An email from a Conspiracy theorist, and I have no idea how

[maccy]

Offshore structures are generally welded together at very high temperatures/melting the adajcent parts under very controlled conditions and will not collapse due to fire or heat from a fire. Reason is that the welded connections will not be ripped apart due to fire. Structural parts, eg trusses or colums, between welded connections may deform due to fire/heat and loads on top but deformation will just lead to new equilibriums - never sudden collapse. Same for WTC2 albeit some connections were not welded but bolted or rivetted together. Some connections between floors/columns were aparently damaged after the initial explosion in WTC2 but afterwards heat could never have dislodged the floors/trusses from the columns. Everything would be kept together - albeit deformed or sagged - preventing sudden collapse. Strutural collapse is not a risk when fires occur and that is why no steel scyscraper or offshore installation for that matter has ever totally collapsed due fire/heat. Except WTC1,2 and 7.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_Alpha

If you're interested in the truth, why are you lying?

ETA:
http://home.versatel.nl/the_sims/rig/adriatic4.htm
http://home.versatel.nl/the_sims/rig/enchova.htm

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Let me try this again.

Let’s deal with this as a purely hypothetical scenario.

you have a multi story building with a floor to ceiling height of 13 feet. The floor slabs act to pin the exterior columns in place. The critical buckling load of a single floor to ceiling span of exterior column is given as X. If two adjacent floors begin to sag, or become disconnected so that they no longer serve to pin the column in place, what will be the critical buckling load for the resulting three story, un-pinned, column span?

Are there any shipbuilding, structural engineers out there that can answer my question?

Any trwooothers at all that can answer my question?

 

[BillyRayValentine]

Of course the structural analysis of intact and damaged structure is the same...

As would be the structural analysis of a tool shed, apparently.

You are most definitely not a structural engineer. Not even close.

To assume that all 600 + truss/floors connections to the columns suddenly burst due to heat (and load re-distribution?) in the damaged area is preposterous as the load on the trusses/floors was minimal and could not rip apart the connections, even if heated. But the outer walls were not particularly heated as they were cooled by the brisk breeze blowing outside.

And what was the temperature inside? It appears NYFD staff arrived to damaged floors through the core area and reported some minor, isolated fires, easy to handle.

They thus walked on the floors/trusses in the core area and observed no sagging there ... and that evidently the core columns were intact. I like that.

What disturbes me is the sudden collapse of the core. In my view it could only have been caused by controlled demolition.

You have a completely botched understanding of the NIST report. And your comments about minor fires and cooling breezes are mind-numbingly stupid.

Shoo.

 

[Belz...]

It would appear that some floors sagged on the WCT2 east wall due to the initial impact and that then no more floors sagged.

Sagging due to impact ? Not heat ?

And the tower was standing.

Not for long, it wasn't.

There is no evidence that the floors later started to sag or became disconnected from the columns due to heat.

Who said anything about disconnecting ? The floors sagged and PULLED on the perimeter columns. There's plenty of pictures and videos where this is evident.

And of course - even a sagged floor provides support as long as it is connected to the columns.

Not if it breaks the columns in the process.

The floors, BTW, were not subject to much load!

Doesn't matter. THEY were doing the pulling.

It is a pity that the forensic examination of the core columns was so sloppy = non-existing.

Right.

To assume that all 600 + truss/floors connections to the columns suddenly burst due to heat (and load re-distribution?) in the damaged area is preposterous

Who said anything about "suddenly".

What disturbes me is the sudden collapse of the core. In my view it could only have been caused by controlled demolition.

Sudden ? It collapsed AFTER the building came down. AFTER. How is that "sudden" ?

 

[stateofgrace]

Offshore structures are generally welded together at very high temperatures/melting the adajcent parts under very controlled conditions and will not collapse due to fire or heat from a fire. Reason is that the welded connections will not be ripped apart due to fire.

Really?

You have claimed to be an offshore structural engineer, you have claimed to be in charge of offshore structures, you have claimed that fires will not collapse offshore steel structures.

I have trainees working under me, one has been offshore for less than a week and he knows more about the dangers of fires out here than you do. Tell me , is it now safe to start smoking in the exclusions zones? I take it you do know what the exclusion zone is,do you ? Every man and his dog knows about it, it is drilled into every single offshore worker, what do you understand it to be ?

 

[Gravy]

So now there are two offshore drilling rig engineers who are 9/11 deniers and who know diddley-squat about the towers?

Or is this new one Charles Pegelow (I haven't read the whole thread)?

Either way, just pathetic.

Edit: after reading a few of his posts, it seems that Heiwa thinks that NIST subscribes to the pancake theory of collapse initiation. Heiwa, if this is so, you really have a lot of reading to do.

Also, you should really read this page:
Accounts of structural instability in the Twin Towers, Bowing of columns, Collapse expected

Finally, in case no one has informed you, the controlled demoliton theory is suitable only for incompetents, liars, and idiots.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Hey, Heiwa, or can I call you Chuck? Are you still working for Fulton?

Give it up, you aren’t impressing anyone here.


edit, damnit Gravy, you beat me to it.

 

[Panoply_Prefect]

So now there are two offshore drilling rig engineers who are 9/11 deniers and who know diddley-squat about the towers?

Or is this new one Charles Pegelow (I haven't read the whole thread)?

Hey, Heiwa, or can I call you Chuck? Are you still working for Fulton?

Give it up, you aren’t impressing anyone here.


edit, damnit Gravy, you beat me to it.

Heiwa's homepage can be found here:

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/

and his CV is here:

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


He subscribes not only to the "North of Citgo"-theory of Merc and Lyte, but also the "No plane hit the Twin Towers" as proposed by in the videoanalyses of "Socialworker".

Just to get a tad of background. But yes, as far as I can tell he actually is a Naval Architect and Marine Engineer.

Oh, and welcome Heiwa - now I dont have to ask you to translate your calculations anymore, you can just post them yourself!

Cheers,
SLOB

 

[Heiwa]

Who said anything about disconnecting ? The floors sagged and PULLED on the perimeter columns. There's plenty of pictures and videos where this is evident.

Aha - the floors sagged (due to heat) and pulled the perimeter columns inward. But it is not possible! There is no weight on the floor except it own weight and 20 kgs/m² of furniture, etc above.

No, the sagging floor cannot pull the perimeter columns inward. Only where one floor was disconnected (by the explosion) on the east wall, the floor sagged a little and the perimeter columns deformed inwards ... and rested then against the floor. It was a stable condition.

But these are minor details. The big question is why the NIST engineers, after writing 1000+ pages of the intact structure and the fires seen in various locations, just concluded what they wrote on one page ... as quoted previously but I repeat:

"Buckling of East Wall and Collapse Initiation

With continuously increased (sic) bowing and axial loads, the entire width of the east wall buckled inward. The instability started at the center of the wall and rapidly (sic) progressed horizontally towards the sides. As a result of the buckling of the east wall, the east wall significantly unloaded, redistributing its load to the softened core through the hat truss and to the south and north walls through the spandrels ( …). The section of the tower above the buckled wall suddenly moved downward, and the building tilted to the east ( …).

The section of the building above the impact zone tilted to the east and south (observed at about 7° to 8° to east and about 3° to 4° to south, …) as column instability progressed from the east wall to the adjacent south and north walls. The release of potential energy due to downward movement of the building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure. Global collapse ensued (sic)."

Actually, we only see the deformed east wall - no buckled, only deformed columns - on some photos/videos but not the rest. Rapid (? - when) progressive deformation of the east wall sideways?? No evidence at all. And collapse of the perimeter columns of the north and south walls as a consequence and load re-distrbution? No evidence. And it is not even possible. The redistribution of load is too small and it should take much longer time if it was possible! The suggestions are inventions. But why do the NIST engineers invent them?

Probably because they were very afraid of stating what we all see on the videos; that all the 47 core columns - occupying or rather supporting 50% of the tower - are giving way simultaneously prior to anything happening at the east wall, and they cannot explain that ... or would not admit that it is only possible by controlled demolition.

Easier to invent something. Like the battered wife that will not report the person beating her - the husband. She just walked into a door and the east wall fell down ... and the complete house with it. Both agree. And the neighbours.

Heiwa

PS Please avoid personal insults when answering as they just upset you and damage your health or what is left of it. Calm down!

 

[Gravy]

Of course - but the structural analysis is the same.

Argument from personal incredulity is not structural analysis, Heiwa.

 

[Heiwa]

Heiwa's homepage can be found here:

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/

and his CV is here:

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


He subscribes not only to the "North of Citgo"-theory of Merc and Lyte, but also the "No plane hit the Twin Towers" as proposed by in the videoanalyses of "Socialworker".

Just to get a tad of background. But yes, as far as I can tell he actually is a Naval Architect and Marine Engineer.

Oh, and welcome Heiwa - now I dont have to ask you to translate your calculations anymore, you can just post them yourself!

Cheers,
SLOB

SLOB is slightly wrong - referring to different theories in a discussion (sic - is it?) does not necessarily mean subscribing to them. It just shows there are differences of opinions. But subscribers to other theories seem to get upset and sick. I always wonder why.

Enjoy my home page. If you find any errors there, pls send me a (polite) line and I will correct.

 

[Gravy]

Aha - the floors sagged (due to heat) and pulled the perimeter columns inward.

See, you should have known NIST's conclusion, which is backed by a mountain of evidence, before you attempted to critique NIST's conclusion.

PS Please avoid personal insults when answering as they just upset you and damage your health or what is left of it. Calm down!

It is you who needs to calm down and become informed about the subject you are attempting to argue.

If you want to study the problems and produce your own scholarly analysis, your work will be welcomed. If you can produce informed criticism of the NIST and other WTC engineering reports, and can back your statements with evidence, your work will be welcomed. Your arguments from incredulity are not welcome.

When an engineer disrespects and ignores professional standards, I will not be nice. Get used to it if you're going to continue posting in this fashion.

 

[Gravy]

SLOB is slightly wrong - referring to different theories in a discussion (sic - is it?) does not necessarily mean subscribing to them. It just shows there are differences of opinions. But subscribers to other theories seem to get upset and sick. I always wonder why.

Enjoy my home page. If you find any errors there, pls send me a (polite) line and I will correct.

Do you believe that airliners hit the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania on 9/11?

 

[ref]

Sigh, now we have this Estonia conspiracy guy here. Well, I guess everyone is welcome here.. so welcome.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

A hypothetical scenario

you have a multi story building with a floor to ceiling height of 4 meters. The floor slabs act to pin the exterior columns in place.

The critical buckling load of a single floor to ceiling span of exterior column is given as X.

If two adjacent floors begin to sag, or become disconnected so that they no longer serve to pin the column in place, what will be the critical buckling load (as a percentage of X) for the resulting three story, 12 meter, un-pinned, column span?

 

[Heiwa]

A hypothetical scenario

you have a multi story building with a floor to ceiling height of 4 meters. The floor slabs act to pin the exterior columns in place.

The critical buckling load of a single floor to ceiling span of exterior column is given as X.

If two adjacent floors begin to sag, or become disconnected so that they no longer serve to pin the column in place, what will be the critical buckling load (as a percentage of X) for the resulting three story, 12 meter, un-pinned, column span?

OT but an easy one answered by Euler already 1744. The critical load P is

P = pi² x E x I / L² where L is the unsupported length of the column.

So if P = 100% when L is one unit, it is 25% when L is two units, it is 11.11 % when L is three units, etc. This is basic! Didn't you know Euler?

 

[Belz...]

Aha - the floors sagged (due to heat) and pulled the perimeter columns inward. But it is not possible! There is no weight on the floor except it own weight and 20 kgs/m² of furniture, etc above.

So ? Do you have any idea how much fire weakens steel ?

No, the sagging floor cannot pull the perimeter columns inward. Only where one floor was disconnected (by the explosion) on the east wall, the floor sagged a little and the perimeter columns deformed inwards ... and rested then against the floor. It was a stable condition.

You're not very good at this.

The sagging was due to HEAT, not excess loads. The floors were NOT disconnected from the columns and that's the WHOLE point. Because they weren't, they pulled on the columns.

Actually, we only see the deformed east wall - no buckled, only deformed columns - on some photos/videos but not the rest.

You only need ONE wall to fail to initiate collapse. In fact, you can see the top section of 2 WTC tilt at the beginning. Then the strain snaps the remaining columns and the whole thing comes down. Dammit, man. You can see this on the videos quite clearly.

Rapid (? - when) progressive deformation of the east wall sideways?? No evidence at all.

And collapse of the perimeter columns of the north and south walls as a consequence and load re-distrbution? No evidence.

The theory explains what happened and is supported by VISUAL evidence. What do you need ? A signed document from the Maker confirming this ?

And it is not even possible. The redistribution of load is too small and it should take much longer time if it was possible!

Please tell us how much time it would take, and the exact percentage of redistribution...

The suggestions are inventions. But why do the NIST engineers invent them?

Begging the question.

Probably because they were very afraid of stating what we all see on the videos; that all the 47 core columns - occupying or rather supporting 50% of the tower - are giving way simultaneously prior to anything happening at the east wall, and they cannot explain that ... or would not admit that it is only possible by controlled demolition.

Again, please explain the following:

1) What kind of demolition charge produces no explosion and no sound ?
2) How can 47 columns fail simultaneously and STILL result in the top section tilting as it fell ?
3) How do you know the core failed first since we can clearly see it collapse LAST ?
4) What kind of explosive can caused the extreme bowing seen in this photograph ?

Easier to invent something.

Nonsense. Thousands of engineers and scientists around the world, with no affiliation to the US government, would be able to spot the discrepancies.

PS Please avoid personal insults when answering as they just upset you and damage your health or what is left of it. Calm down!

Toughen up.

 

[Heiwa]

Sigh, now we have this Estonia conspiracy guy here. Well, I guess everyone is welcome here.. so welcome.

Thanks - OT of course but I am not 'this Estonia conspiracy guy'. I just happened to assist operating 12 similar ferries 1994 and in order to avoid the fate of the Estonia (BTW for those of don't know - it was a ferry that sank mysteriously 1994 in the Baltic with at least 852 dead) to our own ferries, we decided look into the matter. And what did we find? Well, it is described on my homepage listed above, but to keep it short; the governments officials and 'experts' produced a report 1997 where every essential information and conclusion was false (!!) that I showed in a book published 1998. It got good reviews.

The governments were evidently not happy. One idiot went public and accused me to bring down his goverment! So instead of a polite exchange of opinions, the governments got angry and tried all sorts of tricks to destroy my reputation. Sad actually. I just laugh at those fools. What about the government 'experts'? They were forced to assist with the conspiracy. They were too afraid to do a proper job.

Sometimes I have a feeling the NIST engineers have fallen into the same trap. And this is the real subject of this discussion.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

OT but an easy one answered by Euler already 1744. The critical load P is

P = pi² x E x I / L² where L is the unsupported length of the column.

So if P = 100% when L is one unit, it is 25% when L is two units, it is 11.11 % when L is three units, etc. This is basic! Didn't you know Euler?

Well it took you long enough to google up the answer.

Now try this, How would the loss of the lateral support and the subsequent reduction in the critical buckling load affect the DCR of the columns?

 

[ref]

Thanks - OT of course but I am not 'this Estonia conspiracy guy'. I just happened to assist operating 12 similar ferries 1994 and in order to avoid the fate of the Estonia (BTW for those of don't know - it was a ferry that sank mysteriously 1994 in the Baltic with at least 852 dead) to our own ferries, we decided look into the matter. And what did we find? Well, it is described on my homepage listed above, but to keep it short; the governments officials and 'experts' produced a report 1997 where every essential information and conclusion was false (!!) that I showed in a book published 1998. It got good reviews.

The governments were evidently not happy. One idiot went public and accused me to bring down his goverment! So instead of a polite exchange of opinions, the governments got angry and tried all sorts of tricks to destroy my reputation. Sad actually. I just laugh at those fools. What about the government 'experts'? They were forced to assist with the conspiracy. They were too afraid to do a proper job.

Sometimes I have a feeling the NIST engineers have fallen into the same trap. And this is the real subject of this discussion.

I am Finnish, just to let you know, because I know you are Swedish. I'm familiar with Estonia, of course. Not so much with your theories. I have heard about you, though. But enough about that. Back to the topic folks.