Another Question for Heiwa : Amazing Fireproof Steel - Page 12

westprog · 26th February 2008, 04:26 AM

Originally Posted by Heiwa

You missed it, of course. http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist1.htm#7 may get you started!

Quote:

When 33 000 tons of mass above in WTC1 falls down 3.7 metres due to gravity and crushes all the columns abt 340 kWh of energy is produced by gravity.

Thanks, that's what I was looking for.

Minadin · 26th February 2008, 08:16 AM

Why on earth would you try to use Kilowatt-hours to describe the energy? Why not use KCal or something equally irrelevent? Electron-volts anyone?

Dave Rogers · 26th February 2008, 08:27 AM

Just stick to the truth movement unit of choice: pounds of HMX equivalent.

Dave

Apollo20 · 26th February 2008, 09:05 AM

Engineers should be the last people on earth to complain about units!

Especially North American engineers!

Fahrenheit, Btu, horsepower, gallons, psi, slugs,..... good grief!

Disbelief · 26th February 2008, 09:11 AM

Originally Posted by Apollo20

Engineers should be the last people on earth to complain about units!

Especially North American engineers!

Fahrenheit, Btu, horsepower, gallons, psi, slugs,..... good grief!

As long as you use relevant units, you're ok. The reason there are so many units, is that there are many different ways to approach and solve a problem. we just like to cover our bases.

Besides, we have to come up with real world applications for all the crazy theoretical stuff the scientists blab about.

rwguinn · 26th February 2008, 09:11 AM

Originally Posted by Minadin

Why on earth would you try to use Kilowatt-hours to describe the energy? Why not use KCal or something equally irrelevent? Electron-volts anyone?

For the same reason some idiot vendor gave me torque gradient in (I kid you not)
milligram millimeters/degree
I'm a 'NAmericun. anna ninjaneer.
Even I know that's wrong...

Dave Rogers · 26th February 2008, 09:13 AM

Originally Posted by Apollo20

Engineers should be the last people on earth to complain about units!

Especially North American engineers!

I've been a bit nervous about asking this, because the implications are too horrible to contemplate, but... I've seen steel strength rated in KSI on this forum and elsewhere. Does that really stand for what I think it stands for?

Dave

rwguinn · 26th February 2008, 09:19 AM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

I've been a bit nervous about asking this, because the implications are too horrible to contemplate, but... I've seen steel strength rated in KSI on this forum and elsewhere. Does that really stand for what I think it stands for?

Dave

[

mode. Flame suit=On}
Not everything metric is bad.
The use of Kilo for 1000 is a good thing.

Yes, a Kilopound is 1000 lbf.
It is much easier to write, and for management to read, 48.7 KSI than it is to write 48700 psi, and muchpetter than 3.27E8 Pa.

The Pa is a unit so small as to be worthless....

Although finance wienies keep wanting to use M for 1000

Belz... · 26th February 2008, 09:27 AM

Originally Posted by Apollo20

Engineers should be the last people on earth to complain about units!

Especially North American engineers!

Fahrenheit, Btu, horsepower, gallons, psi, slugs,..... good grief!

Translation: "I hate all engineers because I know a few of them that I don't like."

rwguinn · 26th February 2008, 09:29 AM

Originally Posted by Belz...

Translation: "I hate all engineers because I know a few of them that I don't like."

"And because they call me on it when I let emotions override analysis"

Minadin · 26th February 2008, 09:42 AM

KSI = Kips per square inch.

A "kip" = 1,000 lbs. Short for Kilo-pound as Rwguinn mentioned. When we're doing heavy stuff it's easier to just drop all those extra zeros. You do basically the same thing when you don't weigh yourself in ounces.

Apollo20 · 26th February 2008, 09:46 AM

I throw a fish to the sharks and out they come!

So predictable, ....... like Pavlov's dog!

Minadin · 26th February 2008, 09:50 AM

Originally Posted by Apollo20

Engineers should be the last people on earth to complain about units!

Especially North American engineers!

Fahrenheit, Btu, horsepower, gallons, psi, slugs,..... good grief!

By the by, I'm not an engineer. That should be clear from this thread. And, I'm well-schooled in the use of SI / metric units thanks to some European university training. So I can complain about units as much as I want then, right?

Is fish-throwing a major sport in Canada or . . .

Apollo20 · 26th February 2008, 09:57 AM

Minadin:

You're NOT an engineer!

Congratulations!

Fish-throwing? Well only at engineers, politicians, lawyers and other such varmints!

rwguinn · 26th February 2008, 10:11 AM

Originally Posted by Minadin

....?

Is fish-throwing a major sport in Canada or . . .

Only during the winter, which lasts from August 12 through July 9

ElMondoHummus · 26th February 2008, 10:19 AM

When'd this digress into a Lew Zealand thread?

Heiwa · 26th February 2008, 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by e^n

This certainly makes you an engineer, but not a structural engineer. You could get in extremely serious trouble for claiming such a thing in the US as you are representing yourself as having training and experience which you do not. I am glad at least that you admit as much despite your rambling attempt at rationalisation.

Anybody can call himself an engineer but I have never met a structural engineer. Structures are just parts of various fields of engineering and I happen to know a little about steel structures - beams, pilllars, plates, etc, put together that happen to become a floating structure of some kind. And the loads put on these structures. And how the structures behave due to these loads. And how damaged structures behave to same loads.
Floating structures are often damaged and are thus analyzed - why? How? Very interesting. Cause, effect, you know!
Steel buildings on land are rarely damaged and it seems there is a great lack of expertize in that field of analysis, particularly in the USA. To suggest, without any evidence like Nist does, that a steel structure tower collapsed due to release of potential energy (gravity) (in turn caused by fires) that exceeded the strain energy of the structure is infantile nonsense. You need more energy than just gravity to demolish the WTCs' steel structure.
BTW - have you found any specific errors in my WTC analysis for children on my web site? Just copy/paste the relevant part with your comments and we can have a serious discussion.

Minadin · 26th February 2008, 10:55 AM

Not just anyone can call himself an engineer here in the USA. You have to have a certain amount of education with a professional degree from an accredited engineering school, a pass the professional engineer's exam in your selected field, if I'm not mistaken.

You don't believe in structural engineers? That they exist?

Architect · 26th February 2008, 10:59 AM

Originally Posted by Heiwa

Anybody can call himself an engineer but I have never met a structural engineer. Structures are just parts of various fields of engineering

I'm sure that the IStructE will just love to hear that. Have you contacted them?

Originally Posted by Heiwa

I happen to know a little about steel structures

Correct

Originally Posted by Heiwa

Steel buildings on land are rarely damaged and it seems there is a great lack of expertize in that field of analysis, particularly in the USA. To suggest, without any evidence like Nist does, that a steel structure tower collapsed due to release of potential energy (gravity) (in turn caused by fires) that exceeded the strain energy of the structure is infantile nonsense. You need more energy than just gravity to demolish the WTCs' steel structure.

Wrong

Quote:

BTW - have you found any specific errors in my WTC analysis for children on my web site? Just copy/paste the relevant part with your comments and we can have a serious discussion.

It's been done. You just ignored it.

Architect · 26th February 2008, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by Minadin

Not just anyone can call himself an engineer here in the USA. You have to have a certain amount of education with a professional degree from an accredited engineering school, a pass the professional engineer's exam in your selected field, if I'm not mistaken.

You don't believe in structural engineers? That they exist?

http://www.istructe.org/index.asp?bhcp=1

rwguinn · 26th February 2008, 11:07 AM

Originally Posted by Architect

I'm sure that the IStructE will just love to hear that. Have you contacted them?

Correct

Wrong

It's been done. You just ignored it.

Will you stop with the entrenched in reality stuff? Have you no imagination?
(Did I just ask that of an architect? Oh, crud!)

and one might inform heiwa that pasting complete articles gets you a naughty-gram from the mods and the removal of the offending cut-and-paste--so we can't paste what's wrong with his "for children" Bull...

Panoply_Prefect · 26th February 2008, 11:26 AM

Originally Posted by Heiwa

BTW - have you found any specific errors in my WTC analysis for children on my web site? Just copy/paste the relevant part with your comments and we can have a serious discussion.

Might I perhaps respectfully remind of this here thread:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=101791&page=8

Belz... · 26th February 2008, 12:04 PM

Originally Posted by Heiwa

Anybody can call himself an engineer but I have never met a structural engineer.

Well, I've never met a truther. There.

sts60 · 26th February 2008, 01:54 PM

Originally Posted by Minadin

Not just anyone can call himself an engineer here in the USA. You have to have a certain amount of education with a professional degree from an accredited engineering school, a pass the professional engineer's exam in your selected field, if I'm not mistaken.

Not quite. In aerospace, for example, most of us don't take the PE exam. It's basically not a factor in this field. It's much more important for structural engineers involved in buildings (as opposed to the "structures guys" in aerospace), and for engineering consultants like you'd see in the Yellow Pages.

rwguinn · 26th February 2008, 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by sts60

Not quite. In aerospace, for example, most of us don't take the PE exam. It's basically not a factor in this field. It's much more important for structural engineers involved in buildings (as opposed to the "structures guys" in aerospace), and for engineering consultants like you'd see in the Yellow Pages.

I resemble that.
I did get my PE when I was caught up in my first lay-off in 1991.
But you cannot legally offer your services to the general public as an engineer without the PE.
You can also offer service to an employer, in an engineering capacity, where it is generally understood that a PE is not a requirement but an engineering degree and/or experience are.

Very fine distinction, and probably not even above the noise level for most people, but once the lawyers get involved...

tsig · 26th February 2008, 02:10 PM

Originally Posted by Apollo20

Engineers should be the last people on earth to complain about units!

Especially North American engineers!

Fahrenheit, Btu, horsepower, gallons, psi, slugs,..... good grief!

You love them. You just don't understand them.

Have you always been challenged with math?

It probably accounts for your dislike.

Someday you may be able to work them out.

Good luck with your education.

rwguinn · 26th February 2008, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by tsig

You love them. You just don't understand them.

Have you always been challenged with math?

It probably accounts for your dislike.

Someday you may be able to work them out.

Good luck with your education.

Ouch...

Corsair 115 · 26th February 2008, 02:45 PM

Originally Posted by Apollo20

I throw a fish to the sharks and out they come!

So predictable, ....... like Pavlov's dog!

From what I've seen, you are equally as predictable.

Architect · 26th February 2008, 02:48 PM

Calm down, you three.

Heiwa · 27th February 2008, 12:30 AM

Originally Posted by Minadin

Why on earth would you try to use Kilowatt-hours to describe the energy? Why not use KCal or something equally irrelevent? Electron-volts anyone?

If you read my article you find that I use Joule (J) for energy and translated it into kWh for easy understanding (I write for children), e.g. that the given amount (340 kWh) was similar to burning 40 litres of diesel oil in an engine to pull the top part of WTC1 back in position!

Evidently I do not believe that the WTC1 upper part above the initiation zone fell free fall as a rigid or stiff body at all as alleged by various experts like FEMA, NIST, Bazant, Seffen, etc. What you see on all videos is that the upper part is broken into pieces before anything happens at the initiation zone and below! Not very rigid, to say the least.

A broken, upper part consisting of many small pieces cannot then initiate further damage incl. global collapse of the total building!

The mystery is of course why the intact, upper part breaks up before initiation of the collapse down below! The upper part was not damaged! It was only full of smoke from the fire below. It is a pity that FEMA, NIST & Co did not use their eyes when looking at all these videos.

Architect · 27th February 2008, 01:08 AM

Originally Posted by Heiwa

A broken, upper part consisting of many small pieces cannot then initiate further damage incl. global collapse of the total building!

Oh my goodness, how incredibly wrong you are. Clearly Ronan Point means nothing to you, and that's just for starters.

Seriously, you need to start studying structural engineering and building fabric failure before you make an even bigger fool of yourself. Here's a book which most second year architecture students study in the UK as part of their basic structures course:

http://www2.wwnorton.com/catalog/fall01/031152.htm

Maybe when you've started to understand how to properly analyse building failures we can consider things like the progressive collapse requirements within the Eurocodes and other technical documents which those of us in this field use and understand.

Quote:

The mystery is of course why the intact, upper part breaks up before initiation of the collapse down below! The upper part was not damaged! It was only full of smoke from the fire below. It is a pity that FEMA, NIST & Co did not use their eyes when looking at all these videos.

Logic is taking a holiday, I see.

e^n · 27th February 2008, 03:10 AM

Originally Posted by Heiwa

Anybody can call himself an engineer but I have never met a structural engineer.

Your lack of awareness that this field of engineering even exists should be enough evidence that you are not qualified in it and should revise your statements. I find it hard to believe you have sat the relevant courses and been educated in the appropriate stuff without anyone ever mentioning 'structural engineers'.

Originally Posted by Heiwa

BTW - have you found any specific errors in my WTC analysis for children on my web site? Just copy/paste the relevant part with your comments and we can have a serious discussion.

Sure, so far I haven't seen you defend anything on that page but a quick look reveals you to be trying to calculate failure in pure compression, which is not what happened. You should revise your theory to include the action of a 6kips inward pull and potentially greater heating of the columns than you had previously specified.

Heiwa · 27th February 2008, 05:33 AM

Originally Posted by e^n

Sure, so far I haven't seen you defend anything on that page but a quick look reveals you to be trying to calculate failure in pure compression, which is not what happened. You should revise your theory to include the action of a 6kips inward pull and potentially greater heating of the columns than you had previously specified.

6 kips inward pull? Greater heating of the columns? But that is, if it happened, before initiation and up in the initiation zone and allowing the whole upper block to drop free fall (the initiation) ... causing alleged pure compression of the intact structure below.

Or according Seffen - that the potential energy released by the mass above - the upper block - resulted in dynamical "over-loading" (he must mean compression) of the undamaged lower columns by a factor of 30 (!) compared to their static load capacity at impact and transmits it to the structure below and shakes it into pieces.

There was no inward pull or heating of the structure below. It could only be compressed ... and according my calculations the result would just be a bump, compression, and then ... springing back again.

I got the idea when my grandchildren were jumping in my bed.

You see - the static load capacity of the bed before impact is zero! There is no static load on it! The 'hammer' has not yet hit. You cannot compare a dynamic load with zero static load!

And when I look at the videos I see that the upper block of WTC1 is breaking up before it touches the structure below. Funny impact! Don't you see the tower exploding after that? It is not a gravity driven collapse you see.

Please, copy/paste any sentence in my article and point out what is wrong ... if you can find any? That's the music! I am just the piano player.

westprog · 27th February 2008, 06:07 AM

Originally Posted by Minadin

Why on earth would you try to use Kilowatt-hours to describe the energy? Why not use KCal or something equally irrelevent? Electron-volts anyone?

I converted the Kilowatt-hours value (http://www.onlineconversion.com/energy.htm) and it gave the equivalent of detonating 0.29 tons of explosives. That's not proof in itself, (and it doesn't give the units) but I would not class that as a negligible quantity. I don't find it implausible that that would cause some degree of structural damage.

e^n · 27th February 2008, 06:16 AM

Originally Posted by Heiwa

6 kips inward pull? Greater heating of the columns? But that is, if it happened, before initiation and up in the initiation zone and allowing the whole upper block to drop free fall (the initiation) ... causing alleged pure compression of the intact structure below.

Indeed, it causes the block to rotate towards the area affected most by the inward pull (as that is the first wall to fail)

Originally Posted by Heiwa

There was no inward pull or heating of the structure below. It could only be compressed ... and according my calculations the result would just be a bump, compression, and then ... springing back again.

Assuming the upper block rotates, one would assume that the floors were impacted more than the columns, these are only designed to resist a small amount of weight and can not possibly resist the mass above.

Originally Posted by Heiwa

You see - the static load capacity of the bed before impact is zero! There is no static load on it! The 'hammer' has not yet hit. You cannot compare a dynamic load with zero static load!

I am not attempting to.

Originally Posted by Heiwa

And when I look at the videos I see that the upper block of WTC1 is breaking up before it touches the structure below. Funny impact! Don't you see the tower exploding after that? It is not a gravity driven collapse you see.

The only videos which satisfy this claim would be those of the north side of WTC1. There are other sources unfortunately that show this is not the case.

Originally Posted by Heiwa

Please, copy/paste any sentence in my article and point out what is wrong ... if you can find any? That's the music! I am just the piano player.

Sure, this is completely wrong:

Originally Posted by Heiwa's site

The destruction of the upper block before it reaches or impinges on the intact structure below simply means that the upper block is not rigid and that its potential energy is split in 1000's of small parts that cannot impact on the solid intact tower steel structure below and destroy the latter.

Regardless of the rigidity of the upper block it will accelerate due to gravity at the same rate, i have explained above why it will impact the floors and it is quite clear the amount of energy involved is easily enough to sever floor connections. Steel recovered from the building shows evidence of this with truss seats being bent downwards below the initiation point.

You don't seem to want to argue specifics, only claim you are right and you cannot be proven wrong, well if you do not understand the upper blocks of both towers rotated then you are wrong I am afraid.

Apollo20 · 27th February 2008, 06:26 AM

Heiwa:

Please look at the video frames at this site:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid...se_frames.html

Now first note that this view is from the north and the upper block is tipping to the south so some of the apparent drop of the upper block is actually the top tipping away from the camera...

Nevertheless, sure, the upper block also appears to be compressing, but frame 12 which is over 3 seconds after collapse initiation clearly shows the top section of the upper block looking intact and totally undamaged. Thus you cannot claim, (as you do), that "the upper part is broken into pieces ..."

The area where the collapse initiates is the 98th floor and this is totally obscured by smoke and debris just a few seconds into the collapse. This is undoubtedly where both crush-down AND crush-up are occurring - we just can't see it - but, as I said above, we still can see an intact upper section to our "hammer"!

funk de fino · 27th February 2008, 06:30 AM

Are you sure about the following statement in your paper?

Originally Posted by Heiwa paper

In the WTCs no structure was heated >500°C at any time according NIST even if the fire proofing were missing.

Looks like a little porkie pie to me

Belz... · 27th February 2008, 07:01 AM

Originally Posted by Heiwa

You see - the static load capacity of the bed before impact is zero! There is no static load on it! The 'hammer' has not yet hit. You cannot compare a dynamic load with zero static load!

Doesn't "zero static load" means you're not bearing any weight ?

rwguinn · 27th February 2008, 07:23 AM

Originally Posted by Belz...

Doesn't "zero static load" means you're not bearing any weight ?

It's amazing! He needs to apply for the $1,000,000 immediately.
His structures and buildings do not weigh anything until they start moving!

And load capacity is always zero!

Sheesh. I cannot say what an

this guy is...
Do you think he is capable of learning the difference between capacity and actual?

Panoply_Prefect · 27th February 2008, 08:14 AM

Again Heiwa, you left Architect, and others, hanging in this thread:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=101791&page=8

You asked for criticism of your article and was given such in that thread, then you left. I wonder why.

26th February 2008, 04:26 AM	#441
westprog Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,928	Originally Posted by Heiwa You missed it, of course. http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist1.htm#7 may get you started! Quote: When 33 000 tons of mass above in WTC1 falls down 3.7 metres due to gravity and crushes all the columns abt 340 kWh of energy is produced by gravity. Thanks, that's what I was looking for.
westprog Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,928

26th February 2008, 08:16 AM	#442
Minadin Hiding his Head in the Sane Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 2,473	Why on earth would you try to use Kilowatt-hours to describe the energy? Why not use KCal or something equally irrelevent? Electron-volts anyone?
	__________________ Do not seek the truth, only cease to cherish your opinions. If you understand, things are just as they are; if you do not understand, things are just as they are. Support the democratic freedom of the people of Iran.

26th February 2008, 08:27 AM	#443
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: In a world lit only by fire. Posts: 17,894	Just stick to the truth movement unit of choice: pounds of HMX equivalent. Dave
	__________________ "We will punish the murderer together. Our punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance and more democracy." - Fabian Stang, Mayor of Oslo SSKCAS, covert member

26th February 2008, 09:05 AM	#444
Apollo20 Banned Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 1,426	Engineers should be the last people on earth to complain about units! Especially North American engineers! Fahrenheit, Btu, horsepower, gallons, psi, slugs,..... good grief!
Apollo20 Banned Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 1,426

26th February 2008, 09:11 AM	#445
Disbelief Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 2,272	Originally Posted by Apollo20 Engineers should be the last people on earth to complain about units! Especially North American engineers! Fahrenheit, Btu, horsepower, gallons, psi, slugs,..... good grief! As long as you use relevant units, you're ok. The reason there are so many units, is that there are many different ways to approach and solve a problem. we just like to cover our bases. Besides, we have to come up with real world applications for all the crazy theoretical stuff the scientists blab about.
Disbelief Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 2,272	__________________ Zensmack (LastChild, Laughing Assassin, RazetheFlag, Wastrel, TruthbyDecree) - Working his way up the sock puppet chain, trying to overtake P'Doh. Or, are they the same? Quote me where I said conspiracists use evidence. - mchapman

26th February 2008, 09:11 AM	#446
rwguinn Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes Posts: 8,416	Originally Posted by Minadin Why on earth would you try to use Kilowatt-hours to describe the energy? Why not use KCal or something equally irrelevent? Electron-volts anyone? For the same reason some idiot vendor gave me torque gradient in (I kid you not) milligram millimeters/degree I'm a 'NAmericun. anna ninjaneer. Even I know that's wrong...
	__________________ "Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." "I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275

26th February 2008, 09:13 AM	#447
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: In a world lit only by fire. Posts: 17,894	Originally Posted by Apollo20 Engineers should be the last people on earth to complain about units! Especially North American engineers! I've been a bit nervous about asking this, because the implications are too horrible to contemplate, but... I've seen steel strength rated in KSI on this forum and elsewhere. Does that really stand for what I think it stands for? Dave
	__________________ "We will punish the murderer together. Our punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance and more democracy." - Fabian Stang, Mayor of Oslo SSKCAS, covert member

26th February 2008, 09:19 AM	#448
rwguinn Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes Posts: 8,416	Originally Posted by Dave Rogers I've been a bit nervous about asking this, because the implications are too horrible to contemplate, but... I've seen steel strength rated in KSI on this forum and elsewhere. Does that really stand for what I think it stands for? Dave [ mode. Flame suit=On} Not everything metric is bad. The use of Kilo for 1000 is a good thing. Yes, a Kilopound is 1000 lbf. It is much easier to write, and for management to read, 48.7 KSI than it is to write 48700 psi, and muchpetter than 3.27E8 Pa. The Pa is a unit so small as to be worthless.... Although finance wienies keep wanting to use M for 1000
	__________________ "Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." "I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275

26th February 2008, 09:27 AM	#449
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details... Posts: 28,397	Originally Posted by Apollo20 Engineers should be the last people on earth to complain about units! Especially North American engineers! Fahrenheit, Btu, horsepower, gallons, psi, slugs,..... good grief! Translation: "I hate all engineers because I know a few of them that I don't like."
	__________________ The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za: "In the interests of time and space, it is not unreasonable to cite one point at a time. Citing 30 is the equivalent of citing none. Obviously." - Robert Prey "Physical evidence must be observed and interpreted by witnesses which makes it subjective and subject to mistakes and to fraud." - Robert Prey

26th February 2008, 09:29 AM	#450
rwguinn Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes Posts: 8,416	Originally Posted by Belz... Translation: "I hate all engineers because I know a few of them that I don't like." "And because they call me on it when I let emotions override analysis"
	__________________ "Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." "I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275

26th February 2008, 09:42 AM	#451
Minadin Hiding his Head in the Sane Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 2,473	KSI = Kips per square inch. A "kip" = 1,000 lbs. Short for Kilo-pound as Rwguinn mentioned. When we're doing heavy stuff it's easier to just drop all those extra zeros. You do basically the same thing when you don't weigh yourself in ounces.
	__________________ Do not seek the truth, only cease to cherish your opinions. If you understand, things are just as they are; if you do not understand, things are just as they are. Support the democratic freedom of the people of Iran.

26th February 2008, 09:46 AM	#452
Apollo20 Banned Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 1,426	I throw a fish to the sharks and out they come! So predictable, ....... like Pavlov's dog!
Apollo20 Banned Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 1,426

26th February 2008, 09:50 AM	#453
Minadin Hiding his Head in the Sane Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 2,473	Originally Posted by Apollo20 Engineers should be the last people on earth to complain about units! Especially North American engineers! Fahrenheit, Btu, horsepower, gallons, psi, slugs,..... good grief! By the by, I'm not an engineer. That should be clear from this thread. And, I'm well-schooled in the use of SI / metric units thanks to some European university training. So I can complain about units as much as I want then, right? Is fish-throwing a major sport in Canada or . . .
	__________________ Do not seek the truth, only cease to cherish your opinions. If you understand, things are just as they are; if you do not understand, things are just as they are. Support the democratic freedom of the people of Iran.

26th February 2008, 09:57 AM	#454
Apollo20 Banned Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 1,426	Minadin: You're NOT an engineer! Congratulations! Fish-throwing? Well only at engineers, politicians, lawyers and other such varmints!
Apollo20 Banned Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 1,426

26th February 2008, 10:11 AM	#455
rwguinn Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes Posts: 8,416	Originally Posted by Minadin ....? Is fish-throwing a major sport in Canada or . . . Only during the winter, which lasts from August 12 through July 9
	__________________ "Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." "I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275

26th February 2008, 10:19 AM	#456
ElMondoHummus 0.25 short of being half-witted Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole Posts: 11,938	When'd this digress into a Lew Zealand thread?
	__________________ must take this very carefully....booze is wise men's drink..... -pillory "... I'm quite willing to have everyone use my rejection of the 9/11 conspiracy theory as a basis for assessing my intelligence, judgment, and trustworthiness" -Prof. Ann Althouse

26th February 2008, 10:48 AM	#457
Heiwa Banned Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,149	Originally Posted by e^n This certainly makes you an engineer, but not a structural engineer. You could get in extremely serious trouble for claiming such a thing in the US as you are representing yourself as having training and experience which you do not. I am glad at least that you admit as much despite your rambling attempt at rationalisation. Anybody can call himself an engineer but I have never met a structural engineer. Structures are just parts of various fields of engineering and I happen to know a little about steel structures - beams, pilllars, plates, etc, put together that happen to become a floating structure of some kind. And the loads put on these structures. And how the structures behave due to these loads. And how damaged structures behave to same loads. Floating structures are often damaged and are thus analyzed - why? How? Very interesting. Cause, effect, you know! Steel buildings on land are rarely damaged and it seems there is a great lack of expertize in that field of analysis, particularly in the USA. To suggest, without any evidence like Nist does, that a steel structure tower collapsed due to release of potential energy (gravity) (in turn caused by fires) that exceeded the strain energy of the structure is infantile nonsense. You need more energy than just gravity to demolish the WTCs' steel structure. BTW - have you found any specific errors in my WTC analysis for children on my web site? Just copy/paste the relevant part with your comments and we can have a serious discussion.
Heiwa Banned Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,149

26th February 2008, 10:55 AM	#458
Minadin Hiding his Head in the Sane Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 2,473	Not just anyone can call himself an engineer here in the USA. You have to have a certain amount of education with a professional degree from an accredited engineering school, a pass the professional engineer's exam in your selected field, if I'm not mistaken. You don't believe in structural engineers? That they exist?
	__________________ Do not seek the truth, only cease to cherish your opinions. If you understand, things are just as they are; if you do not understand, things are just as they are. Support the democratic freedom of the people of Iran.

26th February 2008, 10:59 AM	#459
Architect Chief Punkah Wallah Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: UK Posts: 8,477	Originally Posted by Heiwa Anybody can call himself an engineer but I have never met a structural engineer. Structures are just parts of various fields of engineering I'm sure that the IStructE will just love to hear that. Have you contacted them? Originally Posted by Heiwa I happen to know a little about steel structures Correct Originally Posted by Heiwa Steel buildings on land are rarely damaged and it seems there is a great lack of expertize in that field of analysis, particularly in the USA. To suggest, without any evidence like Nist does, that a steel structure tower collapsed due to release of potential energy (gravity) (in turn caused by fires) that exceeded the strain energy of the structure is infantile nonsense. You need more energy than just gravity to demolish the WTCs' steel structure. Wrong Quote: BTW - have you found any specific errors in my WTC analysis for children on my web site? Just copy/paste the relevant part with your comments and we can have a serious discussion. It's been done. You just ignored it.
	__________________ When the men elected to make laws are but a small part of a foreign parliament, that is when all healthy national feeling dies. James Keir Hardie (1856 - 1915): Politician, Founder of Scottish Labour Party Last edited by Architect; 26th February 2008 at 11:00 AM.

26th February 2008, 11:02 AM	#460
Architect Chief Punkah Wallah Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: UK Posts: 8,477	Originally Posted by Minadin Not just anyone can call himself an engineer here in the USA. You have to have a certain amount of education with a professional degree from an accredited engineering school, a pass the professional engineer's exam in your selected field, if I'm not mistaken. You don't believe in structural engineers? That they exist? http://www.istructe.org/index.asp?bhcp=1
	__________________ When the men elected to make laws are but a small part of a foreign parliament, that is when all healthy national feeling dies. James Keir Hardie (1856 - 1915): Politician, Founder of Scottish Labour Party

26th February 2008, 11:07 AM	#461
rwguinn Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes Posts: 8,416	Originally Posted by Architect I'm sure that the IStructE will just love to hear that. Have you contacted them? Correct Wrong It's been done. You just ignored it. Will you stop with the entrenched in reality stuff? Have you no imagination? (Did I just ask that of an architect? Oh, crud!) and one might inform heiwa that pasting complete articles gets you a naughty-gram from the mods and the removal of the offending cut-and-paste--so we can't paste what's wrong with his "for children" Bull...
	__________________ "Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." "I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275

26th February 2008, 11:26 AM	#462
Panoply_Prefect Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Sweden Posts: 1,075	Originally Posted by Heiwa BTW - have you found any specific errors in my WTC analysis for children on my web site? Just copy/paste the relevant part with your comments and we can have a serious discussion. Might I perhaps respectfully remind of this here thread: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=101791&page=8

26th February 2008, 12:04 PM	#463
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details... Posts: 28,397	Originally Posted by Heiwa Anybody can call himself an engineer but I have never met a structural engineer. Well, I've never met a truther. There.
	__________________ The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za: "In the interests of time and space, it is not unreasonable to cite one point at a time. Citing 30 is the equivalent of citing none. Obviously." - Robert Prey "Physical evidence must be observed and interpreted by witnesses which makes it subjective and subject to mistakes and to fraud." - Robert Prey

26th February 2008, 01:54 PM	#464
sts60 Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 1,523	Originally Posted by Minadin Not just anyone can call himself an engineer here in the USA. You have to have a certain amount of education with a professional degree from an accredited engineering school, a pass the professional engineer's exam in your selected field, if I'm not mistaken. Not quite. In aerospace, for example, most of us don't take the PE exam. It's basically not a factor in this field. It's much more important for structural engineers involved in buildings (as opposed to the "structures guys" in aerospace), and for engineering consultants like you'd see in the Yellow Pages.
sts60 Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 1,523

26th February 2008, 02:02 PM	#465
rwguinn Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes Posts: 8,416	Originally Posted by sts60 Not quite. In aerospace, for example, most of us don't take the PE exam. It's basically not a factor in this field. It's much more important for structural engineers involved in buildings (as opposed to the "structures guys" in aerospace), and for engineering consultants like you'd see in the Yellow Pages. I resemble that. I did get my PE when I was caught up in my first lay-off in 1991. But you cannot legally offer your services to the general public as an engineer without the PE. You can also offer service to an employer, in an engineering capacity, where it is generally understood that a PE is not a requirement but an engineering degree and/or experience are. Very fine distinction, and probably not even above the noise level for most people, but once the lawyers get involved...
	__________________ "Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." "I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275 Last edited by rwguinn; 26th February 2008 at 02:03 PM. Reason: that didn't make any sense...

26th February 2008, 02:10 PM	#466
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,635	Originally Posted by Apollo20 Engineers should be the last people on earth to complain about units! Especially North American engineers! Fahrenheit, Btu, horsepower, gallons, psi, slugs,..... good grief! You love them. You just don't understand them. Have you always been challenged with math? It probably accounts for your dislike. Someday you may be able to work them out. Good luck with your education.

26th February 2008, 02:16 PM	#467
rwguinn Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes Posts: 8,416	Originally Posted by tsig You love them. You just don't understand them. Have you always been challenged with math? It probably accounts for your dislike. Someday you may be able to work them out. Good luck with your education. Ouch...
	__________________ "Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." "I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275

26th February 2008, 02:45 PM	#468
Corsair 115 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Tranquility Base Posts: 8,550	Originally Posted by Apollo20 I throw a fish to the sharks and out they come! So predictable, ....... like Pavlov's dog! From what I've seen, you are equally as predictable.
	__________________ "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win."

26th February 2008, 02:48 PM	#469
Architect Chief Punkah Wallah Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: UK Posts: 8,477	Calm down, you three.
	__________________ When the men elected to make laws are but a small part of a foreign parliament, that is when all healthy national feeling dies. James Keir Hardie (1856 - 1915): Politician, Founder of Scottish Labour Party

27th February 2008, 12:30 AM	#470
Heiwa Banned Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,149	Originally Posted by Minadin Why on earth would you try to use Kilowatt-hours to describe the energy? Why not use KCal or something equally irrelevent? Electron-volts anyone? If you read my article you find that I use Joule (J) for energy and translated it into kWh for easy understanding (I write for children), e.g. that the given amount (340 kWh) was similar to burning 40 litres of diesel oil in an engine to pull the top part of WTC1 back in position! Evidently I do not believe that the WTC1 upper part above the initiation zone fell free fall as a rigid or stiff body at all as alleged by various experts like FEMA, NIST, Bazant, Seffen, etc. What you see on all videos is that the upper part is broken into pieces before anything happens at the initiation zone and below! Not very rigid, to say the least. A broken, upper part consisting of many small pieces cannot then initiate further damage incl. global collapse of the total building! The mystery is of course why the intact, upper part breaks up before initiation of the collapse down below! The upper part was not damaged! It was only full of smoke from the fire below. It is a pity that FEMA, NIST & Co did not use their eyes when looking at all these videos.
Heiwa Banned Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,149

27th February 2008, 01:08 AM	#471
Architect Chief Punkah Wallah Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: UK Posts: 8,477	Originally Posted by Heiwa A broken, upper part consisting of many small pieces cannot then initiate further damage incl. global collapse of the total building! Oh my goodness, how incredibly wrong you are. Clearly Ronan Point means nothing to you, and that's just for starters. Seriously, you need to start studying structural engineering and building fabric failure before you make an even bigger fool of yourself. Here's a book which most second year architecture students study in the UK as part of their basic structures course: http://www2.wwnorton.com/catalog/fall01/031152.htm Maybe when you've started to understand how to properly analyse building failures we can consider things like the progressive collapse requirements within the Eurocodes and other technical documents which those of us in this field use and understand. Quote: The mystery is of course why the intact, upper part breaks up before initiation of the collapse down below! The upper part was not damaged! It was only full of smoke from the fire below. It is a pity that FEMA, NIST & Co did not use their eyes when looking at all these videos. Logic is taking a holiday, I see.
	__________________ When the men elected to make laws are but a small part of a foreign parliament, that is when all healthy national feeling dies. James Keir Hardie (1856 - 1915): Politician, Founder of Scottish Labour Party Last edited by Architect; 27th February 2008 at 01:09 AM.

27th February 2008, 03:10 AM	#472
e^n Muse Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 810	Originally Posted by Heiwa Anybody can call himself an engineer but I have never met a structural engineer. Your lack of awareness that this field of engineering even exists should be enough evidence that you are not qualified in it and should revise your statements. I find it hard to believe you have sat the relevant courses and been educated in the appropriate stuff without anyone ever mentioning 'structural engineers'. Originally Posted by Heiwa BTW - have you found any specific errors in my WTC analysis for children on my web site? Just copy/paste the relevant part with your comments and we can have a serious discussion. Sure, so far I haven't seen you defend anything on that page but a quick look reveals you to be trying to calculate failure in pure compression, which is not what happened. You should revise your theory to include the action of a 6kips inward pull and potentially greater heating of the columns than you had previously specified.
e^n Muse Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 810	__________________ Conspiracy Theorist Correspondent, Panic Watch!

27th February 2008, 05:33 AM	#473
Heiwa Banned Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,149	Originally Posted by e^n Sure, so far I haven't seen you defend anything on that page but a quick look reveals you to be trying to calculate failure in pure compression, which is not what happened. You should revise your theory to include the action of a 6kips inward pull and potentially greater heating of the columns than you had previously specified. 6 kips inward pull? Greater heating of the columns? But that is, if it happened, before initiation and up in the initiation zone and allowing the whole upper block to drop free fall (the initiation) ... causing alleged pure compression of the intact structure below. Or according Seffen - that the potential energy released by the mass above - the upper block - resulted in dynamical "over-loading" (he must mean compression) of the undamaged lower columns by a factor of 30 (!) compared to their static load capacity at impact and transmits it to the structure below and shakes it into pieces. There was no inward pull or heating of the structure below. It could only be compressed ... and according my calculations the result would just be a bump, compression, and then ... springing back again. I got the idea when my grandchildren were jumping in my bed. You see - the static load capacity of the bed before impact is zero! There is no static load on it! The 'hammer' has not yet hit. You cannot compare a dynamic load with zero static load! And when I look at the videos I see that the upper block of WTC1 is breaking up before it touches the structure below. Funny impact! Don't you see the tower exploding after that? It is not a gravity driven collapse you see. Please, copy/paste any sentence in my article and point out what is wrong ... if you can find any? That's the music! I am just the piano player.
Heiwa Banned Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,149	Last edited by Heiwa; 27th February 2008 at 05:38 AM.

27th February 2008, 06:07 AM	#474
westprog Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,928	Originally Posted by Minadin Why on earth would you try to use Kilowatt-hours to describe the energy? Why not use KCal or something equally irrelevent? Electron-volts anyone? I converted the Kilowatt-hours value (http://www.onlineconversion.com/energy.htm) and it gave the equivalent of detonating 0.29 tons of explosives. That's not proof in itself, (and it doesn't give the units) but I would not class that as a negligible quantity. I don't find it implausible that that would cause some degree of structural damage.
westprog Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,928

27th February 2008, 06:16 AM	#475
e^n Muse Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 810	Originally Posted by Heiwa 6 kips inward pull? Greater heating of the columns? But that is, if it happened, before initiation and up in the initiation zone and allowing the whole upper block to drop free fall (the initiation) ... causing alleged pure compression of the intact structure below. Indeed, it causes the block to rotate towards the area affected most by the inward pull (as that is the first wall to fail) Originally Posted by Heiwa There was no inward pull or heating of the structure below. It could only be compressed ... and according my calculations the result would just be a bump, compression, and then ... springing back again. Assuming the upper block rotates, one would assume that the floors were impacted more than the columns, these are only designed to resist a small amount of weight and can not possibly resist the mass above. Originally Posted by Heiwa You see - the static load capacity of the bed before impact is zero! There is no static load on it! The 'hammer' has not yet hit. You cannot compare a dynamic load with zero static load! I am not attempting to. Originally Posted by Heiwa And when I look at the videos I see that the upper block of WTC1 is breaking up before it touches the structure below. Funny impact! Don't you see the tower exploding after that? It is not a gravity driven collapse you see. The only videos which satisfy this claim would be those of the north side of WTC1. There are other sources unfortunately that show this is not the case. Originally Posted by Heiwa Please, copy/paste any sentence in my article and point out what is wrong ... if you can find any? That's the music! I am just the piano player. Sure, this is completely wrong: Originally Posted by Heiwa's site The destruction of the upper block before it reaches or impinges on the intact structure below simply means that the upper block is not rigid and that its potential energy is split in 1000's of small parts that cannot impact on the solid intact tower steel structure below and destroy the latter. Regardless of the rigidity of the upper block it will accelerate due to gravity at the same rate, i have explained above why it will impact the floors and it is quite clear the amount of energy involved is easily enough to sever floor connections. Steel recovered from the building shows evidence of this with truss seats being bent downwards below the initiation point. You don't seem to want to argue specifics, only claim you are right and you cannot be proven wrong, well if you do not understand the upper blocks of both towers rotated then you are wrong I am afraid.
e^n Muse Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 810	__________________ Conspiracy Theorist Correspondent, Panic Watch!