically correct, his discussion provides a welcome opportunity to dispel doubts recently voiced by some in the community outside structural mechanics and engineering."

Or:

"The interest of Bjorkmann, a naval insurance claims adjuster, is appreciated. After close scrutiny, however, his calculations are found to be incorrect, for reasons explained in the following."

Or, more parsimoniously:

"Who farted?"


I don't for a minute believe that they will be able to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear but I am open to persuasion.


No, you are not.

You are "open to persuasion" that:

"the plane could not have penetrated the outer wall of the towers under any circumstances"
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post36343

"Robertson, Skilling & Di Martini believed the plane should have bounced off of the side of the building"
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post36040
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post36182

"since the plane did not bounce off, molecular disruption was used to get the 767 thru the outer wall of the tower"
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post36042
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post36076

"ae911t completely debunked the WTC7 report within an hour of its release."
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post35812

"silent explosives could explain the lack of explosions"
[bill has stated that the demolition shown starting at 0:38 of this video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3ePuE0tvp4 - proves the existence silent explosives. Rather than a closed window.]
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post21800

THAT's the sort of nonsense that you are "open to".

tk

[bill smith]

The forging of a Truther. Thx T.

[tfk]

Remember when Sunder explained it first though? He introduced it as if it was a new physical law. It's actually quite funny now when I look back. When he said 'thermal expansion' I had to do a double-take. I thought 'isn't that just the normal expansion under heat' ? Even at the end of his lecture I was still wondering if I hadn't misheard him somehow. I wonder will Bazant be as amusing ?

No, Sunder did NOT introduce it as "a new physical law".

You have a absurdly torqued, agenda-driven ability to misunderstand simple statements.

As you have proven here repeatedly.

With several episodes like:
Bill Smith: [... generic idiotic statement ...]
Poster X: "Bill, that statement was idiotic."
Bill Smith: "I see that you agree with my statement."

Sunder said that there was a well-known phenomenon (thermal expansion from fire alone) that has, for the first time, been identified as responsible for bringing down a building.

And then he gave about 5 unique characteristics of WTC7 that contributed to this rare, possibly unique, event.

He did not even say that it is the first time that it has happened. He said it is the first time that it has been recognized as happening.

[bill smith]

I think you are in a bad mood tonight T.

[GlennB]

bill smith,

Sorry, the vote on that proposition has been tallied for quite some time. It was a landslide. The news is not good for you.

Here is a VERY good idea of what Bazant will say.

"The interdisciplinary interests of Bjorkmann, a naval architect with a background in ... , ahh ... , well, a background, are appreciated. Although none of the discusser’s criticisms is scientifically correct, his discussion provides a welcome opportunity to dispel doubts recently voiced by some in the community outside structural mechanics and engineering."

Or:

"The interest of Bjorkmann, a naval insurance claims adjuster, is appreciated. After close scrutiny, however, his calculations are found to be incorrect, for reasons explained in the following."

Or, more parsimoniously:

"Who farted?"

tk

Snipped and nominated :) Haven't laughed so much in a long time. It's 00:15 here, and my wife is asking, from the bedroom some way distant, "why are you cackling so much". The funniest bit is bolded. Maybe. Could be the "Who farted?" part. tfk .. quit while you're ahead! Retire!

[sylvan8798]

My office has designed a number of structures for thermal expansion. If you don't do very special detailing, the thermal expansion can bring the whole structure down.

Typical office buildings don't have this sort of detailing.

Thermal expansion is often an issue even in building. The sun beating on one side of a brick faced building all afternoon can cause enough expansion in the brick to cause cracking problems if there isn't some play in the supports.

If a building is long enough, and the potential seasonal temperature differences are large enough, expansion joints may have to be added to allow for variations in the dimensions over the seasons.

Every civil or mechanical engineer learns about thermal expansion in Strengths of Materials class, which is usually sophomore year.

[Newtons Bit]

Thermal expansion is often an issue even in building. The sun beating on one side of a brick faced building all afternoon can cause enough expansion in the brick to cause cracking problems if there isn't some play in the supports.

If a building is long enough, and the potential seasonal temperature differences are large enough, expansion joints may have to be added to allow for variations in the dimensions over the seasons.

Every civil or mechanical engineer learns about thermal expansion in Strengths of Materials class, which is usually sophomore year.

That's a service condition, not a strength condition. We're talking building failure. And yes, sophomore level undergrads should already be proficient in analyzing it in simple situations.

[bill smith]

Snipped and nominated :) Haven't laughed so much in a long time. It's 00:15 here, and my wife is asking, from the bedroom some way distant, "why are you cackling so much". The funniest bit is bolded. Maybe. Could be the "Who farted?" part. tfk .. quit while you're ahead! Retire!

England was 22;15 at the time you posted. Are you in Poland or somewhere like that ?

[Grizzly Bear]

I think you are in a bad mood tonight T.
Bill...


You are "open to persuasion" that:

"the plane could not have penetrated the outer wall of the towers under any circumstances"
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post36343

"Robertson, Skilling & Di Martini believed the plane should have bounced off of the side of the building"
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post36040
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post36182

"since the plane did not bounce off, molecular disruption was used to get the 767 thru the outer wall of the tower"
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post36042
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post36076

"ae911t completely debunked the WTC7 report within an hour of its release."
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post35812

"silent explosives could explain the lack of explosions"
[bill has stated that the demolition shown starting at 0:38 of this video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3ePuE0tvp4 - proves the existence silent explosives. Rather than a closed window.]
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post21800

THAT's the sort of nonsense that you are "open to".

tk

the posts pointed out by him reveal to me a lot about your knowledge of these topics. And you still haven't learned, and I doubt you will at this point. It really takes a special kind of -- I'll say "incompetence" in place of more insulting terms. The material being discussed in this thread is not something you're prepared to discuss, and Heiwa isn't qualified to discussed upon.... sorry

Thermal expansion is often an issue even in building. The sun beating on one side of a brick faced building all afternoon can cause enough expansion in the brick to cause cracking problems if there isn't some play in the supports.
<snip>
Every civil or mechanical engineer learns about thermal expansion in Strengths of Materials class, which is usually sophomore year.

They had to take it into consideration when they were building the beijing tower (this one (http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/3333/200941521155975770.jpg)). Particularly when the two separate towers were to meet at one point joining them. IIRC they waited for the coldest months of the year in that region to avoid problems due to the temperature differentials, or something to that effect. I forget where it was posted... and unfortunately good case studies on this building and it's sister which got torched a few months ago aren't widely available online

[tfk]

Hi there T.

It might be a small thing but something about your drawing here does not seem accurate. To wit;-
In he cartoonlike cutout of the plane on the face of the building I can accept that the perimeter columns are missing as depicted but what about the 45 massive core columns that were still intact ? Not to mention the intact opposite perimeter columns ? There were 47 core columns to start with of which I believe two were severed. The core was around 96% intact then.

[/URL][URL]http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_303614a37f8ba7835c.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16704)

Is this a significant and important omission ?

No, it is completely irrelevant. Nice to see the degree to which you pay attention.

It's irrelevant because NONE of this discussion was related to collapse initiation. The instant that collapse had begun, the core columns buckled and their connections failed, as did the peripheral columns. This is proven beyond doubt by the very fact that there were no core columns projecting out of the roof during the first several seconds of collapse.

ALL of my discussion was related to collapse progression. And specifically why it did NOT result in symmetrical destruction upwards & downwards as your befuddled mentor believes.

Or, far more likely, does NOT still believe. But has gone so far down this path that he recognized there is no graceful retreat.

The reason that this is more likely is precisely the fact that he refuses to discuss the issue. If he was still simply bewildered, he WOULD discuss it. The fact that he refuses is a VERY STRONG indicator that he already realizes that he's screwed the pooch. But is too arrogant to admit it.

BTW, just before collapse, the core was NOT "96% intact". It wasn't anywhere CLOSE to 96% intact.

It was bent. It's loads were massively offset, resulting in huge bending moments. It was being heated at it's critical locations. it was creeping. Several of its intact columns were no longer carrying their rated loads, meaning that other columns were carrying far greater loads than they would if the loads had been shared, as in the intact structure.

You don't understand this, bill. I have no idea whether or not you COULD understand it. Because you've completely hidden what intelligence you MIGHT possess behind a curtain of agenda-driven stooopid that you DO possess.

So, I'll make a deal with you. You stop pretending to ask me questions as though you cared about the answer. And I'll stop pointing out that you don't care about the answers in the first place.

Deal?

tk

[GlennB]

England was 22;15 at the time you posted. Are you in Poland or somewhere like that ?

Arkadia ... Greece. What makes you think I'm in England?

[bill smith]

No, it is completely irrelevant. Nice to see the degree to which you pay attention.

It's irrelevant because NONE of this discussion was related to collapse initiation. The instant that collapse had begun, the core columns buckled and their connections failed, as did the peripheral columns. This is proven beyond doubt by the very fact that there were no core columns projecting out of the roof during the first several seconds of collapse.

ALL of my discussion was related to collapse progression. And specifically why it did NOT result in symmetrical destruction upwards & downwards as your befuddled mentor believes.

Or, far more likely, does NOT still believe. But has gone so far down this path that he recognized there is no graceful retreat.

The reason that this is more likely is precisely the fact that he refuses to discuss the issue. If he was still simply bewildered, he WOULD discuss it. The fact that he refuses is a VERY STRONG indicator that he already realizes that he's screwed the pooch. But is too arrogant to admit it.

BTW, just before collapse, the core was NOT "96% intact". It wasn't anywhere CLOSE to 96% intact.

It was bent. It's loads were massively offset, resulting in huge bending moments. It was being heated at it's critical locations. it was creeping. Several of its intact columns were no longer carrying their rated loads, meaning that other columns were carrying far greater loads than they would if the loads had been shared, as in the intact structure.

You don't understand this, bill. I have no idea whether or not you COULD understand it. Because you've completely hidden what intelligence you MIGHT possess behind a curtain of agenda-driven stooopid that you DO possess.

So, I'll make a deal with you. You stop pretending to ask me questions as though you cared about the answer. And I'll stop pointing out that you don't care about the answers in the first place.

Deal?

tk
You left lots and lots of meat on this bone T. But I will wait to see what a real expert has to say about it. I might come back on it later though.

[bill smith]

Arkadia ... Greece. What makes you think I'm in England?

Cool. I lived in Greece for a while. Crete- on the Libyan sea. I don't know, I just assumed you were posting from England for some reason.

[GlennB]

Cool I lived in Greece for a while. Crete- on the Libyan sea. I don't know, I just assumed you were posting from England for some reason.

OK that's nice. But you seemed to be leaning towards the idea that I'm unable to read the little clock at the bottom right of my PC, or setting out to deceive for no apparent reason. Why on earth might you doubt my idea of my local time, or lie about where I live? That's worrying.

[FineWine]

I was just thinking...


No, you weren't.



now that it looks like Bazant will be forced to accept Heiwa'a challenge what on Earth is he going to do ?


Like all the real engineers on this forum, he will show that your goofy guru is clueless about basic physics.



He has to demonstrate that the impossibe is possible...


No, he has to show that what actually happened on 9/11 can be explained by real engineers who know what they're talking about.



There was a time that he could pull the wool over people's eyes but that time is long gone. Reducing the whole thing to impenetrable technical jargon will not work either as eminently qualified Truthers and other Techs will be able to see right through it.


There are no "eminently qualified truthers." All "truthers" are fools and liars. You, for example, are incapable, through lack of education and intelligence, to see through the absurdities your leaders shove down your throat.



So what CAN he do ?

He can radically alter his explanation by introducing a peviously unknown phenomenon into the equation- A bit ike NIST did with the 'thermal expansion' in WTC7. It will have to be very exoticly exotic to explain WTC1 though.

Or he may decline to answer at all....


He can, and will, show the errors Heiwa makes and is unable to correct. Remember, nobody who knows anything agrees with Heiwa. Your mind is enslaved by his nonsense because it supports your zany political agenda.
Note that when the real engineers here explain Heiwa's errors, you bleat incoherent gibberish and then return to asking the same silly questions. Nothing penetrates your wall of ignorance. You won't learn anything from the ASCE people either. You can't.

[bill smith]

OK that's nice. But you seemed to be leaning towards the idea that I'm unable to read the little clock at the bottom right of my PC, or setting out to deceive for no apparent reason. Why on earth might you doubt my idea of my local time? That's worrying.

Trust everybody Glenn, but tie up your horses.

[GlennB]

Trust everybody Glenn, but tie up your horses.

Nice dance, but give me one good reason why I might be lying about my timezone. Hmmmm......

[FineWine]

bill smith,



Sorry, the vote on that proposition has been tallied for quite some time. It was a landslide. The news is not good for you.



Considering the vote above, "what makes sense to you" is singularly irrelevant to the real world.



You have already heard what many other engineers (Including me) have said.

Heiwa says: Sum of all forces = zero
Engineers say: Sum of all forces = mass * acceleration

Heiwa says: "Equal & opposite forces at contact means [variable at different times] 1. no destruction, 2. destruction of bigger component, 3. destruction of globally stronger component, 4. instantaneous deceleration to zero velocity or 5. bounce.
Engineers say: "Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. And nope."

Heiwa says: "Average stresses in a structure determines what will fail."
Engineers say: "Nope. LOCAL stresses determine what will fail."

Heiwa says: "Dynamic loads = static loads"
Engineers say: "WTF?? Dynamic loads are MUCH higher than static loads."

Heiwa says: "If you drop a bowling ball onto a piece of thin glass, the glass will stop the bowling ball."
Engineers say: "Get the broom & dust pan."

Heiwa says: "Engineers don't know what they are talking about."
Engineers say: "Yeah. Sure kid. Say, did you see that the Sox took another one from the Yankees?"



Here is a VERY good idea of what Bazant will say.

"The interdisciplinary interests of Bjorkmann, a naval architect with a background in ... , ahh ... , well, a background, are appreciated. Although none of the discusser’s criticisms is scientifically correct, his discussion provides a welcome opportunity to dispel doubts recently voiced by some in the community outside structural mechanics and engineering."

Or:

"The interest of Bjorkmann, a naval insurance claims adjuster, is appreciated. After close scrutiny, however, his calculations are found to be incorrect, for reasons explained in the following."

Or, more parsimoniously:

"Who farted?"



No, you are not.

You are "open to persuasion" that:

"the plane could not have penetrated the outer wall of the towers under any circumstances"
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post36343

"Robertson, Skilling & Di Martini believed the plane should have bounced off of the side of the building"
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post36040
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post36182

"since the plane did not bounce off, molecular disruption was used to get the 767 thru the outer wall of the tower"
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post36042
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post36076

"ae911t completely debunked the WTC7 report within an hour of its release."
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post35812

"silent explosives could explain the lack of explosions"
[bill has stated that the demolition shown starting at 0:38 of this video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3ePuE0tvp4 - proves the existence silent explosives. Rather than a closed window.]
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post21800

THAT's the sort of nonsense that you are "open to".

tk


Great job. As usual.

[FineWine]

Remember when Sunder explained it first though? He introduced it as if it was a new physical law. It's actually quite funny now when I look back. When he said 'thermal expansion' I had to do a double-take. I thought 'isn't that just the normal expansion under heat' ? Even at the end of his lecture I was still wondering if I hadn't misheard him somehow. I wonder will Bazant be as amusing ?


Here's another question you won't answer. You obviously lack education in technical subjects. You have admitted to a lack of intelligence, a failing so apparent that it hardly required acknowledgment. Yet, you take a condescending attitude toward prominent engineers and scientists. Doesn't it ever occur to you that your inability to understand them is your problem, not theirs? They are writing for an educated community. They have to get it right, or their reputations will suffer. Their concern is that engineers and physicists in countries around the world will detect errors, not that agenda-driven crackpots trolling tiny internet forums won't understand them.

What makes you think that sneering from a perspective of near-total ignorance helps to further the aims of your insane movement? How do you hope to persuade people who know vastly more than you do?

[bill smith]

Nice dance, but give me one good reason why I might be lying about my timezone. Hmmmm......

I can't really. I just had a strong feeling you were English and the 2-hour timezone difference made me wonder.

[sylvan8798]

That's a service condition, not a strength condition. We're talking building failure. And yes, sophomore level undergrads should already be proficient in analyzing it in simple situations.

Quite true. I was simply making the point that the concept of thermal expansion isn't something new or something they just made up at NIST, and it has certainly been something engineers are aware of and deal with in various contexts, even to the seemingly minute level of the variation in temperature over the course of a regular day.

[Regnad Kcin]

If you think that we are wrong you should just say so.You, yourself, state as much when you postulate a hypothesis ("9/11 was an inside job") that is 100% impossible.

Now, knowing that, as you do, what did you say your actual agenda is in promoting the same? C'mon, you can tell me.

[Regnad Kcin]

I may not be an engineer but I am not stupid either...So why do you buy into an idea that is 100% impossible? Oh, right, you don't. (See, I'm not stupid either.) You are simply operating according to your agenda.

What was that again?

[Regnad Kcin]

I was just thinking...now that it looks like Bazant will be forced to accept Heiwa'a challenge what on Earth is he going to do ?

He has to demonstrate that the impossibe is possible...Come now, Mr. Smith, don't go trying to horn in on my turf. It's what the "truth" movement attempts to promote that is impossible. 100%, in fact.

[Bluesky]

I was just thinking...now that it looks like Bazant will be forced to accept Heiwa'a challenge what on Earth is he going to do ?

He has to demonstrate that the impossibe is possible...

There was a time that he could pull the wool over people's eyes but that time is long gone. Reducing the whole thing to impenetrable technical jargon will not work either as eminently qualified Truthers and other Techs will be able to see right through it.

So what CAN he do ?

He can radically alter his explanation by introducing a peviously unknown phenomenon into the equation- A bit ike NIST did with the 'thermal expansion' in WTC7. It will have to be very exoticly exotic to explain WTC1 though.

Or he may decline to answer at all....

Hey I did it... and it collapsed. I followed the method in post 1641 and it fell down. I am sure if I can do it, so can Bazant.

Complies with every point of Heiwa's stupid first post!
Heiwa concedes defeat?

Dtugg also came up with a scheme in Post 1682.. but I am not sure he tested it.

[dtugg]

Dtugg also came up with a scheme in Post 1682.. but I am not sure he tested it.

That was GlennB.

[1337m4n]

Yet another stupid response from Heiwa He loves having his name in bold, doesn't he? Here you go Heiwa.. perhaps you understand it now... because its so easy to come up with a whole bunch of structures that meet your challenge.

Anyway here is an example of how total collapse can be generated by less than 1/20th of the total weight of a structure:
1. Get 20 Pizza boxes and stack on top of each other.
2. Tape together the sides with a few vertical lines of scotch tape.
3. cut each side vertically into 4, starting at each corner. Add vertical tape to stick the columns together
4. cut out all horizontal cardboard (the floors), and then replace them sticking them back in position with tiny amounts of glue, that is only just able to support the self weight of 1 piece of cardboard.
5. drop the top horizontal piece.

So what happens.
1. the top piece falls and hits the next piece.
2. and because the glue is only strong enough to support one piece of cardboard the next piece falls...
3 and so on, until all the horizontals have fallen
4. at some point during the collapse the outside of the box falls down. The columns will become unstable because they have lost the lateral restraint of the floor thro the glue. The columns will not be able to support their own weight as a single skin of cardboard 20 pizza-boxes tall. The columns will tend to fall outwards because the air is being pushed out of the boxes by the collapse.

Interestingly, the floors will collapse at essentially free-fall speed as they pancake, because the glue offers no real resistance and is massively overloaded, even after the first impact (200% of design load plus impact force to bring it to about 300% of design). The columns will be slower to fall, and will tend to fall radially out from the middle.

Now I am sure Heiwa will say that I am cheating, but not according to "Heiwa's Challenge" . And, of course, this type of failure works even better in steel, although Heiwa did suggest Pizza boxes. The "heiwa challenge" was to cause collapse by using a tiny proportion of the total mass, which this does quite nicely.

Don't ya just love pizza!! If by some miracle Heiwa concedes, then pls donate my winnings to a charity that supports the victims of the Iraq war; both the servicemen and the civilians

Heiwa, you owe this man $1,000,000.

[Bluesky]

Hey I did it... and it collapsed. I followed the method in post 1641 and it fell down. I am sure if I can do it, so can Bazant.

Complies with every point of Heiwa's stupid first post!
Heiwa concedes defeat?

Dtugg also came up with a scheme in Post 1682.. but I am not sure he tested it.

Sorry Dtugg, yes it was GlennB who also solved the Heiwa Challenge with Post 1682

We did it... and it collapsed. I followed the method in post 1641 and it fell down. I am sure if I can do it, so can Bazant.

Complies with every point of Heiwa's stupid first post!
Heiwa concedes defeat?

Dtugg also came up with a scheme in Post 1682.. but I am not sure he tested it yet. We win!

[Heiwa]

Sorry Dtugg, yes it was GlennB who also solved the Heiwa Challenge with Post 1682

We did it... and it collapsed. I followed the method in post 1641 and it fell down. I am sure if I can do it, so can Bazant.

Complies with every point of Heiwa's stupid first post!
Heiwa concedes defeat?

Dtugg also came up with a scheme in Post 1682.. but I am not sure he tested it yet. We win!

Good progress! Please provide more details of your structure and particularly the TEST and verification that elements/connections really were broken. Where, when was this TEST supposed to have taken place? Any witnesses? Some photos/video would help.

[GlennB]

Please provide more details of your structure and particularly the TEST and verification that elements/connections really were broken. Where, when was this TEST supposed to have taken place? Any witnesses? Some photos/video would help.

Why does this sound familiar? Ah yes! It's exactly the kind of information you stubbornly refused to provide for your "children's flaming water tank" experiment.

[1337m4n]

"children's flaming water tank" experiment.

That sounds like it would violate all kinds of safety regulations.

[tuc0]

That sounds like it would violate all kinds of safety regulations.


Throw in some sharks and you have a real party!

[GlennB]

That sounds like it would violate all kinds of safety regulations.

You bet. And he's "a good EU citizen" :rolleyes: But, in fairness, he does say "Call your parents to ensure that safety is maintained! ". But this is after the welding project involving:
4 off steel pipes, length 750 mm, dia 20 mm wall thickness 1 mm (each cross area 62.83 mm²). Yield stress 23.5 kgs/mm²
2 off 1000 x 1000 x 5 mm steel plates (weight about 40 kgs)
4 off 1000 x 1500 x 5 mm steel plates (each weight about 60 kgs)
4 off 960 x 4 x 3 mm steel flat bars (spandrels)
amongst other stuff.

You couldn't make this up. But he did, at here (http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist1.htm#6) section 8.1

[Bluesky]

Good progress! Please provide more details of your structure and particularly the TEST and verification that elements/connections really were broken. Where, when was this TEST supposed to have taken place? Any witnesses? Some photos/video would help.

Hey come on we won the heiwa Challenge. Its so obvious, it fails and you just have to look at the method in post 1641 or the one by GlennB in post 1682. How couldn't that fail?

So know you want us to do some test documentation. are you saying that we have to build t to a specification and that we need to test and inspect the joints. There is no mention of this in your first post and it seems to me that you are just adding new rules.

Our scheme complies with every point of Heiwa's stupid first post!
Heiwa concedes defeat?
:boxedin:

[Newtons Bit]

Hey come on we won the heiwa Challenge. Its so obvious, it fails and you just have to look at the method in post 1641 or the one by GlennB in post 1682. How couldn't that fail?

So know you want us to do some test documentation. are you saying that we have to build t to a specification and that we need to test and inspect the joints. There is no mention of this in your first post and it seems to me that you are just adding new rules.

Our scheme complies with every point of Heiwa's stupid first post!
Heiwa concedes defeat?
:boxedin:

He won't ever concede...anything.

[tsig]

Hey come on we won the heiwa Challenge. Its so obvious, it fails and you just have to look at the method in post 1641 or the one by GlennB in post 1682. How couldn't that fail?

So know you want us to do some test documentation. are you saying that we have to build t to a specification and that we need to test and inspect the joints. There is no mention of this in your first post and it seems to me that you are just adding new rules.

Our scheme complies with every point of Heiwa's stupid first post!
Heiwa concedes defeat?
:boxedin:

Heiwa owes you a million dollars. You have followed all of his specs and now he needs to pony up.

Heiwa I hope you have a million dollars.

[Heiwa]

He won't ever concede...anything.

Hm, The Heiwa Challenge is open for everybody. Physics is a practical and experiemental science of the world around us. If anybody suggests that structures one-way crush down and self-destruct due to gravity, they should show this with real structures!! In The Heiwa Challenge only ONE structure suffices. No theoretical models are permitted.

Theoretical models suggesting that structures can one-way crush down when a part drops on the whole are very suspect. Bazant, BLGB and Seffen have a lot to explain, like NIST, FEMA, Purdue university, Mackey, etc. They can do it by participating in The Heiwa Challenge and produce ONE real structure that behaves as they postulate. Until then their theories are of no value. KISS.

[Grizzly Bear]

Hm, The Heiwa Challenge is open for everybody. Physics is a practical and experiemental science of the world around us. If anybody suggests that structures one-way crush down and self-destruct due to gravity, they should show this with real structures!! In The Heiwa Challenge only ONE structure suffices. No theoretical models are permitted.

Theoretical models suggesting that structures can one-way crush down when a part drops on the whole are very suspect. Bazant, BLGB and Seffen have a lot to explain, like NIST, FEMA, Purdue university, Mackey, etc. They can do it by participating in The Heiwa Challenge and produce ONE real structure that behaves as they postulate. Until then their theories are of no value. KISS.

Not that it needs to be said further, but your assertion applies a universal standard to building performance which is impossible to apply when built structures aren't all the same to begin with. I generally take issue (as most serious designers would) when a model is demanded using this assertion as a basis for your challenge. Not only does you're universal standard and confirmation bias exclude the twin towers as examples, you assume that regardless of any differences associated with construction the result is utterly impossible, and you then proceed to apply this to objects which have absolutely nothing to do with man made structures. And it has been repeatedly pointed out that you refuse to to change this position and thus will never be satisfied by your own challenge. It was dead on arrival, and it's taken me too long to get bored of your brick wall of an uniformed opinion. Later....

[Heiwa]

Not that it needs to be said further, but your assertion applies a universal standard to building performance which is impossible to apply when built structures aren't all the same to begin with. I generally take issue (as most serious designers would) when a model is demanded using this assertion as a basis for your challenge. Not only does you're universal standard and confirmation bias exclude the twin towers as examples, you assume that regardless of any differences associated with construction the result is utterly impossible, and you then proceed to apply this to objects which have absolutely nothing to do with man made structures. And it has been repeatedly pointed out that you refuse to to change this position and thus will never be satisfied by your own challenge. It was dead on arrival, and it's taken me too long to get bored of your brick wall of an uniformed opinion. Later....

Any structure, man-made or natural, may be proposed in The Heiwa Challenge. If you think the WTC 1/2 structures one-way crush down and selfdestruct* when a small part is dropped on the remainder by gravity, you are kindly requested to demonstrate it (again).

*Selfdestruct = 70% of the elements and/or connections are broken as result of upper part C colliding with lower part A.

You are right that it is impossible. Reason being that part C of any structure, man-made or whatever, cannot apply enough (potential/kinetic) energy on part A without destroying itself first. And a destroyed part C cannot damage an intact part A or what remains of it.

Look at the rubble of WTC 1/2! Result of gravity alone? Not possible, of course! Broken elements thrown sideways into adjacent objects! Gravity force cannot break an element in two locations and then throw the intermediate part of the element sideways. Try yourself in 3-D! Or do the calculation on a piece of paper. Your theory must be at least 2-D to allow for sideways displacement.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Edited to remove Hotlink, post under review

Content in breach of Rule 2 removed.

[bill smith]

This is a Japanese video I've never seen before. The collapse of WTC1 beginning at 4:21 might be interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeAwSAEXHkI&feature=related

[Grizzly Bear]

This is a Japanese video I've never seen before. The collapse of WTC1 beginning at 4:21 might be interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeAwSAEXHkI&feature=related

You could try adding some explanation to your post rather than assume that people are psychic as to what -- if any -- point you have in posting the video.

[Bluesky]

Any structure, man-made or natural, may be proposed in The Heiwa Challenge. Try yourself in 3-D! Or do the calculation on a
< snip for brevity >
piece of paper. Your theory must be at least 2-D to allow for sideways displacement.

Is it true that the winner gets 1 million dollars? I know of only two structures so far that win the Heiwa Challenge: Skyblue post 1641 and GlennB post 1682. Do we have to share or do we get a million each? There are lots more simple structures that would fail when you apply a significant overstress to things like connections.

How do we collect... or are you just a bit of a fraud Anders?

[Heiwa]

Is it true that the winner gets 1 million dollars? I know of only two structures so far that win the Heiwa Challenge: Skyblue post 1641 and GlennB post 1682. Do we have to share or do we get a million each? There are lots more simple structures that would fail when you apply a significant overstress to things like connections.

How do we collect... or are you just a bit of a fraud Anders?

Me, a fraud? No, but my frau was German. The Heiwa Challenge rules are in post #1. A winner must produce a real structure, etc, etc. Frantic, fraught, freakish frazzle theoretical fraud is not permitted. Have a freak! It is free!

[beachnut]

This is a Japanese video I've never seen before. The collapse of WTC1 beginning at 4:21 might be interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeAwSAEXHkI&feature=related
You are posting the same tripe in multiple threads. You like the part where people are dancing in the street celebrating United Stated being attacked and people being murdered. Good video to go with your weak moronic apologies for terrorists.

The collapsing WTC towers prove Heiwa is wrong; twice.