Structural Collapse: Ronan Point

[Architect]

On another thread, Heiwa interpreted a picture of the Ronan Point collapse - which he believes occured in the USA - as evidence that supported his arguments; specifically, he states that the collpase occured from the removal of structural elements at the base of the wall.

This thread is for Heiwa to justify this position.

Hint: Ronan Point is studied by structural engineers and architects in the UK because of it's importance in progressive collapse in large panel system buildings, also because it raises critical workmanship issues which have to be identified on site.

[A W Smith]

:popcorn6

[Architect]

Shhhh! Don't tell him.

And check for gas first. Especially the pilot light.

[Newtons Bit]

Sometimes there are unintended consequences to having a cup of tea.

[Grizzly Bear]

Wait wait... didn't he say earlier that:

Actually, all these models and theories simply confirm that progressive collapse is only possible with rigid mass elements (or complete rigid assemblies of rigid mass elements). As no such elements or assemblies of elements exist in the real world, progressive collapse [....] of a structure by a part of itself (topic) is simply not possible.

If they're impossible then what does that make ronan point?

[UNLoVedRebel]

On another thread, Heiwa interpreted a picture of the Ronan Point collapse - which he believes occured in the USA - as evidence that supported his arguments; specifically, he states that the collpase occured from the removal of structural elements at the base of the wall.

This thread is for Heiwa to justify this position.

Hint: Ronan Point is studied by structural engineers and architects in the UK because of it's importance in progressive collapse in large panel system buildings, also because it raises critical workmanship issues which have to be identified on site.

LINKY? Don't make me dig through that trainwreck of a thread.

[Hokulele]

Linky-poo (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5001618#post5001618).

[Dave Rogers]

With the permission of the moderators, I thought it might help to repost the original discussion out of the thread that's been moved to AAH.


Suggest you explain how parts of structures, e.g. floors supported by columns, can one-way crush down bigger parts of same structure with even stronger columns. Don't spam the thread with questions.

Same thing that did this:

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/4269/pic47y.jpg

One failure led to another, then another, then another, then another, then another, then another, then another, then another, then another, then another, then another, then another, then another, then another, then another, then another, then another, then another, then another, until it reached ground level.

Not all of the building height felt the effects of the progressive failures at any given time.




We have seen that before many times. Actually they removed one vertical support at the bottom corner of the structure and, as expected, elements above this corner element displaced down as seen on photo.

No one way crush down of anything here. Just one local failure in the corner at bottom of the structure producing more local failures above. Evidently the redundancy built into the structure prevented further local failures away from the weak corner.

Thanks for proving my point.


Ronan Point. We had to study that in structures, so we did.

Tell me, Heiwa:

Are you claiming that the collapse happened towards the bottom of the tower?


What collapse are you talking about? Photo shows failed elements in the corner of a structure.

What caused it? Evidently a failure of an element at the bottom of the structure.

Result? Elements above displaced down as seen and produced more local failures. No one way crush down. Path of failures from bottom up! Happens all the time.

I know you will now suggest that an explosion blow out some corner supports at the top of the structure, and that the path of local failures were from top down. It never happens.

Except in the USA!

Hopefully that should restore some context.

Dave

[Newtons Bit]

So was Ronan Point in inside job carried out in the USA?

[ElMondoHummus]

Little hint:

Actually they removed one vertical support at the bottom corner of the structure...


Answer: No! That is not what happened.


Ronan Point was a 23-storey tower block (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/Tower_block) in Newham (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/London_Borough_of_Newham), East London (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/East_London,_England)...

... At approximately 5:45am on the 16 May, 1968, 56-year-old cake decorator Ivy Hodge went into her kitchen in flat 90, a corner flat on the 18th floor of the building, and lit a match to light the stove for her early morning cup of tea. This sparked a gas explosion (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/Gas_explosion), which blew out the load bearing (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/Load_bearing_wall) flank walls, removing the structural supports to the four flats above.

So, as Architect said:
On another thread, Heiwa interpreted a picture of the Ronan Point collapse - which he believes occured in the USA - as evidence that supported his arguments; specifically, he states that the collpase occured from the removal of structural elements at the base of the wall.

This thread is for Heiwa to justify this position.


Yes. In the light of information showing that his initial impression of the Ronan Point collapse is incorrect, how does he then interpret both this collapse as well as the analogy to the progressive collapse of the Twin Towers? Does he continue to prattle on about upper blocks being unable to crush lower blocks? Or does he finally admit the issue that he's been dodging for so long now, and that's that progressive collapses such as this as well as the Twin Towers don't involve the upper collapsing segment defeating the strength of the entire lower segment as a single unit all at once. Rather, it involves that upper segment attacking individual floors below it, compromising integrity, adding mass in the form of the lower floors, and continuing on.

The question is, will he admit this, or will he continue to cling to a long refuted illusion? This question goes to the heart of how honest he is about accepting and understanding facts, concepts and evidence: Will he be honest enough to acknowledge the reality of how such progressive collapses proceed? Or will ignore the reality of where the initial failure in the Ronan Point towers occurred (it was not at the bottom) and continue to handwave everything else away?

That remains to be seen.

[brodski]

So was Ronan Point in inside job carried out in the USA?

Quite, people want us to believe that Ronan Point was in London, this is nonsense- a group of Jewish Cockneys emigrated to the USA and set up a community called Newham. The started to build tower-blocks, but wanted to be more American than the Americans, knowing that American buildings haver fewer floors by floor number than UK buildings, the decided to not only skip the ground floor, they also skipped floors 1-17. The 18th floor was accessible from street level, after "decorating" a cake of nanno-thermite an Israeli special forces black ops unit (code name: Ivy Hodge) initiated the collapse.

The only unexplained bit is why a five story building looks so tall and narrow in the photos.

[Architect]

Come on lads, this thread is for Heiwa to support his position. Or, as I prefer to think of it, to try and wriggle out of having gotten caught talking bollocks.

[Dave Rogers]

Come on lads, this thread is for Heiwa to support his position. Or, as I prefer to think of it, to try and wriggle out of having gotten caught talking bollocks.

Which is why I pasted in the posts from AAH. I wanted to capture Heiwa's bollocks for posterity.

No, wait...

Dave

[ElMondoHummus]

Which is why I pasted in the posts from AAH. I wanted to capture Heiwa's bollocks for posterity.

No, wait...

Dave

Eww... dude... :boggled::covereyes

[Architect]

I'm sure he'll be here in a moment. Honest.

[Horatius]

The question is, will he admit this, or will he continue to cling to a long refuted illusion?



I don't think there's any question how he will react.

[A W Smith]

Well someone could leave a permanent stain on his character by leaving a link to this thread in the comment box of his profile. Along with a quote of his 'impossible' claim.

[Agatha]

Hellooooo, Heiwa? Surely an engineer such as yourself would be familiar with Ronan Point? I was only a youngling when it happened, but remember it well.

[A W Smith]

Hellooooo, Heiwa? Surely an engineer such as yourself would be familiar with Ronan Point? I was only a youngling when it happened, but remember it well.


But Ronan point didn't have an anchor, round windows, nor life boat davits so it falls far outside his area of expertise. Much like the WTC.

[Dave Rogers]

But Ronan point didn't have an anchor, round windows, nor life boat davits so it falls far outside his area of expertise.

It obeyed the Law of Conservation of Momentum, the Law of Conservation of Energy, and Newton's Third Law. It falls outside his universe.

Dave

[Architect]

Well someone could leave a permanent stain on his character by leaving a link to this thread in the comment box of his profile. Along with a quote of his 'impossible' claim.

Let's give him to Monday - after all, he might be away on business = and then go for it.

[bio]

The bottom of the damaged section is still intact. no "one way crush".

[Dave Rogers]

The bottom of the damaged section is still intact. no "one way crush".

What about the sixteen floors above it?

Dave

[Architect]

The bottom of the damaged section is still intact. no "one way crush".

I'm sorry, but the purpose of this thread is for Heiwa to justify his assertion that Ronan Point was caused by failure of a structural element on one of the lower floors which was, if I understand correctly, then arrested by redundancy in the structural floor immediately below.

If, however, like some of us here you have expertise in structures and have studied the Ronan Point collapse then please, please, please do feel free to come in with some meaningful comment.

[BasqueArch]

The bottom of the damaged section is still intact. no "one way crush".

One wrecking ball hit, not explosives, progressively globally collapses 9 story building. Rabobank office in Utrecht , Netherlands. Large dust clouds. Gotta like the cackling
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmiApjHn4e8

[stateofgrace]

Bump for Heiwa.

[Newtons Bit]

One wrecking ball hit, not explosives, progressively globally collapses 9 story building. Rabobank office in Utrecht , Netherlands. Large dust clouds. Gotta like the cackling
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmiApjHn4e8

I think that driving a wrecking ball has got to be one of the more satisfying jobs on the planet.

[R.Mackey]

That's a terrific video. Highly instructive.

Any system engineer knows about "cascading failure," but I can understand how it might not be obvious to some people.

[Heiwa]

Hellooooo, Heiwa? Surely an engineer such as yourself would be familiar with Ronan Point? I was only a youngling when it happened, but remember it well.

No, I had never heard of it. When was it? What happened to this Ivy Hodge with the match? Did he survive?

[Heiwa]

That's a terrific video. Highly instructive.

Any system engineer knows about "cascading failure," but I can understand how it might not be obvious to some people.

Yes, cascading failures occur in electrical/electronic systems and also pipe systems. Has nothing to do with structural damage analysis.

[Justin39640]

That's a terrific video. Highly instructive.

Any system engineer knows about "cascading failure," but I can understand how it might not be obvious to some people.

that is a great video
i built a "model" like that trying to figure out the physics system in my 3D program
w9yyUa48x6k

[R.Mackey]

For those of you who, unlike Heiwa, actually believe in conservation of momentum, cascading failure can occur in any system, unless you take pains to design those failure modes out of the system. Mechanical, electrical, structural, biological, makes no difference.

My god, what an idiotic thing for him to say...

[Justin39640]

For those of you who, unlike Heiwa, actually believe in conservation of momentum, cascading failure can occur in any system, unless you take pains to design those failure modes out of the system. Mechanical, electrical, structural, biological, makes no difference.

My god, what an idiotic thing for him to say...

i get a lot of cascading electrical failures at work
one system destroys the next

[Architect]

Yes, cascading failures occur in electrical/electronic systems and also pipe systems. Has nothing to do with structural damage analysis.

I'm sorry, Heiwa, but I'm going to have to press you for a professional and technical response to the OP.

[alienentity]

Thanks for that video Basque; although I can see some squibs just before the pyroclastic flow obscures the picture.
The clouds of pulverized concrete are amazing as well..:duck:

That was 'near freefall speed' TM wasn't it?

[Newtons Bit]

No, I had never heard of it. When was it? What happened to this Ivy Hodge with the match? Did he survive?

Yes, yes she did survive. Some of the people below her did not however.

[Newtons Bit]

Yes, cascading failures occur in electrical/electronic systems and also pipe systems. Has nothing to do with structural damage analysis.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q="progressive+collapse"&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g10

53,100 results disagree with you. Please note the first result, it's highly relevant. PCA has developed a great design method to help resist progressive collapse in concrete buildings. I'm currently using portions of that method in a 5-story hospital complex I'm working on.

[Agatha]

No, I had never heard of it. When was it? What happened to this Ivy Hodge with the match? Did he survive? She did, others were not so fortunate. It was in 1968.

Are you serious that you have never heard of this? I thought you held yourself out as an engineer?

And yet you asserted - apparently with neither evidence nor knowledge of the event - that it was caused thusly: "they removed one vertical support at the bottom corner of the structure and, as expected, elements above this corner element displaced down as seen on photo."

Which is nonsense. The gas explosion was on the 18th (of 23) floors and caused a failure of a load bearing wall on that floor, causing a progressive collapse of the whole corner of the building.

[alienentity]

Hi guys,

I've cloned that wrecking ball/progressive collapse video, and added some annotations and a link to my other WTC7 videos.

IMHO, this example is a great demonstration of not only PC, but also is similar to WTC7 in that it travels from one end to the other. Unlike WTC7 it's very easy to see how the failures progress since there's no external columns/facade to hide things.

But I think it will help people to visualize what was going on out of view, and why there was an apparent lull of several seconds after the East PH collapsed - this was the time when the internal collapse progressed E-W..

Another similarity between the two collapses is that the process doesn't continue just one row of columns at a time, even though it starts roughly that way. At the end, at least 2 rows of columns, and a fairly large chunk of the far end of the building finally fall in unison. This reminds one of WTC7.

Here's my annotated version:

BtvyBMHM6SY

(if you have any good suggestions for things to add to the annotations, pls let me know)

[Longfellow]

Hi guys, ...(snip)

(if you have any good suggestions for things to add to the annotations, pls let me know)

Very nice, alienentity, but I do have one question. I had to replay the video and pause it in order to read the annotations in their entirety. Could you, by chance, start the annotations a few seconds earlier and/or make them stay up a tad longer?

[BasqueArch]

Thanks for that video Basque; although I can see some squibs just before the pyroclastic flow obscures the picture.
The clouds of pulverized concrete are amazing as well..:duck:

That was 'near freefall speed' TM wasn't it?

Haa thanks.
I saw this video on another post a few weeks ago. Used it in one of my threads. Sorry can't remember who posted this first.
You know what they say:

The second mouse gets the cheese.

[WUBRINY63]

Who the hell is still trotting out this low cost pre-fab constructed building collapse as some kind of comparison to 9/11?

Is there nothing else?

[Newtons Bit]

Who the hell is still trotting out this low cost pre-fab constructed building collapse as some kind of comparison to 9/11?

Is there nothing else?

I hope that's satire...

[Grizzly Bear]

Who the hell is still trotting out this low cost pre-fab constructed building collapse as some kind of comparison to 9/11?

Are you keeping tabs on the progress of this thread?

Link to the full quote: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4992159#post4992159
Actually, all these models and theories simply confirm that progressive collapse is only possible with rigid mass elements (or complete rigid assemblies of rigid mass elements). As no such elements or assemblies of elements exist in the real world, progressive collapse [....] of a structure by a part of itself (topic) is simply not possible.

Heiwa proclaims that top-down progressive collapse is IMPOSSIBLE ALTOGETHER before, during, and after the collapse of the twin towers. He's also unfamiliar with the circumstances which caused the collapse of the entire corner of the building. I hope you're joking about the rest of your post...

[leftysergeant]

The Bouwkunde collapse was caused by failure on one floor dropping several onto those below and it crushed them all the way down to the ground floor, at which point it arrested because it was a different type of structure.

Where Heiwa goes into the ditch is in the fact that when a relatively uniform structure collapses, it will continue collapsing until arrested by counter-acting forces or obstructions. Inter-connected structures, when they fail, tend to continue the failure. This was true of Ronan Point and the WTC towers and the Windsor Tower.

The last chance for the WTC towers to self-arrest was when the collapse reached the mechanical floors. These were stronger than the office floors, but, because they were dependent on the integrity of the perimeter columns, which were peeling off in formation, they were not sufficient to arrest collapse.

The Windsor Tower arrested at the mechanical floors because they were of different construction and the perimeter weight-bearing walls were discrete units, not subject to the same stresses that caused the collapse above them.

[Architect]

Who the hell is still trotting out this low cost pre-fab constructed building collapse as some kind of comparison to 9/11?

Is there nothing else?

Get with the programme, mate; what we're specifically addressing is Heiwa's misinterpretation of the mechanisms behind the Ronan Point collapse - something which any competent structural engineer or architect in the UK, if not further afield, would be aware of.

It's quite pertinent because Heiwa claims that the collapse model at Ronan Point is impossible and also because he seems to think it seems to originate at the base of the collapse. Oh, and because he claims to have greater understanding of such issues than those of us who are, in fact, qualified in the field.

[Toke]

There was a program on it 10-15 years ago on Danish TV, the emphasis was on the shoddy workmanship and not so much on what the Danish architect could have done to make the design more resilient.

[Architect]

Do you have a point, caller? The cause of the collapse was indeed failure of the poorly constructed joints after the initial explosion. The point is that, once collapse was initiated, it just kept going.

[Myriad]

... Cascading failure can occur in any system, unless you take pains to design those failure modes out of the system. Mechanical, electrical, structural, biological, makes no difference.


See also military history, where causing cascading failure of an enemy's position (e.g. by "rolling up a flank") is often a strategist's or tactician's main goal, and is the reason a smaller weaker force can sometimes defeat a larger stronger one (e.g. The Battle of Marathon), or a force can defeat a roughly equal force while suffering much smaller losses (e.g. The Battle of the Nile).

And then there's economics. Panics and market crashes (e.g. the Panic of 1907) are cascading failures. See "systemic risk." And geopolitics... "domino theory" was precisely a concern over a cascading failure scenario, and any time dominoes or domino theory are used as a metaphor, it's likely that some form of a cascading failure scenario is under discussion.

If structural engineers hadn't already disposed of Heiwa's arguments from authority (e.g. self-named "axiom") regarding the "impossibility" of cascading structural failure, dynamical systems theorists would be lined up to do so.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Architect]

My, Heiwa's being unco' silent for a change. Wonder why?

[alienentity]

Who the hell is still trotting out this low cost pre-fab constructed building collapse as some kind of comparison to 9/11?

Is there nothing else?

It's called failure analysis. That's something that smart people do when they want to learn - they study how structures fail. Then they in turn can design safer buildings during their careers.

There is a vital difference between 'couldn't' and 'shouldn't'.

Heiwa has staked out a ridiculous, extreme position in the 'couldn't' camp. It is not defensible in a serious discussion. That's not our fault, is it?

The 'shouldn't' is obvious - under normal, reasonable scenarios, none of these structures 'should' fail; but sometimes there are unforeseeable circumstances which throw out all that good planning;
Such as high-speed jets flying into tall buildings.... it's not reasonable to expect structural engineers to successfully defend a building against that type of assault.
They can try, and they do. Since 9/11 super tall buildings have been engineered differently around the world. Lessons have been learned.

Is it possible that another total collapse could happen to a tall building? Yup, it sure is. But it 'shouldn't' happen under normal conditions.

ps, I live in a 30 story hirise in an earthquake zone. My building has been engineered to be earthquake 'resistant'. Does that guarantee that it couldn't be destroyed by a sufficiently large one? No, it doesn't. I know this, but I still live here anyway.
That's life. There are not many 100% guarantees in disaster planning.....never will be.

[sylvan8798]

Perhaps another example for Heiwa to pontificate on is Bailey's Crossroads (shown part way down):

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.djc.com/stories/images/20040325/Failures_FairfaxCollapse2.JPG&imgrefurl=http://www.djc.com/news/co/11155170.html&usg=__oml6imhVo10iQZzXwhZ6HSIhxIQ=&h=362&w=240&sz=28&hl=en&start=36&um=1&tbnid=bENG3ZdjItieJM:&tbnh=121&tbnw=80&prev=/images%3Fq%3D2000%2Bcommonwealth%2Bavenue%2Bapartm ents%2Bcollapse%26ndsp%3D20%26hl%3Den%26client%3Ds afari%26rls%3Den%26sa%3DN%26start%3D20%26um%3D1

[Newtons Bit]

Perhaps another example for Heiwa to pontificate on is Bailey's Crossroads (shown part way down):

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.djc.com/stories/images/20040325/Failures_FairfaxCollapse2.JPG&imgrefurl=http://www.djc.com/news/co/11155170.html&usg=__oml6imhVo10iQZzXwhZ6HSIhxIQ=&h=362&w=240&sz=28&hl=en&start=36&um=1&tbnid=bENG3ZdjItieJM:&tbnh=121&tbnw=80&prev=/images%3Fq%3D2000%2Bcommonwealth%2Bavenue%2Bapartm ents%2Bcollapse%26ndsp%3D20%26hl%3Den%26client%3Ds afari%26rls%3Den%26sa%3DN%26start%3D20%26um%3D1

In that case the whole entire structure came down. One floor at a time. It also damaged the building next to it pretty bad it seems.

[Myriad]

Hmm:

At Bailey’s Crossroads, concrete was placed on the 24th floor while shoring was prematurely removed from the 22nd, causing a progressive collapse down to the ground level.

So, if the columns above the 22nd floor failed due to removal of shoring from the 22nd floor, that means that two floors (the 23rd and 24th) crushed 22 floors down to the ground level. Less than one tenth crushed more than nine tenths to the ground.

Do I have that right?

Two floors, out of 24, = 1/12, crushed 22 floors out of 24, = 11/12.

1/12th crushed 11/12.

1/12th is less than 1/10, am I right?

11/12 is more than 9/10, right?

So less than one tenth of the structure crushed more than nine tenths of the structure to the ground level. That follows, doesn't it?

Less than 1/10 crushed more than 9/10?

I'm just a game designer, these structural engineering discussions frighten and confuse me. So I have to make sure I'm understanding correctly here.

Did 1/12 crush 11/12 to the ground?

And the 1/12 was built the same as the other 11/12, right? I mean, those top two floors weren't made of battleship armor or being used to store crates of surplus bowling balls, right?

In fact if anything, the 23rd and 24th floors had to be weaker than the 1st through 21st floors, because their construction would have been less complete and their concrete would have had less time to cure. Right?

So a weaker 1/12 crushed a stronger 11/12 to the ground? Is that what happened?

Less than 1/10 crushed more than 9/10?

It looks like less than 1/10 crushed a stronger more than 9/10.

One twelfth crushed eleven twelfths.

Huh.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Architect]

Doesn't that mean that Heiwa owes someone a million quid?

[Toke]

Doesn't that mean that Heiwa owes someone a million quid?
I am not sure, he specified 1/10 and this one is 1/12.:D

There were at least one more solution to his challenge, right?
What excuse did he use there.

[Architect]

I'll say one thing for this thread: it seems to be keeping Heiwa off the site. Maybe we should start some more?

[Heiwa]

I'll say one thing for this thread: it seems to be keeping Heiwa off the site. Maybe we should start some more?

No, I follow it with interest. Local failures to some houses! No details about the original structure, material, etc. No real structural damage analysis, etc, etc. No serious discussion between alleged cause, e.g. lighting a match and effect (structural failures).

I have plenty of examples of the latter; some people were welding on the deck of a ship and suddenly there was a BIG BANG and the steel deck with everything on it displaced UPWARDS and the deck was ripped apart - UPWARDS. People on deck died. You know why?

[A W Smith]

No, I follow it with interest. Local failures to some houses! No details about the original structure, material, etc. No real structural damage analysis, etc, etc. No serious discussion between alleged cause, e.g. lighting a match and effect (structural failures).

I have plenty of examples of the latter; some people were welding on the deck of a ship and suddenly there was a BIG BANG and the steel deck with everything on it displaced UPWARDS and the deck was ripped apart - UPWARDS. People on deck died. You know why?


Because you laid a hot torch tip across an acetylene hose?

[Toke]

Yes, they were welding on a fuel tank, there were a fuel tank in WTC7, that is a clear connection between the two. Connect the dots.

[tsig]

Yes, they were welding on a fuel tank, there were a fuel tank in WTC7, that is a clear connection between the two. Connect the dots.

The buildings were full of nano-acetylene. It is explosive yet breathable, colorless, orderless or whatever else you need.

The proof is that Ronan Point started with a gas explosion.:p

[Toke]

The buildings were full of nano-acetylene. It is explosive yet breathable, colorless, orderless or whatever else you need.

The proof is that Ronan Point started with a gas explosion.:p

WRONG WRONG WRONG.:mad:
IT WAS NANO-DIESEL THAT TOOK DOWN WTC7.:D



(btw. are there other kinds of diesel?)

[quadraginta]

No, I follow it with interest. Local failures to some houses! No details about the original structure, material, etc. No real structural damage analysis, etc, etc. No serious discussion between alleged cause, e.g. lighting a match and effect (structural failures).

I have plenty of examples of the latter; some people were welding on the deck of a ship and suddenly there was a BIG BANG and the steel deck with everything on it displaced UPWARDS and the deck was ripped apart - UPWARDS. People on deck died. You know why?


Sure. Spontaneous localized light gravity. The pressure of the surrounding heavy gravity squirts everything straight up.

Happens all the time. That's what got Ambrose Bierce.

Everyone knows that.

[Mr. Skinny]

I think the ship contained water which has hydrogen in it, and heating it up with a welding torch caused super nano hydrogen to evolve, which collected in a localized pocket of silent explosive hydrogen immediately around the ships magnetron capacitor. The capacitor was shorted to the omnitron generator causing a localized change in the field density of the deck.

Given the anti-gravity field in the area, upwards explosiveness was a foregone conclusion.

[TexasJack]

I think it has something to do with sushi.

[Horatius]

... caused super nano hydrogen to evolve,



Typical atheist slant. It's clear to all right-thinking individuals that the boat was obviously Intelligently Designed to displace Upwards.

[Mr. Skinny]

Typical atheist slant. It's clear to all right-thinking individuals that the boat was obviously Intelligently Designed to displace Upwards.
Silly rabbit. All boats are designed to displace upwards.

If they weren't, they'd sink!! Sheesh!

[aleCcowaN]

Hmm:


So, if the columns above the 22nd floor failed due to removal of shoring from the 22nd floor, that means that two floors (the 23rd and 24th) crushed 22 floors down to the ground level. Less than one tenth crushed more than nine tenths to the ground.

Do I have that right?

Two floors, out of 24, = 1/12, crushed 22 floors out of 24, = 11/12.

...
The same way the first domino in the line topples the next million.

It's a matter of dynamic load versus static load. In reinforced concrete we have a factor of safety with a value of 2 (or something similar). That means that columns in floor 22nd were designed to withstand 3 floors (24th, 23rd and 22nd itself) but they'd break in the event of having the load of 6 floors.

But some jerk got the shoring removed when the columns in floor 22nd were still gaining strength so they broke. The mass of three falling stories hit the structure on 21st floor - columns designed to withstand 4 floors and break with a 8x value-. The slabs and beams over 21st floor were designed to withstand just 22th floor (2-store equivalent with that factor of safety), otherwise, why should we have columns? Besides, columns and beams constitutes a system. Once the beams are heavily damaged the remaining columns are much weaker.

The static equivalent to 3 floors falling may be about 8 to 12 floors, so the 21st floor broke what renewed the crashing process like our proverbial dominoes.

[Horatius]

Silly rabbit. All boats are designed to displace upwards.

If they weren't, they'd sink!! Sheesh!



Well, I can't argue with that sort of logic. Arguementium ad Bugsium, I think it is.

[Newtons Bit]

In reinforced concrete we have a factor of safety with a value of 2 (or something similar).

Please don't make up numbers you don't understand. It doesn't help anyone.

[TruthersLie]

No, I follow it with interest. Local failures to some houses! No details about the original structure, material, etc. No real structural damage analysis, etc, etc. No serious discussion between alleged cause, e.g. lighting a match and effect (structural failures).

I have plenty of examples of the latter; some people were welding on the deck of a ship and suddenly there was a BIG BANG and the steel deck with everything on it displaced UPWARDS and the deck was ripped apart - UPWARDS. People on deck died. You know why?

No no no.
it was hit with a torpedo...

It would be a nice dodge, but it is sooo predictable, truther tactic #2.

try again, this time actually do the real research.

[Architect]

No, I follow it with interest. Local failures to some houses! No details about the original structure, material, etc. No real structural damage analysis, etc, etc. No serious discussion between alleged cause, e.g. lighting a match and effect (structural failures).


Heiwa, I have two technical books on my shelf at the office which discuss Ronan Point, the reasons for the collapse, and the impact (no pun intended) on how we used system buildings in the UK.

This is one of the cases that even we, as architects, are required to study as part of our training in structures. Structural engineers cover it too; it's a basic part of the course inasmuch as it demonstrates issues around design, workmanship, and (wait for it) progressive structural collapse.

That you didn't know it is a damning indictment of your so-called "expertise" in structures.

That you didn't bother to look it up and realise that the collapse initiated at high level is a damining indictment of your willingness to understand the issues before you.

That you stated, without qualification, that the collapse initiated at low levelis a damning indictment of you ability to professionally analyse a structural collapse.

And finally, your failure to admit that you were wrong is a damning indictment of your honesty.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Isn't comparing a skyscraper to Japanese food damning enough?

[TruthersLie]

bump for heiwa.

[Heiwa]

Heiwa, I have two technical books on my shelf at the office which discuss Ronan Point, the reasons for the collapse, and the impact (no pun intended) on how we used system buildings in the UK.

This is one of the cases that even we, as architects, are required to study as part of our training in structures. Structural engineers cover it too; it's a basic part of the course inasmuch as it demonstrates issues around design, workmanship, and (wait for it) progressive structural collapse.

That you didn't know it is a damning indictment of your so-called "expertise" in structures.

That you didn't bother to look it up and realise that the collapse initiated at high level is a damining indictment of your willingness to understand the issues before you.

That you stated, without qualification, that the collapse initiated at low levelis a damning indictment of you ability to professionally analyse a structural collapse.

And finally, your failure to admit that you were wrong is a damning indictment of your honesty.

Very good. Two books. Technical. And you read them. I believe you.

Evidently dropping a weight from above that hits something below may produce local failures. I have seen it multiple times. Honestly!

BUT, that a little piece of a structure high up in it dropping down may produce total destruction of the complete structure below is simply not possible. I have explained it in other famous JREF threads, which pls consult.

[Horatius]

Very good. Two books. Technical. And you read them. I believe you.

Evidently dropping a weight from above that hits something below may produce local failures. I have seen it multiple times. Honestly!

BUT, that a little piece of a structure high up in it dropping down may produce total destruction of the complete structure below is simply not possible. I have explained it in other famous JREF threads, which pls consult.



Called it!

The question is, will he admit this, or will he continue to cling to a long refuted illusion?



I don't think there's any question how he will react.

[Travis]

The idea that cascading failures are irrelevant to structural engineering boggles the mind.

[A W Smith]

Very good. Two books. Technical. And you read them. I believe you.

Evidently dropping a weight from above that hits something below may produce local failures. I have seen it multiple times. Honestly!

BUT, that a little piece of a structure high up in it dropping down may produce total destruction of the complete structure below is simply not possible. I have explained it in other famous JREF threads, which pls consult.


You didn't see this video BasqueArch posted? (which I had been looking for for weeks).
qmiApjHn4e8

[brodski]

Very good. Two books. Technical. And you read them. I believe you.

Evidently dropping a weight from above that hits something below may produce local failures. I have seen it multiple times. Honestly!

BUT, that a little piece of a structure high up in it dropping down may produce total destruction of the complete structure below is simply not possible. I have explained it in other famous JREF threads, which pls consult.

OK, at which point does the destruction go from possible to impossible? How much of a structure cannot be destroyed by such an event?

[Architect]

Very good. Two books. Technical. And you read them. I believe you.

Evidently dropping a weight from above that hits something below may produce local failures. I have seen it multiple times. Honestly!

BUT, that a little piece of a structure high up in it dropping down may produce total destruction of the complete structure below is simply not possible. I have explained it in other famous JREF threads, which pls consult.

So, Heiwa, is there a reason you're refusing to:

1. Admit you didn't know it was Ronan Point?

2. Admit you didn't know the collapse initiated towards the top?

3. Admit that you were wrong about initiation at the base?

4. Explain why, precisley, your opinion regarding the possibility of progressive collapse is to be preferred over what actually happened at Ronan Point?

[ElMondoHummus]

BUT, that a little piece of a structure high up in it dropping down may produce total destruction of the complete structure below is simply not possible. I have explained it in other famous JREF threads, which pls consult.

Ronan Point proves your axiom is incorrect, and does not cover all real world situations.

I would recommend that you pay attention to Architect's post:

So, Heiwa, is there a reason you're refusing to:

1. Admit you didn't know it was Ronan Point?

2. Admit you didn't know the collapse initiated towards the top?

3. Admit that you were wrong about initiation at the base?

4. Explain why, precisley, your opinion regarding the possibility of progressive collapse is to be preferred over what actually happened at Ronan Point?

[BasqueArch]

Very good. Two books. Technical. And you read them. I believe you.

Evidently dropping a weight from above that hits something below may produce local failures. I have seen it multiple times. Honestly!

BUT, that a little piece of a structure high up in it dropping down may produce total destruction of the complete structure below is simply not possible. I have explained it in other famous JREF threads, which pls consult.

It doesn’t matter why you believe a “one-way crush down” is not possible. It doesn’t matter what you wish to believe. Your hypothesis is contradicted by the recorded visual facts and is therefore wrong. That’s it. Give it up. Send me the million bucks.

Recorded Visual Facts For What Happened: ONE. Perimeter columns gradually buckled and collapsed at the failed floors. TWO. Floor slabs subsequently collapsed inside the perimeter and core columns. THREE. Perimeter and core columns, not crushed nor exploded, subsequently toppled to the ground.

Recorded Audio/Visual Facts For What Didn’t Happen: ONE. No expected CD loud detonation sounds. TWO. No evidence for expected explosives/thermite damage to columns or spandrel plates. Evidence of large sections of connected, unexploded, unshattered toppled core and perimeter columns. THREE. CD explosives-ejected perimeter columns should have outdistanced the dust cloud behind them, they did not.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can't reason someone out of something he was never reasoned into. - Swift

[Heiwa]

It doesn’t matter why you believe a “one-way crush down” is not possible. It doesn’t matter what you wish to believe. Your hypothesis is contradicted by the recorded visual facts and is therefore wrong. That’s it. Give it up. Send me the million bucks.



Sorry, you don't know what you are talking about. A small part C of a structure A dropped on A by gravity cannot under any circumstances one-way crush down A!

Ronan Point is a good example. Just local failures in one weak corner, etc, etc, badly documented, etc, etc. Caused by someone lighting a match! LOL!

[Architect]

So, Heiwa, is there a reason you're refusing to:

1. Admit you didn't know it was Ronan Point?

2. Admit you didn't know the collapse initiated towards the top?

3. Admit that you were wrong about initiation at the base?

4. Explain why, precisley, your opinion regarding the possibility of progressive collapse is to be preferred over what actually happened at Ronan Point?

Come on, Heiwa; you've yet to explain how you managed to overlook these issues?

I'm looking at one of the textbooks right now. Really, come on, do your best.

But remember, a real engineer wrote these books. You know, about the collapse you claim is impossible.

[TruthersLie]

Sorry, you don't know what you are talking about. A small part C of a structure A dropped on A by gravity cannot under any circumstances one-way crush down A!

Ronan Point is a good example. Just local failures in one weak corner, etc, etc, badly documented, etc, etc. Caused by someone lighting a match! LOL!

Oh this deserves laughing dogs...
or maybe the facepalm.

why did we KNOW it would be "badly documented" one "weak corner."

ROFLMAO.

and you graduated from an engineering program... damn, I know where I am NOT sending my kids.

[Architect]

Well, in all fairness he only says that he graduated from an engineering programme. We've no proof.

Now come on, Heiwa, let's have your explanation to post 84.

[BasqueArch]

Sorry, you don't know what you are talking about. A small part C of a structure A dropped on A by gravity cannot under any circumstances one-way crush down A!

Ronan Point is a good example. Just local failures in one weak corner, etc, etc, badly documented, etc, etc. Caused by someone lighting a match! LOL!

(I'm not writing this for Heiwa. I'm writing this to the Winds and for those rationals who may still be persuaded by facts)

Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough, although everyone else understands this:

It doesn’t matter why you believe a “one-way crush down” is not possible. It doesn’t matter what you wish to believe. Your hypothesis is contradicted by the recorded visual facts and is therefore wrong.
If you still don't understand - the recorded visual facts prove your hypothesis wrong.
Also the more exclamation points, the weaker the argument, still wrong, too many "!" , not enough facts.
One more time - you're mistakenly arguing that your hypothesis is true and the contradicting recorded audio/visual facts false.
And again -No matter how many times you repeat the same errors, the recorded visual facts have not changed and still prove you wrong.
And so you cannot argue away the recorded visual facts by what you believe is possible or impossible.

That’s it. Give it up. Send JREF the million bucks.

Recorded Visual Facts For What Happened: ONE. Perimeter columns gradually buckled and collapsed at the failed floors. TWO. Floor slabs subsequently collapsed inside the perimeter and core columns. THREE. Perimeter and core columns, not crushed nor exploded, subsequently toppled to the ground.

Recorded Audio/Visual Facts For What Didn’t Happen: ONE. No expected CD loud detonation sounds. TWO. No evidence for expected explosives/thermite damage to columns or spandrel plates. Evidence of large sections of connected, unexploded, unshattered toppled core and perimeter columns. THREE. CD explosives-ejected perimeter columns should have outdistanced the dust cloud behind them, they did not.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can't reason someone out of something he was never reasoned into. - Swift

[Toke]

A marine engineer are not likely to have heard of Ronan Point is school.
As for the badly documented, I belive the building and its neighbours were dismantled very carefully to see what was wrong with them.

[Architect]

No, but someone who claims competence in structural analysis of buildings - such as Heiwa - should have, shouldn't they? (this is a rhetorical question, btw)

[D'rok]

"The collapse was initiated by a gas-stove leak on the eighteenth floor in apartment ninety. The resident struck a match to light the stove to make a cup of tea, and was knocked unconscious by the resulting explosion. The force of the explosion knocked out the opposite corner walls of the apartment. These walls were the sole support for the walls directly above. This created a chain reaction in which floor nineteen collapsed, then floor twenty and so on, propagating upward. The four floors fell onto level eighteen, which initiated a second phase of progressive collapse. This sudden impact loading on floor eighteen caused it to give way, smashing floor seventeen and progressing until it reached the ground."

...

"Ultimately, the collapse of Ronan Point was due to its lack of structural redundancy. It had no fail-safe mechanisms, and no alternative load paths for the upper floors should a lower level give way. Without any type of structural frame, the upper floors had no support, and fell onto floor seventeen. The panels forming floor seventeen could not support the sudden loading caused by the upper five floors that fell on it. Consequently, they gave way, and the process continued until it reached the ground level."

http://matdl.org/failurecases/Building%20Cases/Ronan%20Point.htm

Hmm....even to a layperson, it is blazingly obvious that Heiwa is not even wrong. He is a troll.

[aleCcowaN]

Please don't make up numbers you don't understand. It doesn't help anyone.What was that? The so common JREF forums version of a sudden attack by a stranger in a dark alley?

If you think simple explanations are oversimplified statements try yourself giving Myriad what you may consider a better yet easily understandable explanation, or keep yourself quiet. If you think I have troubles using a language -English- which is not my own, explain the terms I should have used, or keep yourself quiet.

If you like to explain what a factor of safety and what prescribe the normative of your country, be my guest. I will do the same. Then everybody will understand who is making things up here: Too many people with fake credentials and the most despicable attitudes in these fora.

[Myriad]

If you think simple explanations are oversimplified statements try yourself giving Myriad what you may consider a better yet easily understandable explanation, or keep yourself quiet.


Not needed, thanks. The "structural engineering frightens and confuses me" line in my last post was a cultural reference to the SNL "caveman lawyer" sketches, a well-known bit of hyperbole. Though I am in fact a game designer by trade, I understand the basic principles under discussion here quite well, including the all-important scaling issues, and my experience with computer modeling of dynamic physical processes goes back to some early structural fire propagation models I developed in the late 1970s.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[D'rok]

...Though I am in fact a game designer by trade...

Sweet.

[Architect]

If you like to explain what a factor of safety and what prescribe the normative of your country, be my guest. I will do the same. Then everybody will understand who is making things up here: Too many people with fake credentials and the most despicable attitudes in these fora.

What NB, who's a real engineer, is trying to say is that we can't really use the term the way you do when we're looking at a complex structure.

[Travis]

Another great example of a cascading failure in structural engineering would be the Silver Bridge.

[KJC]

Has Heiwa ever acknowledged this? I showed it to him once and he waved his hand at it without commenting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syzKBBB_THE

What's more impressive in this is that the surface area of the floors in relation to the height/weight above them, and they still collapse due to the upper block.

[Newtons Bit]

What was that? The so common JREF forums version of a sudden attack by a stranger in a dark alley?

If you think simple explanations are oversimplified statements try yourself giving Myriad what you may consider a better yet easily understandable explanation, or keep yourself quiet. If you think I have troubles using a language -English- which is not my own, explain the terms I should have used, or keep yourself quiet.

If you like to explain what a factor of safety and what prescribe the normative of your country, be my guest. I will do the same. Then everybody will understand who is making things up here: Too many people with fake credentials and the most despicable attitudes in these fora.

No, what I don't like is people pretending that they can extrapolate what actually happened by incorrect guesses. Your statement, "in reinforced concrete we have a factor of safety with a value of 2 (or something similar)." There is no "factor of safety" dependent upon building materials. The in-service demand to capacity ratio (which is a better way of expressing a factor of safety) was probably somewhere near 0.25 for the floors. It may have even been as low as 0.1. Someone could attempt an a plausible minimum and maximum of it, but that would require math. And it sure as hell wouldn't be 2.

The columns are a different matter. In this case, it's not a question of factors of safety, it's a question of load paths. I would not be surprised to learn that the column connection failed in punching shear. In concrete slab systems, a column develops large bending moments at the reaction between the slab and the column. This is much greater if there is no floor above as there is nothing to restrain the column. It's somewhat like a cantilevered beam vs. one fixed at both ends. The bending moments at the column on the floor below the one that just collapsed will have greatly increased bending moments from the slab due to the unrestrained column. This by itself would most likely exceed its design. The collapsed floor will then impact the floor below, generating a net shear force at the column connection three times greater (1x for itself, 2x for the dynamic load from above) than it was designed force and a bending moment that's quite probably six times greater than it was designed for.

Stupid statements like yours can get repeated. They turn into "facts" for truthers and the ignorant masses.

"Oh but mr. debunker so-and-so at the JREF forum said it's 2!!@1elventy haha yor so dumb!@1" and then people like me who regularly debate truthers are then left with debunking your claim as well as whatever mess they generated.

Myriad knows who I am. He also knows that I can get grumpy. I'm pretty sure he knows that people making up structural engineering facts is one of those things that gets me grumpy.

[Heiwa]

"The collapse was initiated by a gas-stove leak on the eighteenth floor in apartment ninety. The resident struck a match to light the stove to make a cup of tea, and was knocked unconscious by the resulting explosion. The force of the explosion knocked out the opposite corner walls of the apartment. These walls were the sole support for the walls directly above. This created a chain reaction in which floor nineteen collapsed, then floor twenty and so on, propagating upward. The four floors fell onto level eighteen, which initiated a second phase of progressive collapse. This sudden impact loading on floor eighteen caused it to give way, smashing floor seventeen and progressing until it reached the ground."

...

"Ultimately, the collapse of Ronan Point was due to its lack of structural redundancy. It had no fail-safe mechanisms, and no alternative load paths for the upper floors should a lower level give way. Without any type of structural frame, the upper floors had no support, and fell onto floor seventeen. The panels forming floor seventeen could not support the sudden loading caused by the upper five floors that fell on it. Consequently, they gave way, and the process continued until it reached the ground level."

http://matdl.org/failurecases/Building%20Cases/Ronan%20Point.htm

Hmm....even to a layperson, it is blazingly obvious that Heiwa is not even wrong. He is a troll.

So there were TWO causes for the destruction = local corner failures! Lighting match/explosion and lack of structural redundancy after explosion. Sounds like WTC.

[UNLoVedRebel]

So there were TWO causes for the destruction = local corner failures! Lighting match/explosion and lack of structural redundancy after explosion. Sounds like WTC.

Where are the lemons to prove it?

[Architect]

So, Heiwa, is there a reason you're refusing to:

1. Admit you didn't know it was Ronan Point?

2. Admit you didn't know the collapse initiated towards the top?

3. Admit that you were wrong about initiation at the base?

4. Explain why, precisley, your opinion regarding the possibility of progressive collapse is to be preferred over what actually happened at Ronan Point?

Come on, Heiwa. Let's have your response.

Or is this going to be like your quickly forgotten claim that structural steelwork is fireproof? You know, the one you denied making.

[Dave Rogers]

Ronan Point is a good example. Just local failures in one weak corner, etc, etc, badly documented, etc, etc. Caused by someone lighting a match! LOL!

So there were TWO causes for the destruction = local corner failures! Lighting match/explosion and lack of structural redundancy after explosion. Sounds like WTC.

I'm beginning to wonder whether Heiwa comes from an alternate universe. First of all, he admits that progressive failure can result in a small initial event leading to very large consequences. Then he admits that a well-documented case of progressive collapse has points of similarity to the WTC. But at the same time, he is claiming that these reinforce his point that the WTC collapse could not have been a progressive collapse in which a relatively small initial failure had much wider consequences. And this the day after his bizarre claim that Newton's Third Law means that part A can exert a reaction force on part C without part C exerting an equal and opposite force on part A, which is the exact opposite of Newton's Third Law. How on Earth do you argue with someone who thinks that comprehensive disproof of his claims is, in fact, proof of them?

This is why truthers attract so much ridicule. It is simply impossible to have any kind of rational conversation with some of them.

Dave

[tuc0]

Heiwa doesn't even acknowledge glass can break. His opinions are as relevant to engineering discussions as Chief Wiggum's.

[Travis]

Heiwa doesn't even acknowledge glass can break. His opinions are as relevant to engineering discussions as Chief Wiggum's.

I doubt Chief Wiggum thinks all buildings can withstand all nuclear weapons.

[Architect]

Bump for Heiwa. Come on, man. Explain yourself.

[Audible Click]

-crickets-

[Dave Rogers]

He's busy trying to repeal Newton's Third Law.

Dave

[Architect]

I find it peculiar that someone who has so frequently saught to stress his engineering expertise and proven so keen to try and highlight the perceived shortcomings of those of us qualified in the field has proven to unusually reluctant to post.

(aye, right)

[aleCcowaN]

No, what I don't like is people pretending that they can extrapolate what actually happened by incorrect guesses. Your statement, "in reinforced concrete we have a factor of safety with a value of 2 (or something similar)." There is no "factor of safety" dependent upon building materials. The in-service demand to capacity ratio (which is a better way of expressing a factor of safety) was probably somewhere near 0.25 for the floors. It may have even been as low as 0.1. Someone could attempt an a plausible minimum and maximum of it, but that would require math. And it sure as hell wouldn't be 2.We use here our normative CIRSOC201 which admits two methods for designing structures in reinforced concrete. I use the oldest one, that based on German DIN1045 -I think the source version is dated 1961- for which sections are evaluated on a model of failure, then a factor of safety of 1.75 to 2.1 applies to get loads of service. Of course, the factor for the floors are greater. If you want -or it's customary in your country- to express those factors as 1/x, then they'd be about 0.5 for sections, "somewhere near 0.25 for the floors". The only cases I had to use a capacity/in-service ratio -called here a way it could be translated as "over-resistance" is to evaluate seismic adequacy. It's not it would had been worthless to do it in every case, it's a matter of normative.

I would not be surprised to learn that the column connection failed in punching shear. In concrete slab systems, a column develops large bending moments at the reaction between the slab and the column. This is much greater if there is no floor above as there is nothing to restrain the column. It's somewhat like a cantilevered beam vs. one fixed at both ends. The bending moments at the column on the floor below the one that just collapsed will have greatly increased bending moments from the slab due to the unrestrained column. This by itself would most likely exceed its design. The collapsed floor will then impact the floor below, generating a net shear force at the column connection three times greater (1x for itself, 2x for the dynamic load from above) than it was designed force and a bending moment that's quite probably six times greater than it was designed for. I failed to see in the images that Bailey's Crossroads had what we call here "losas-hongo" (sort of mushroom-slabs). Of course the weakness of this system is punching shear, that's why normative that is local to me prescribe so many restrictions -extremely thick slabs or capitals- that it's very uncommon -only used when the architect needs a flexible ever-changing design and beams would be a hindrance-. The "net force" you use is what I meant with x8 to x12 for three stories.

Stupid statements like yours can get repeated. They turn into "facts" for truthers and the ignorant masses.
You have character flaws and basically an anti-social attitude, then I must belong to a tribe, the tribe of the "truthers", while you keep yourself the guardian of who knows what highest social interests. It's much simpler: you are pretty aggressive and a little unstable then you need to make up on others grave violations of truth, disruptions of public order and other niceties of bigbrotherness to justify the impulses that burst from yourself. It secondarily happens you have an education on the subject discussed

Myriad knows who I am. He also knows that I can get grumpy. I'm pretty sure he knows that people making up structural engineering facts is one of those things that gets me grumpy.You're extremely generous regarding how you describe yourself :rolleyes:

[Architect]

You have character flaws and basically an anti-social attitude, then I must belong to a tribe, the tribe of the "truthers", while you keep yourself the guardian of who knows what highest social interests. It's much simpler: you are pretty aggressive and a little unstable then you need to make up on others grave violations of truth, disruptions of public order and other niceties of bigbrotherness to justify the impulses that burst from yourself. It secondarily happens you have an education on the subject discussed

Take it outside, boys.

[Architect]

You know, I was just remembering that something very similar happened when Heiwa claimed that steel was fireproof and hence could not fail in the manner seen at WTC. A thread was started, and he ran way from it.

All we had was some bizarre from the gone-but-not-missed Terral to the effect that a pot on a gas stove didn't melt, so how come we said the structural steel in WTC failed under fire loadings (!!!).

Plus ca change, plus ca meme chose, eh?

[Newtons Bit]

We use here our normative CIRSOC201 which admits two methods for designing structures in reinforced concrete. I use the oldest one, that based on German DIN1045 -I think the source version is dated 1961- for which sections are evaluated on a model of failure, then a factor of safety of 1.75 to 2.1 applies to get loads of service. Of course, the factor for the floors are greater. If you want -or it's customary in your country- to express those factors as 1/x, then they'd be about 0.5 for sections, "somewhere near 0.25 for the floors". The only cases I had to use a capacity/in-service ratio -called here a way it could be translated as "over-resistance" is to evaluate seismic adequacy. It's not it would had been worthless to do it in every case, it's a matter of normative.

Yes, in-service loads. However service loads haven't been used to design concrete buildings in the USA in a very long time. I forget the exact code revision that had it, however as Bailey's Crossroads was built in the 70's, it was definitely designed to strength design per ACI-318. And the building wasn't at service conditions, as there were next to no live loads on the floors: no partition loads, no ceiling loads, no flooring material loads, no MEP loads. You get the idea.

I failed to see in the images that Bailey's Crossroads had what we call here "losas-hongo" (sort of mushroom-slabs). Of course the weakness of this system is punching shear, that's why normative that is local to me prescribe so many restrictions -extremely thick slabs or capitals- that it's very uncommon -only used when the architect needs a flexible ever-changing design and beams would be a hindrance-. The "net force" you use is what I meant with x8 to x12 for three stories.

An engineer never over designs the entire floor system just because he's worried about the connection to the column.

If labor is cheap, one can add drop panels at the column or use waffle plates or even a beam system to turn add punching shear strength at the columns. However an engineer still doesn't grossly over-design either the connection or the floor slab as that would result in an over use of materials. Which would defeat the entire purpose of using large amounts of labor to save materials.

Flat plate slabs are generally preferable in construction like this in the USA as it results in the shortest minimum floor to floor heights. This allows a building to be at the maximum height allowed by zoning codes and have the most usable and billable floors.

You have character flaws and basically an anti-social attitude, then I must belong to a tribe, the tribe of the "truthers", while you keep yourself the guardian of who knows what highest social interests. It's much simpler: you are pretty aggressive and a little unstable then you need to make up on others grave violations of truth, disruptions of public order and other niceties of bigbrotherness to justify the impulses that burst from yourself. It secondarily happens you have an education on the subject discussed
You're extremely generous regarding how you describe yourself :rolleyes:

And you have a desire to make up facts where you don't know the actual numbers. I asked you politely not to do this the first time:

Please don't make up numbers you don't understand. It doesn't help anyone.

You want to play with the truthers, that's fine. But don't make crap up just to make yourself feel more knowledgeable.

[aleCcowaN]

...

I don't need a lecture on how a structure works though it is always good to learn more. Be sure you are not the kind of people from which I want to learn nothing. My lack of knowledge is in English -mostly technical one-. I deducted punching shear is "punzonado" because I know how it works. I also deduct "waffle plates" is what we build here to avoid the capitals ("losas casetonadas"). Local codes here prescribe floor heights and maximum heights in a way you can't get an extra floor by means of stealing one inch from every slab.

I can comment some errors in your reasoning: When there is a normative it doesn't matter what an engineer would or wouldn't do because he's worried or gives a darn thing. Your building must comply with the code. You might have an opinion about each type of code but don't dare to qualify people -specially if they are professionals or not- on the base of the code they have to comply with -not complying having a degree of specialty implies here, in case of accident, incarceration and loss of that degree, besides civil liabilities- I suppose you are misunderstanding simple sentences because your sail is still moving on the force of your aggressive wind.


And you have a desire to make up facts where you don't know the actual numbers. I asked you politely not to do this the first time:
Please don't make up numbers you don't understand. It doesn't help anyone.

The worst case of Asperger's has a better understanding of politeness than the one you have.

It also happens as your explanations shows that you started to understand that you made a gross mistake with your "polite" intervention: a factor regarding safety applied on loads can be placed in the numerator or the denominator; it will be greater than 1 or smaller than one according to the position. Then you regarded my value of 2 (it would be 0.5 in the other way) as "an aberration" just because you made no effort to understand.

If you would have had the slightest intention in being polite you could have asked "what a factor of 2 is, I only know factors of 0.25 or 0.4, are you sure about what you are saying? what did you meant by using "2"?". You did what you did and having had two posts to straighten up things you didn't, then, you did what you did because you are what you are.


You want to play with the truthers, that's fine. But don't make crap up just to make yourself feel more knowledgeable.

Are you reeaaally sure you wouldn't melt if someone threw a bucket of water onto you?

I had to consult the lousy urban dictionary to find a definition of "truther" (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Truther)

And you claim not to be unstable? When I said just one single word about WTC attacks? I didn't come here to discuss those attacks -it's history for me-. I was just browsing the fora to know what they discussed and I saw the question of Myriad unanswered. As this person has been very kind and does a terrific job I felt I should answer the question in a way he/she would understand it, provided the level of comprehension suggested to me by contents of the very question, as far I understand English. I have teached contents of structural design for the School of Architecture the last 22 years, basically reinforced concrete beam structures, and I'll continue to do it no matter the opinion it may have about me a person that identifies him/herself in a web forum as Newton Bit, Tikerbell's tities, Idrinkvitriol or whatever the name.[to everybody: if Newtons Bit thinks I'm a "truther":jaw-dropp what he might think about my knowledge has exactly the same level of precision: 0%. Probably much more things follow the same pattern. ]

[UNLoVedRebel]

I have teached contents of structural design for the School of Architecture the last 22 years
In that case, I have a serious question for you. Is it practical to compare a 110 story skyscraper to lemons?

[BigAl]

I don't need a lecture on how a structure works though it is always good to learn more. Be sure you are not the kind of people from which I want to learn nothing. My lack of knowledge is in English -mostly technical one-. I deducted punching shear is "punzonado" because I know how it works. I also deduct "waffle plates" is what we build here to avoid the capitals ("losas casetonadas"). Local codes here prescribe floor heights and maximum heights in a way you can't get an extra floor by means of stealing one inch from every slab.


Since aleCcowaN isn't from around these parts, maybe he isn't familiar with the local construction codes that applied to the WTC towers that made them unique, literally, and contributed directly to the fire-induced collapse.

I'm not an architect or engineer and can't quote codes directly but I can quote experts with first-hand knowledge and relevant expertise.


In Report From Ground Zero, FDNY structures expert Vincent Dunn describes how the WTC towers had effectively no fireproofing when compared to the older steel buildings, built to standards that required 2 inches of brick and masonry on all structural steel. Dunn also says that the WTC towers were unique in the minimal fireproofing.

Source:
http://snurl.com/j54ud [Page 310, Report From Ground Zero]

Who is Vincent Dunn?
http://unjobs.org/authors/vincent-dunn



And

Henry Guthard, 70, one of Yamasaki's original partners who also worked as the project manager at the [WTC] site, said, "To hit the building, to disappear, to have pieces come out the other side, it was amazing the building stood. To defend against 5,000 (sic) gallons of ignited fuel in a building of 1350 feet is just not possible.

http://snurl.com/j54gc (Report From Ground Zero page 188)

[Newtons Bit]

It also happens as your explanations shows that you started to understand that you made a gross mistake with your "polite" intervention: a factor regarding safety applied on loads can be placed in the numerator or the denominator; it will be greater than 1 or smaller than one according to the position. Then you regarded my value of 2 (it would be 0.5 in the other way) as "an aberration" just because you made no effort to understand.

If you would have had the slightest intention in being polite you could have asked "what a factor of 2 is, I only know factors of 0.25 or 0.4, are you sure about what you are saying? what did you meant by using "2"?". You did what you did and having had two posts to straighten up things you didn't, then, you did what you did because you are what you are.

Duh. I said demand to capacity is a better way to express it. I never said using the terminology "factor of safety" is incorrect. I did however state that using a "factor of safety of 2" for a material is incorrect. And it is. For everyone else here: factors of safety (or demand to capacity ratios) are generated by first factoring together load combinations dependent upon statistical analysis of how different load cases (Dead, Live, Wind, Earthquake, etc) act in concert together. The modern design methodology for concrete factors the loads applied to a specific member of element. Then a different factor is applied to the capacity of the member based on the failure type. Typical concrete design even includes additional lower factors if the failure mode is brittle. Material has very little to do with it.

You invented a number, without even bothering to determine what it really was. This is how misinformation gets spread. In the USA, engineers adhere to a basic set of ethics that forbid willfully misinforming the public. Truthers parrot about claims of factors of safety for buildings all the time. Their favorite ones are about the columns in the WTC having a factor of safety of 3 or 10 or even higher. These myths get started somewhere. Truthers read these forums. They read your post. They are now misinformed.

The building did not collapse from an inability to handle additional vertical loads. It could handle the additional weight, even dynamically applied, of one floor on top of another. It failed because the load paths and structural response of the building was greatly modified. Not because it had a factor of safety of just two. Truthers would read your statement and think to themselves, "Skilling claimed that the WTC had a factor of safety of 10 at the perimeter and 5 for the core, it couldn't possibly collapse because the columns are invulnerable!" And people like me have spend a considerable amount of time already debunking that argument. I'd like to not have another round of truthers do it and claim some structural professor from Argentina claims it's true. Yes, they would be misquoting you. They will still do it.

And you claim not to be unstable? When I said just one single word about WTC attacks? I didn't come here to discuss those attacks -it's history for me-. I was just browsing the fora to know what they discussed and I saw the question of Myriad unanswered. As this person has been very kind and does a terrific job I felt I should answer the question in a way he/she would understand it, provided the level of comprehension suggested to me by contents of the very question, as far I understand English. I have teached contents of structural design for the School of Architecture the last 22 years, basically reinforced concrete beam structures, and I'll continue to do it no matter the opinion it may have about me a person that identifies him/herself in a web forum as Newton Bit, Tikerbell's tities, Idrinkvitriol or whatever the name.[to everybody: if Newtons Bit thinks I'm a "truther":jaw-dropp what he might think about my knowledge has exactly the same level of precision: 0%. Probably much more things follow the same pattern. ]

I never called you a truther. Before you result to ad hominem attacks, please verify that what your opponent is saying is indeed correct. I don't care if English is a barrier or not. VERIFY.

For fun, let's do a quick calculation:
The bay sizes are short (25'-0" range). A 10" flat slab is pretty reasonable for those spans. It weighs 125psf.

Additional superimposed dead load = 10psf
Live load for residential = 40 psf.
Partition Live Load = 15psf

Interior columns will typically have at most 625sf of tributary slab area, 312.5sf for the edge columns and 156sf for the corner columns. As most of these fall below 400sf, neglect live load reduction for slab to column forces.

Total Design DL = 135PSF
Total Design LL = 55PSF

Factored Demand = 1.2DL + 1.6LL
Demand = 250

Calculating actual capacity in shear in concrete can be a little bit difficult. If the factored capacity of the concrete alone is more than half of the demand then the entire capacity must be provided by steel reinforcing. It's ridiculously penalizing for design, but it forces the connections to be much stronger in shear than the bending elements in bending. This however won't apply on our situation. Ductile failures are slow. The failures at the connections sudden, this is where the structure will fail in this particular case.

The factor on shear is 0.75. Assuming that the demand is roughly equal to the capacity provided by the concrete, we must therefor provide equal capacity through the reinforcing steel.

Capacity = 0.75 / 2 = 0.375

The actual design capacity (or demand) is thus 250 / 0.375 = 666.667psf. Materials are inevitably stronger than stated in manuals to prevent producers from being sued. Furthermore, engineers never can get a design demand to capacity ratio of 1.0. Let's just use a nice round 700psf to make things easier.

The in-service demand to capacity ratio is merely 135psf (the slab + 10 psf of construction tools).

That makes the in-service demand to capacity ratio 135/700, or 0.193. That's a factor of safety of over 5.

Again, please do not make up numbers.

[leftysergeant]

Sorry, you don't know what you are talking about. A small part C of a structure A dropped on A by gravity cannot under any circumstances one-way crush down A!

You keep saying it, but you and idiot boy Gage have never proven it.

By your reasoning, Balzac Vitry and the Bouwkunde collapse should never have happened.

Show me some proof. Where has a collapse one one floor ever arrested without an intervening floor of utterly different construction from the floor on which structural failure occurred?

[Heiwa]

You keep saying it, but you and idiot boy Gage have never proven it.

By your reasoning, Balzac Vitry and the Bouwkunde collapse should never have happened.

Show me some proof. Where has a collapse one one floor ever arrested without an intervening floor of utterly different construction from the floor on which structural failure occurred?

You haven't read my proof? A structure C can only apply a force/load on something else A that is less than its, C's, own 'collapse' load. If something else A has same structure and collapse load as C, evidently both C and A are damaged et, voilà ... no one-way crush down of A can take place.

Balzac Vitry and Bouwkunde are clear examples of this.

[leftysergeant]

If something else A has same structure and collapse load as C, evidently both C and A are damaged et, voilà ... no one-way crush down of A can take place.

Balzac Vitry and Bouwkunde are clear examples of this.

No, they disprove your crap. Show me that a progressive collapse has ever arrested without meeting a differently-built structural element from that which failed.

[Grizzly Bear]

No, they disprove your crap. Show me that a progressive collapse has ever arrested without meeting a differently-built structural element from that which failed.

Heiwa doesn't consider differences in construction a factor in the likelihood of a collapse. It should be one of the first things he looks at, but it isn't and worse still his graphical representations of the WTC demonstrate a clear lack of understanding in basic structural principals which is 2nd year curriculum in University architecture majors.

I brought this up with reference to one of my other posts in another thread. It probably has more use in this one than any other....

http://books.google.com/books?id=MwAuK6uv11kC&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=Did+ronan+point+comply+with+building+codes+in+1 960%27s%3F&source=bl&ots=MozumBlBjB&sig=OGMaJQc9NheiFRxCoBJQ5hYSSwk&hl=en&ei=NCeOSuzyJ5GHmQf-8vWgDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

[sylvan8798]

You haven't read my proof? A structure C can only apply a force/load on something else A that is less than its, C's, own 'collapse' load. If something else A has same structure and collapse load as C, evidently both C and A are damaged et, voilà ... no one-way crush down of A can take place.

Balzac Vitry and Bouwkunde are clear examples of this.

So you are saying that there has to be both a crush up and a crush down at the same time. Fine. Your problem comes in assuming that once the part C is all "crushed up" that the resulting mass of falling crushed A and C debris can't crush anything further, which you have not succeeded in proving at all. And which you can't prove of course, it being false.

[Newtons Bit]

And Heiwa is a perfect example of someone who doesn't understand load paths.

You change the load path, and all that axiom crap flies out the window.

[Heiwa]

And Heiwa is a perfect example of someone who doesn't understand load paths.

You change the load path, and all that axiom crap flies out the window.

Hm, I actually explain load path in my popular paper at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist7.htm , i.e. how the load on the floors of a certain building is carried to the supporting pillars down to ground. I also explain what happens when you remove a bit of supporting pillar down below inside the structure, i.e. there is a new load path ... and no collapse ... due to redundancy.

Or to sum up; any structure under load can easily be analysed and the paths of loads through all elements can be found. Take same structure under load but remove one element inside the structure and you'll find another pattern of new load paths. Remove another element and re-do the analysis to find the new load paths. Actually, it is part of structural damage analysis; one of my specialities.

[twinstead]

LOL. "popular paper". I LIKE it!

[quadraginta]

LOL. "popular paper". I LIKE it!


I have too many tabs open simultaneously in my browser.

The tab which opened when I clicked on the link to that paper ended up with the title "Wo..."

Coincidence?

I think not.

[Newtons Bit]

Calculating actual capacity in shear in concrete can be a little bit difficult. If the factored capacity of the concrete alone is more than half of the demand then the entire capacity must be provided by steel reinforcing. It's ridiculously penalizing for design, but it forces the connections to be much stronger in shear than the bending elements in bending. This however won't apply on our situation. Ductile failures are slow. The failures at the connections sudden, this is where the structure will fail in this particular case.

The factor on shear is 0.75. Assuming that the demand is roughly equal to the capacity provided by the concrete, we must therefor provide equal capacity through the reinforcing steel.

Capacity = 0.75 / 2 = 0.375

Whoops this is Masonry Code. :blush: Concrete has something similar but it is nowhere near as penalizing. It's probably more like 0.75/1.5 = 0.5. This is what I get for writing engineering posts late at night without my resources handy.

I'd need actual column and slab sizes to calculate it correctly, and frankly I just don't care anymore.

[Edx]

Isnt Heiwa supposed to be qualified as a structural engineer?

If he is that incompetent is it possible he doesnt have a real degree? Anyone actually considered that?

[Grizzly Bear]

Isnt Heiwa supposed to be qualified as a structural engineer?

If he is that incompetent is it possible he doesnt have a real degree? Anyone actually considered that?

I've considered the possibility that he doesn't have a degree; however, without definitive proof of such it isn't a good idea to assume he doesn't have one. The information available to us thanks to his participation shows only at the very least he does not understand basic University course-level structures fundamentals. This applies regardless of whether he has a degree or not. I won't speculate whether his inability to understand the fundamentals is intentional or not.

[Newtons Bit]

I've considered the possibility that he doesn't have a degree; however, without definitive proof of such it isn't a good idea to assume he doesn't have one. The information available to us thanks to his participation shows only at the very least he does not understand basic University course-level structures fundamentals. This applies regardless of whether he has a degree or not. I won't speculate whether his inability to understand the fundamentals is intentional or not.

He understands basic mechanics. He can compute basic strength and stiffness of members based on cross-sections correctly.

He does't understand how buildings work, however. Things like lateral bracing, diaphragms and loading are above him. They're not basic concepts that every engineer learns in school though. They're a bit more specialized of concepts.

[Grizzly Bear]

I guess you're right :\
I don't think my university speaks for the general curriculum of all schools, but at the one I'm attending at least in the architecture major requires us to take Structures I and Structures II; the latter being the one where column behavior was covered. We were originally supposed to get into concrete construction toward the end of the 2nd one but there wasn't enough time for us to cover the material after dealing with steel framed construction and columns. IIRC we were covering how to calculate the allowable loads of the floor slabs and then whether or not the columns had a sufficient cross sectional area to carry the loads in the samples, or what was required for them to carry their loads

[Architect]

He understands basic mechanics. He can compute basic strength and stiffness of members based on cross-sections correctly.

He does't understand how buildings work, however. Things like lateral bracing, diaphragms and loading are above him. They're not basic concepts that every engineer learns in school though. They're a bit more specialized of concepts.

Well, architects learn them.

[leftysergeant]

Hm, I actually explain load path in my popular paper at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist7.htm , i.e. how the load on the floors of a certain building is carried to the supporting pillars down to ground. I also explain what happens when you remove a bit of supporting pillar down below inside the structure, i.e. there is a new load path ... and no collapse ... due to redundancy.

What redundancy? ALL the perimeter columns observed on the floors where failure occurred in the towers were screwed up and unable to bear loads.

Do look at the objects you are describing before you tell better-educated people how those objects will perform.

[Architect]

So, Heiwa, is there a reason you're refusing to:

1. Admit you didn't know it was Ronan Point?

2. Admit you didn't know the collapse initiated towards the top?

3. Admit that you were wrong about initiation at the base?

4. Explain why, precisley, your opinion regarding the possibility of progressive collapse is to be preferred over what actually happened at Ronan Point?

You're ducking the question, Heiwa. I assume that, as happened when we caught you claiming steel was fireproof, you're running away from your mistake.

[Heiwa]

What redundancy? ALL the perimeter columns observed on the floors where failure occurred in the towers were screwed up and unable to bear loads.

Do look at the objects you are describing before you tell better-educated people how those objects will perform.

Evidently a structural element, e.g. a column, subject to local failures due to alleged overload, e.g. being screwed up, has no redundancy at that location. But screwing up a column requires energy and by being screwed up/absorbing energy applied, the screwed up element contributes to arresting the destruction.
Screwing up something is always associated with a jolt! Any evidence of a jolt?

[Dave Rogers]

Or to sum up; any structure under load can easily be analysed and the paths of loads through all elements can be found. Take same structure under load but remove one element inside the structure and you'll find another pattern of new load paths. Remove another element and re-do the analysis to find the new load paths. Actually, it is part of structural damage analysis; one of my specialities.

I've bolded the parts that you haven't actually done. If you leave out all those parts, how valid is your analysis?

Dave

[Horatius]

But screwing up a column requires energy and by being screwed up/absorbing energy applied, the screwed up element contributes to arresting the destruction.




Yes. Yes, this is true, and trivial.


The question you keep failing on is, does it contribute enough to STOP the destruction?

[Heiwa]

I've bolded the parts that you haven't actually done. If you leave out all those parts, how valid is your analysis?

Dave

See http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist7.htm for a simple longhand analysis.

I know NIST has another opinion but they cannot find their shorthand analysis any longer. Maybe filed in the round basket under the table, where it belonged in the first place?

[Architect]

Quit running, Heiwa. This thread is about Ronan Point. Answer the OP.

[leftysergeant]

Evidently a structural element, e.g. a column, subject to local failures due to alleged overload, e.g. being screwed up, has no redundancy at that location. It was not just overload that screwed them up. It was the application of force in a direction in which it was not supposed to be applied.

But screwing up a column requires energy and by being screwed up/absorbing energy applied, the screwed up element contributes to arresting the destruction.

Total bollocks. The bent columns were supposed to have supported the tops of the towers, but, because they were no longer transferring the weight to the ground, actually became a weight on the tops of the structures, further misaligning the core columns and contributing to their failure. Now look closely at the collapse of the south tower. The bent columns were shoved INSIDE the standing columns. Look at the way the perimeter columns failed. They failed because they were forced outward. The columns that were shoved into the interior were clearly the initiators of that outward-forcing. So how the hell do you claim that a column designed to resist crushing from above is supposed to arrest a collapse resulting from shoving from the side?

FAIL.

Screwing up something is always associated with a jolt! Any evidence of a jolt?

WRONG! Gradual deformation destroys the ability of a column to bear a load. There is no jolt in a gradual deformation. Epic FAIL.

[rwguinn]

Yes. Yes, this is true, and trivial.


The question you keep failing on is, does it contribute enough to STOP the destruction?
And he keeps forgetting M*g*H +1/2*M*V2

[Heiwa]

Now look closely at the collapse of the south tower.

Yes, let's do that! http://911blogger.com/node/20938
It looks like the upper part above fire zone explodes on west side and tips to east while small rockets shoot out like fire works.

Sorry, I couldn't spot any buckling columns!

[twinstead]

Yes, let's do that! http://911blogger.com/node/20938
It looks like the upper part above fire zone explodes on west side and tips to east while small rockets shoot out like fire works.

Sorry, I couldn't spot any buckling columns!

Of course you can't. You appear to only see exactly what you want to see, which of course in this situation is something different than just about everybody else who has ever studied the collapses.

[tsig]

Yes, let's do that! http://911blogger.com/node/20938
It looks like the upper part above fire zone explodes on west side and tips to east while small rockets shoot out like fire works.

Sorry, I couldn't spot any buckling columns!

delete

[Architect]

Originally Posted by Architect http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5014537#post5014537)
So, Heiwa, is there a reason you're refusing to:

1. Admit you didn't know it was Ronan Point?

2. Admit you didn't know the collapse initiated towards the top?

3. Admit that you were wrong about initiation at the base?

4. Explain why, precisley, your opinion regarding the possibility of progressive collapse is to be preferred over what actually happened at Ronan Point?


Lads

Heiwa want to go off-topic and start focussing on other issues, because it obscures his completely screwing-up the Ronan Point issue. So stop pandering to the man and get back to the subject at hand.


Heiwa;

Admit you were wrong and know/knew nothing of Ronan Point.

[Dave Rogers]

See http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist7.htm for a simple longhand analysis.

I looked. As usual, you haven't done any of the things you yourself say needed doing. You haven't analysed the structure and found the load paths. You haven't removed one element and re-done the analysis. You haven't removed another and found the new load paths. You've started with a structure that bears no resemblance to the one you claim to be analysing, and made some sweeping generalisations. Your conclusions are therefore irrelevant.

Dave

[ElMondoHummus]

Bump.

So, Heiwa, is there a reason you're refusing to:

1. Admit you didn't know it was Ronan Point?

2. Admit you didn't know the collapse initiated towards the top?

3. Admit that you were wrong about initiation at the base?

4. Explain why, precisley, your opinion regarding the possibility of progressive collapse is to be preferred over what actually happened at Ronan Point?

[Architect]

Come on Heiwa, why the delay?

[leftysergeant]

Sorry, I couldn't spot any buckling columns!

Haven';t looked at a bloody thing anyone else posts here, have you? The columns were buckled long before the collapse initiated.

Will somebody show this guy some of the pics of the towers about five minutes before collapse?

I'm about to go Barney Frank on him and might say something unacceptable here.

[Grizzly Bear]

Haven';t looked at a bloody thing anyone else posts here, have you? The columns were buckled long before the collapse initiated.

Will somebody show this guy some of the pics of the towers about five minutes before collapse?

Both before and during collapse...
http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/4849/bowing.jpg
http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/7357/southtower.jpg
http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/4719/tilt.png

[Heiwa]

Thanks for pics ... taken a second before upper part explodes and objects with a white trail of smoke are ejected. Do not tell me that what is seen on video is due to gravity - a light weight upper structural assembly dropping down due to local failures!

[Edx]

Out of curiosity Heiwa, what do you imagine caused the perimiter columns to bow in?

[LashL]

So, Heiwa, is there a reason you're refusing to:

1. Admit you didn't know it was Ronan Point?

2. Admit you didn't know the collapse initiated towards the top?

3. Admit that you were wrong about initiation at the base?

4. Explain why, precisley, your opinion regarding the possibility of progressive collapse is to be preferred over what actually happened at Ronan Point?

You're ducking the question, Heiwa. I assume that, as happened when we caught you claiming steel was fireproof, you're running away from your mistake.

Heiwa, these questions are still outstanding.

Others, please do not assist Heiwa in changing the subject.

[Heiwa]

Out of curiosity Heiwa, what do you imagine caused the perimiter columns to bow in?

I think all outer core columns have been cut (by some energetic devices) and that the core above the fire zone is displacing downwards relative perimeter. Some floor sections between core/perimeter then pull in the perimeter (pics taken) and then .... BOOM!

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/loaddistribution.htm

[Grizzly Bear]

Heiwa, these questions are still outstanding.

Others, please do not assist Heiwa in changing the subject.

Somehow I doubt he will answer that, but in the event he requires additional motivation I'd be interested in his answering as well. I hate to add to the list of requests for this but I'd like to know why Heiwa did not study anything about the collapse of the Ronin apartments prior to asserting about it

[Architect]

Somehow I doubt he will answer that, but in the event he requires additional motivation I'd be interested in his answering as well. I hate to add to the list of requests for this but I'd like to know why Heiwa did not study anything about the collapse of the Ronin apartments prior to asserting about it

Come on, Heiwa. We're waiting.

[rwguinn]

So, Heiwa, is there a reason you're refusing to:

1. Admit you didn't know it was Ronan Point?

2. Admit you didn't know the collapse initiated towards the top?

3. Admit that you were wrong about initiation at the base?

4. Explain why, precisley, your opinion regarding the possibility of progressive collapse is to be preferred over what actually happened at Ronan Point?
He can't have us all on ignore...

[Klimax]

So, Heiwa, is there a reason you're refusing to:

1. Admit you didn't know it was Ronan Point?

2. Admit you didn't know the collapse initiated towards the top?

3. Admit that you were wrong about initiation at the base?

4. Explain why, precisley, your opinion regarding the possibility of progressive collapse is to be preferred over what actually happened at Ronan Point?
He can't have us all on ignore...

Probably...

[ElMondoHummus]

Bump again.
So, Heiwa, is there a reason you're refusing to:

1. Admit you didn't know it was Ronan Point?

2. Admit you didn't know the collapse initiated towards the top?

3. Admit that you were wrong about initiation at the base?

4. Explain why, precisley, your opinion regarding the possibility of progressive collapse is to be preferred over what actually happened at Ronan Point?

[Architect]

Bump again.

Come on, Heiwa, is there a reason you're refusing to:

1. Admit you didn't know it was Ronan Point?

2. Admit you didn't know the collapse initiated towards the top?

3. Admit that you were wrong about initiation at the base?

4. Explain why, precisley, your opinion regarding the possibility of progressive collapse is to be preferred over what actually happened at Ronan Point?

[Toke]

Bump again.

Come on, Heiwa, is there a reason you're refusing to:

1. Admit you didn't know it was Ronan Point?

2. Admit you didn't know the collapse initiated towards the top?

3. Admit that you were wrong about initiation at the base?

4. Explain why, precisley, your opinion regarding the possibility of progressive collapse is to be preferred over what actually happened at Ronan Point?

I doubt I am on ignore.

[DGM]

Bump again.

Come on, Heiwa, is there a reason you're refusing to:

1. Admit you didn't know it was Ronan Point?

2. Admit you didn't know the collapse initiated towards the top?

3. Admit that you were wrong about initiation at the base?

4. Explain why, precisley, your opinion regarding the possibility of progressive collapse is to be preferred over what actually happened at Ronan Point?
I'll bump it just to show "lurkers" how clueless Heiwa is.

[Architect]

I doubt I am on ignore.

It would appear that he suddenly has us all on ignore, but on the plus side it's nice and quiet without him.

[Klimax]

It would appear that he suddenly has us all on ignore, but on the plus side it's nice and quiet without him.

Not me. He answers me... (so far) See one-crush thread...

[Dave Rogers]

Bump again.

Come on, Heiwa, is there a reason you're refusing to:

1. Admit you didn't know it was Ronan Point?

2. Admit you didn't know the collapse initiated towards the top?

3. Admit that you were wrong about initiation at the base?

4. Explain why, precisley, your opinion regarding the possibility of progressive collapse is to be preferred over what actually happened at Ronan Point?

He's been replying to me too, so I'm fairly certain I'm not on ignore yet. Heiwa, care to answer the above questions on your well-documented cluelessness?

Dave

[Architect]

Funny thing is, he's been active on the site over the last 24 hours. Draw your own conclusions, eh?

[Heiwa]

Today I was busy with my grand children, i.e. we walked down to the port, looked at the boats, had a nice, long lunch at good restaurant (no McDo rubbish), then looked at some more ships and then took the bus up home. What was the question?

[Longfellow]

Today I was busy with my grand children, i.e. we walked down to the port, looked at the boats, had a nice, long lunch at good restaurant (no McDo rubbish), then looked at some more ships and then took the bus up home. What was the question?

Here ya go.



Bump again.

Come on, Heiwa, is there a reason you're refusing to:

1. Admit you didn't know it was Ronan Point?

2. Admit you didn't know the collapse initiated towards the top?

3. Admit that you were wrong about initiation at the base?

4. Explain why, precisley, your opinion regarding the possibility of progressive collapse is to be preferred over what actually happened at Ronan Point?

[Dave Rogers]

Here ya go.

Because a trained engineer might find it a bit tricky to scroll up two posts.

Dave

[UNLoVedRebel]

So, Heiwa, is there a reason you're refusing to:

1. Admit you didn't know it was Ronan Point?

2. Admit you didn't know the collapse initiated towards the top?

3. Admit that you were wrong about initiation at the base?

4. Explain why, precisley, your opinion regarding the possibility of progressive collapse is to be preferred over what actually happened at Ronan Point?Bump again.

Come on, Heiwa, is there a reason you're refusing to:

1. Admit you didn't know it was Ronan Point?

2. Admit you didn't know the collapse initiated towards the top?

3. Admit that you were wrong about initiation at the base?

4. Explain why, precisley, your opinion regarding the possibility of progressive collapse is to be preferred over what actually happened at Ronan Point?
Come on, Heiwa, is there a reason you're refusing to:

1. Admit you didn't know it was Ronan Point?

2. Admit you didn't know the collapse initiated towards the top?

3. Admit that you were wrong about initiation at the base?

4. Explain why, precisley, your opinion regarding the possibility of progressive collapse is to be preferred over what actually happened at Ronan Point?

[Klimax]

Come on, Heiwa, is there a reason you're refusing to:

1. Admit you didn't know it was Ronan Point?

2. Admit you didn't know the collapse initiated towards the top?

3. Admit that you were wrong about initiation at the base?

4. Explain why, precisley, your opinion regarding the possibility of progressive collapse is to be preferred over what actually happened at Ronan Point?

Strange is,he is now ignoring even that moderated thread...

[Heiwa]

Strange is,he is now ignoring even that moderated thread...

Sorry, was just re-openinng http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=138715 . Very popular thread! You only have to design a structure that is crushed when you drop a part on it! Maybe you can copy the Ronan Point structural corner design details and win The Heiwa Challenge?

Note that you shall not light a match and explode the top ... just drop the top on the lower part and crush the lower part.

[twinstead]

Sorry, was just re-openinng http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=138715 . Very popular thread! You only have to design a structure that is crushed when you drop a part on it! Maybe you can copy the Ronan Point structural corner design details and win The Heiwa Challenge?

Note that you shall not light a match and explode the top ... just drop the top on the lower part and crush the lower part.

1. Admit you didn't know it was Ronan Point?

2. Admit you didn't know the collapse initiated towards the top?

3. Admit that you were wrong about initiation at the base?

4. Explain why, precisley, your opinion regarding the possibility of progressive collapse is to be preferred over what actually happened at Ronan Point?

[Architect]

Heiwa

Answer the questions put to you, please.

[Horatius]

Well, this is just getting sad.

[Architect]

On the contrary, I think it a very positive thread. It has shown that Heiwa can't actually substantiate a fairly simple case and that his knowleddge of building structures is far more limited than he would like us to think.

Of course, it's like that on most of his threads but normally he ducks and dives a lot more.

[Dave Rogers]

Come on, Heiwa, is there a reason you're refusing to:

1. Admit you didn't know it was Ronan Point?

2. Admit you didn't know the collapse initiated towards the top?

3. Admit that you were wrong about initiation at the base?

4. Explain why, precisley, your opinion regarding the possibility of progressive collapse is to be preferred over what actually happened at Ronan Point?

This is, by my count, the twentieth time these questions have been posted, over a period of nine days, in which Heiwa has posted ten times since the questions were first posed. Can we conclude by now that Heiwa refuses to answer these questions?

Dave

[SpitfireIX]

can we conclude by now that heiwa refuses to answer these questions?


K8E_zMLCRNg

[Longfellow]

Because a trained engineer might find it a bit tricky to scroll up two posts.

Dave

Certainly true in heiwa's case. I re-posted Architects questions under the assumption that heiwa can't have everyone on ignore. What I fear we've done, however, is pad heiwa's ignore list. I think I'll reciprocate and then I'll never have to read that charlatan's words again.

Or at least until someone quotes him in full. *sigh*

[Klimax]

Sorry, was just re-openinng http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=138715 . Very popular thread! You only have to design a structure that is crushed when you drop a part on it! Maybe you can copy the Ronan Point structural corner design details and win The Heiwa Challenge?

Note that you shall not light a match and explode the top ... just drop the top on the lower part and crush the lower part.

I am no architect or such. I just noticed that some of your arguments are very easly shot down even by people like me.

And so far it looks like you ignored or tried to invalidate at least four different models. And lastly where is proof of yours million dollars?

Off topic.

[Architect]

Well, Heiwa still seems to be unable to answer these very simple questions. I wonder why?

[UNLoVedRebel]

So, Heiwa, is there a reason you're refusing to:

1. Admit you didn't know it was Ronan Point?

2. Admit you didn't know the collapse initiated towards the top?

3. Admit that you were wrong about initiation at the base?

4. Explain why, precisley, your opinion regarding the possibility of progressive collapse is to be preferred over what actually happened at Ronan Point?
Bump again.

Come on, Heiwa, is there a reason you're refusing to:

1. Admit you didn't know it was Ronan Point?

2. Admit you didn't know the collapse initiated towards the top?

3. Admit that you were wrong about initiation at the base?

4. Explain why, precisley, your opinion regarding the possibility of progressive collapse is to be preferred over what actually happened at Ronan Point?
Come on, Heiwa, is there a reason you're refusing to:

1. Admit you didn't know it was Ronan Point?

2. Admit you didn't know the collapse initiated towards the top?

3. Admit that you were wrong about initiation at the base?

4. Explain why, precisley, your opinion regarding the possibility of progressive collapse is to be preferred over what actually happened at Ronan Point?
Bump again.

Come on, Heiwa, is there a reason you're refusing to:

1. Admit you didn't know it was Ronan Point?

2. Admit you didn't know the collapse initiated towards the top?

3. Admit that you were wrong about initiation at the base?

4. Explain why, precisley, your opinion regarding the possibility of progressive collapse is to be preferred over what actually happened at Ronan Point?

[Dave Rogers]

What I fear we've done, however, is pad heiwa's ignore list.

I wouldn't have a problem with being on it.

Dave

[grmcdorman]

Bump again.

Come on, Heiwa, is there a reason you're refusing to:

1. Admit you didn't know it was Ronan Point?

2. Admit you didn't know the collapse initiated towards the top?

3. Admit that you were wrong about initiation at the base?

4. Explain why, precisley, your opinion regarding the possibility of progressive collapse is to be preferred over what actually happened at Ronan Point?Let me bump this; it's unlikely he has me on ignore, as I mostly lurk.

Heiwa, I'd really like to know the answers:

Is there a reason you're refusing to:

1. Admit you didn't know it was Ronan Point?

2. Admit you didn't know the collapse initiated towards the top?

3. Admit that you were wrong about initiation at the base?

4. Explain why, precisley, your opinion regarding the possibility of progressive collapse is to be preferred over what actually happened at Ronan Point?

[Architect]

Come on, Heiwa, let's be having it.

[LashL]

Any time now.

I, too, would really like to see Heiwa's answers, but it appears that he has well and truly fled from answering these legitimate questions..

So, Heiwa, is there a reason you're refusing to:

1. Admit you didn't know it was Ronan Point?

2. Admit you didn't know the collapse initiated towards the top?

3. Admit that you were wrong about initiation at the base?

4. Explain why, precisley, your opinion regarding the possibility of progressive collapse is to be preferred over what actually happened at Ronan Point?


Like grmcdorman, I cannot imagine that Heiwa has me on ignore either, so I am simply lending my quote and paste services once again in hopes that Heiwa will respond to the legitimate questions asked so long ago, which he has thusfar refused to address.

.

[TruthersLie]

Come on, Heiwa, let's be having it.

He was too busy hiding under his bed to answer those questions from you... and now the finding of 6 of the hydraulic demolitions which use crush down/crush up has him quaking, handwaving, and shift shift shifting.

I notice with glee that his little fanboys have runaway faster than rats from a sinking ship....

tee hee.

[CHF]

Heiwa, you are a deplorable coward.

How do you expect to prove the "truth" about 911 to the world when you can't even stand up for yourself here on a message board?

[Architect]

Is there a reason you're refusing to:

1. Admit you didn't know it was Ronan Point?

2. Admit you didn't know the collapse initiated towards the top?

3. Admit that you were wrong about initiation at the base?

4. Explain why, precisley, your opinion regarding the possibility of progressive collapse is to be preferred over what actually happened at Ronan Point?

Come on, Heiwa.

[Audible Click]

Come on, Heiwa.

So, Heiwa, is there a reason you're refusing to:

1. Admit you didn't know it was Ronan Point?

2. Admit you didn't know the collapse initiated towards the top?

3. Admit that you were wrong about initiation at the base?

4. Explain why, precisley, your opinion regarding the possibility of progressive collapse is to be preferred over what actually happened at Ronan Point?

We're waiting. Are the questions too hard?

[TruthersLie]

I really must pity heiwa.

This has to be the worst week ever for him.
First he gets completely owned and schooled on Ronin Point (among other collapses) and then the video evidence of numerous gravity driven collapses surfaces.

Poor heiwa... if he wasn't such a complete and utter **************** then I would feel sorry for him. As it is I just want to pull a Nelson and laugh at him.

[Architect]

Is there a reason you're refusing to:

1. Admit you didn't know it was Ronan Point?

2. Admit you didn't know the collapse initiated towards the top?

3. Admit that you were wrong about initiation at the base?

4. Explain why, precisley, your opinion regarding the possibility of progressive collapse is to be preferred over what actually happened at Ronan Point?

Come on, Heiwa, we know you've been online and posting. Is there a reason your avoiding this? Concerned about the gravity (ha!) of your mistake?

[Hokulele]

I would quote that, but I know Heiwa has me on ignore (or at least had me there). He announced that he placed me there after I pointed out that mass and weight are not the same thing.

I am surprised he hasn't made a grand announcement regarding additions to the list.

[releaseeabode]

I really must pity heiwa.

This has to be the worst week ever for him.
First he gets completely owned and schooled on Ronin Point (among other collapses) and then the video evidence of numerous gravity driven collapses surfaces.

Poor heiwa... if he wasn't such a complete and utter **************** then I would feel sorry for him. As it is I just want to pull a Nelson and laugh at him.

Trolling is all you have left?

Welcome to my ignore list.

[jhunter1163]

I really must pity heiwa.

This has to be the worst week ever for him.
First he gets completely owned and schooled on Ronin Point (among other collapses) and then the video evidence of numerous gravity driven collapses surfaces.

Poor heiwa... if he wasn't such a complete and utter **************** then I would feel sorry for him. As it is I just want to pull a Nelson and laugh at him.

Now I'm wondering, what bad word has 16 letters?

[Architect]

Trolling is all you have left?

Welcome to my ignore list.

I find myself wondering whether you have applied the same standards to Heiwa, inasmuch as his response to the Ronan Point issue leaves him very much open to the same accusation.

[releaseeabode]

I find myself wondering whether you have applied the same standards to Heiwa, inasmuch as his response to the Ronan Point issue leaves him very much open to the same accusation.

Point me to it, and I will offer an opinion.

I am very much against your policy of tracking Heiwa around the threads and effectively barracking him for an answer. It is very rude and disruptive. You now have your own thread for it, why don't you make your case here and let it stand for the record.

Maybe it is your colleagues that continue to pile more and more irrelevance onto your fundamental post in this thread that you should be chasing up!!!!

[Architect]

It may be helpful if I briefly recap the position for you.

Heiwa has consistently claimed that a progressive gravity-driven structural collapse is not possible; on another thread, a poster noted the case of Ronan Point and Heiwa stated that the collapse there was doe to failure of a low level structural element and was arrested by the intact floors below the initiative point.

This is, of course, completely incorrect. Ronan Point is well understood amongst architects and structural engineers who are required, as it happens, to study it as part of their university training (there are many such case studies).

The purpose of this thread was - and is - to prevent a detail in the original thread and allow Heiwa to defend his unequivocal position.

He has, of course, failed to do so. A similar thing happened some time ago when he claimed that steel was inherrently fireproof and could not collapse under normal fire loadings.

Now, I appreciate that you may feel that Heiwa is being barracked or otherwise pursued. However, this is a site for scepticism and critical thinking. The very point in making an argument is that you will be expected to defend that position. You cannot make a statement and then walk away from it. In this respect we are no different from, say, the BAUT forum.

Without wishing to derail this thread, and just to give you a point to ponder over, why do you think Heiwa is avoiding this thread? If he's so sure about his own expertise, if he's so positive about the initiatiion sequence at Ronan Point, then why refuse to defend a position? It is, after all, fundamental to his "challenge" and similar arguments.

[Dave Rogers]

I am very much against your policy of tracking Heiwa around the threads and effectively barracking him for an answer. It is very rude and disruptive.

And we are very much against Heiwa's policy of deliberately lying about structural engineering, accusing innocent people of mass murder based on the content of his own lies, and then refusing to respond to posts that clearly demonstrate him to be a lying incompetent. It is is rude, disruptive and libellous.

Dave

[TruthersLie]

Trolling is all you have left?

Welcome to my ignore list.

hahahahahaha.

Trolling?

I'm asking for him to ANSWER the questions posted to him.

I am trying to get him to explain to me why the 7 videos we have shown him of REAL structures which demonstrate the crush down/crush up are relevant and he keeps trying to dodge them.

Thank you for putting me on ignore... you aren't on mine.

[TruthersLie]

Now I'm wondering, what bad word has 16 letters?

I could tell you, but I'm not sure it would get through the censors, and I don't want to get another yellow card.

(actually it is 2 words, but I put the * for the space, but if I think up a 16 letter word that is "bad", I'll let you know. :)

[Horatius]

(actually it is 2 words, but I put the * for the space, but if I think up a 16 letter word that is "bad", I'll let you know. :)



Think a crude word for the lover of your female parent.

[leftysergeant]

Trolling is all you have left?

Project much?

You see, the thing is that Heiwa has posted some apparent absurdities and then turned tail, expecting us to accept his basic premises, ipse dixit, despite the smell which suggests that they originated in a part of his anatomy not normally thought of as part of the central nervous system.

[willhaven]

Both before and during collapse...
http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/4849/bowing.jpg
http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/7357/southtower.jpg
http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/4719/tilt.png

Thanks for pics ... taken a second before upper part explodes and objects with a white trail of smoke are ejected. Do not tell me that what is seen on video is due to gravity - a light weight upper structural assembly dropping down due to local failures!
I don't know. It looks like it simply collapses to me. There is no explosion before the corner caves in. Only fire.

No video you find will show explosions or ejections before the collapse. Just billowing smoke from the fires that brought the building down.

qYLbfkxjYYc

9SSS0DDqfm0

[TruthersLie]

Think a crude word for the lover of your female parent.

oh my...

:blush:

[leftysergeant]

Thanks for pics ... taken a second before upper part explodes and objects with a white trail of smoke are ejected.Got pictures?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I enjoy giving some twoofers a solid yank on their old chains when I sense a vulnerability, but frankly... I don't know why any of y'all still talk to Heiwa.

All I see is page after page and thread after thread with Heiwa with his head up his ass (which surprisingly doesn't seem to interfere with his ability to pull $#!+ out of said ass) singing "La La La, I can't hear you" to himself while the rest of y'all run rings around him... and around and around and around and around...

[releaseeabode]

Project much?

You see, the thing is that Heiwa has posted some apparent absurdities and then turned tail, expecting us to accept his basic premises, ipse dixit, despite the smell which suggests that they originated in a part of his anatomy not normally thought of as part of the central nervous system.

Project? No, I think you'll find I reflect. My posts are like a mirror that I hold up to show you what you look like. The fact that deep inside you don't really like what you see is not my problem. Every time you carry out these attacks to make a short term political gain there is a small piece of your intellectual integrity that chips away.

So Heiwa has posted some "apparent" absurdities in previous posts. So what? What do you want from him? Is this the Rikki Lake show or a discussion forum. Heiwa is working in a second language on a forum that is determined not to win an argument against him but to crush him. It is his choice if he stays around to join in with this nonsense but, it is your personal choice to preserve your own integrity, Heiwa can't drag you down without your permission!

[Architect]

So Heiwa has posted some "apparent" absurdities in previous posts. So what? What do you want from him? Is this the Rikki Lake show or a discussion forum. Heiwa is working in a second language on a forum that is determined not to win an argument against him but to crush him. It is his choice if he stays around to join in with this nonsense but, it is your personal choice to preserve your own integrity, Heiwa can't drag you down without your permission!

English isn't my first language, so you'll forgive me for saying that I don't think that this is a particularly relevant issue; the question at hand is a technical one, and in particular the ability (or otherwise) to correctly interpret and analyse structural failure in complex cases such as tall buildings.

It is particularly interesting that you raise the issue of integrity, because this thread is specifically to address that very same point. As I explained in my previous post, Heiwa made a number of - frankly - completely wrong and, for a trained professional, incompetent statatements about a structural case study that is particularly germaine to his arguments around gravity driven failure.

This is a sceptic site, and we have asked him to justify these errors. He has failed to do so, yet on the "Heiwa Challenge" thread he continues to spout the same material.

It is, to be honest, an act of gross intellectual dishonesty on Heiwa's part and on that basis I really don't see anything wrong with continuing to push the matter.

[R.Mackey]

Somebody is a wee bit self impressed.

Heiwa is the guy who doesn't understand scaling laws (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4556859#post4556859) and once confused weight and mass (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4280640#post4280640). He's also the one who consistently refuses to answer a series of simple questions (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5056737#post5056737), designed to gauge his understanding of the most basic and fundamental knowledge of progressive structural collapse, despite innumerable opportunities to do so.

You want to follow him, releaseeabode, go right ahead. Your loss.

[Architect]

Releaseeabod doesn't seem interested in debate or discussion. It's very peculiar.

[Architect]

Bump for Heiwa.

[leftysergeant]

Project? No, I think you'll find I reflect. My posts are like a mirror that I hold up to show you what you look like.

Not a bit of it. I am hostile to woo salesmen, especially those who push an idea that is of value to the kinds of people who once tried to kill me. I have a little less patience with him than have the engineers. He also casts aspersions on my brothers in suggesting that a controlled demolition could have been carried out without the entire FDNY knowing it.

The fact that deep inside you don't really like what you see is not my problem.

That you do not see what I dislike is more a sign of your intellectual short-comings than of any emotional instability on my part.

Every time you carry out these attacks to make a short term political gain there is a small piece of your intellectual integrity that chips away.[/QUOTE]

Agreeing that Heiwa has a valid point in any of the posts he has made so far would chip away at my intellectual integrity, because he is, as far as I have seen, invariably wrong about the subjects at hand. So wrong, in fact, that one need not even be an engineer to notice it.

Heiwa is working in a second language on a forum that is determined not to win an argument against him but to crush him.

Not an excuse. I do not write German as well as he writes English, but I manage to make ten or twenty times fewer dumb remarks in German per day than he does in English. He writes it well enough for us to see that he dragged it out from behind the sauna.

It is his choice if he stays around to join in with this nonsense but, it is your personal choice to preserve your own integrity, Heiwa can't drag you down without your permission!

Since when has it anything to do with intergity? Integrity requires that woo, especially dangerous woo that is being used by dangerous political movements, be crushed as they arise.

[Architect]

Bump for Heiwa. Again. And Again. And Again.

[JohnG]

Looks like he's been suspended.

[Horatius]

When he gets back, ask him to read this post:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5063274#post5063274

[Newtons Bit]

Not a bit of it. I am hostile to woo salesmen, especially those who push an idea that is of value to the kinds of people who once tried to kill me. I have a little less patience with him than have the engineers. He also casts aspersions on my brothers in suggesting that a controlled demolition could have been carried out without the entire FDNY knowing it.



That you do not see what I dislike is more a sign of your intellectual short-comings than of any emotional instability on my part.

Every time you carry out these attacks to make a short term political gain there is a small piece of your intellectual integrity that chips away.

Agreeing that Heiwa has a valid point in any of the posts he has made so far would chip away at my intellectual integrity, because he is, as far as I have seen, invariably wrong about the subjects at hand. So wrong, in fact, that one need not even be an engineer to notice it.



Not an excuse. I do not write German as well as he writes English, but I manage to make ten or twenty times fewer dumb remarks in German per day than he does in English. He writes it well enough for us to see that he dragged it out from behind the sauna.



Since when has it anything to do with intergity? Integrity requires that woo, especially dangerous woo that is being used by dangerous political movements, be crushed as they arise.

FYI, releaseabode is pdoh.

[Architect]

Bump for Heiwa, now he's back (and spouting forth on his structural "analyses").

[UNLoVedRebel]

Bump for http://heiwaco.tripod.com/Anders14.08.04.jpg

[Architect]

Bump for our "engineer". Again.

[SpitfireIX]

K8E_zMLCRNg

[Architect]

My, Heiwa seems strangely absent. Again.

[Architect]

Bump for Heiwa, who's posting right now but strangely still seems unable to defend his "interpretation" of the Ronan Point collapse.

[Grizzly Bear]

Since I'm not as optimistic about him justifying his demonstration of ignorance I think this should serve as a reminder for not only the individual poster (Heiwa), but also as a representative example that demonstrates the meager standards of the professionals* that accept his theories.

*including but not limited to AE911truth.

I wonder what those directly affiliated with AE911truth have to say concerning Heiwa's reluctance to address something which isn't required to delve deep into the conspiracy theory itself -- rather instead looks at a simple case study.

[Audible Click]

I think we'll all grow old while waiting for comments from Heiwa or AE911 truth.