I need all debunkers I can get!

[DGM]

Very strong steel structure to say the least. Why not admit it. Very low static stresses in it! And the total mass is only 10% steel columns and the rest is the rest (floors, glass, etc), most of it concrete in the floors.
There is also plenty of redundancy. The core columns are really heavy - 30 - 60 mm thick plates. Strong stuff. And plenty of spandrels (brackets) to keep them together.

What do you mean by "plenty of redundancy"?

 

[Firestone]

I know why! They are afraid. They will lose their jobs if they say something else ... or even shut up. Their colleagues just nod ... (and probably suffer). But it is the easiest solution for them. Support official policy.

Like DDR 1949 - 1989. Terrible times there and then.

Are you claiming that scientists in EUROPE will lose their job if they don't support the AMERICAN official policy???

If not, surely many scientists and engineers in Europe will come out, since you claim that your theory is so obvious.

This line of argument is particularly despicable.
You accuse others of being cowards or even accessories to crimes, simply because they don't buy your faulty "science".

 

[Gravy]

But WTC1 is officially no explosion. Only normal fire - most jet fuel burn out. What is burning is office furniture, decorations, paper, carpets, etc. But it looks like one (or more) explosions prior to and during the global collapse! Things are blowing out sideways through the windows.

I challenge you to point out the minutes and seconds in these videos when the explosions blow out sideways through the (open!) windows before the collapses. No conspiracist has accepted this challenge. Are you up to it, Heiwa?

WTC 1

WTC 2

Well?

 

[Gravy]

And then ... it is a well known fact that steel structures with low static stresses are not materially affected by heat at 500° C. The yield stress will be reduced a little but it does not affact the strengt as the stresses are low! Why not admit that? Why exagerate temperatures 3X, suggest that steel melts in office fires, etc. Why ignore the basics?

Yes, why ignore the basics, like the facts that the fires were hotter than that and the buildings were severely damaged by high-speed airliner impacts and had missing fire insulation? "Low static stress!" Are you insane?

Fire-protected steel. Office fire only.

Fire Safety Engineering and the Performance of Structural Steel in Fires

Why not learn something, rather than spewing ignorance, Heiwa? You might find that learning is fun.
​

 

[Newtons Bit]

I calculate the potential energy of the mass above (33 000 tons) after falling one floor (3.7 meters) at gravity (10 m/s²) as 339.17 kWh and that is not a lot. However, it assumes that all wall and core columns buckle/split simultaneously and that is not seen on any forensic records. The wall columns are not really heated at all (and do not buckle) and the core columns are according NIST not heated more than 500°C and can at that temperature not buckle due to mass above! They may compress and bulge, that's all. And it takes time. No potential energy will be released then!

No load of mass above can be transmitted from core to walls; the floor bolted connections the columns are too weak.

I doubt you have read my article.

33,000 tons * 1000 kg/ton * 3.7m * 10m/(s^2) = 1221 * 10 ^ 6 J or 1221MJ

1221MJ * 1KW*h / 3.6MJ = 339.17KW*h. Hey, you calculated that right, amazing. But that's also equal to over 250 kg of TNT equivalent. You want to tell me that's not a lot?

However, even with only 1221MJ of available potential energy, THE COLLAPSE STILL CONTINUES.

But you still haven't answered the direct questions. Are you unable to do this simple of an analysis?

Again:
What moments are developed in the exterior columns due to adjacent columns failing?

What mechanism prevents a core column from collapsing all the way to the basement when it is severed on the 94th-ish floor?

 

[Architect]

And then ... it is a well known fact that steel structures with low static stresses are not materially affected by heat at 500° C. The yield stress will be reduced a little but it does not affact the strengt as the stresses are low! Why not admit that? Why exagerate temperatures 3X, suggest that steel melts in office fires, etc. Why ignore the basics?

Yes, you are right that a wall may fall down/collapse it there is a gas explosion inside a steel structure. Why that happens depends on how the explosive load is applied on the structure. I gave you an example above that happened to my ship.

But WTC1 is officially no explosion. Only normal fire - most jet fuel burn out. What is burning is office furniture, decorations, paper, carpets, etc. But it looks like one (or more) explosions prior to and during the global collapse! Things are blowing out sideways through the windows.

NIST suggest the floors are falling down, but come on. Each floor is attached to the columns with 700 bolts.

Etc, etc. Professors are talking about that big masses in the WTC1 building are first suddenly falling down due to simultaneous collaps of 100's of columns and second, impact other structure at high velocity. No evidence of any kind, of course! A fairy tale or a simple invention. A myth! Then they come up with funny analysis about impacts, shock waves, etc. that breaks up very strong structure in 1000's of pieces. All nonsense, of course. Twisted science.

I know why! They are afraid. They will lose their jobs if they say something else ... or even shut up. Their colleagues just nod ... (and probably suffer). But it is the easiest solution for them. Support official policy.

Like DDR 1949 - 1989. Terrible times there and then.

With the deepest respect, and commenting from a professional position, this is all bollocks.

1. Provide your source regarding the performance of structural steelwork in fires of 500 deg. C.

2. Are you suggesting that normal office fires are of insufficient intensity to cause structural failure?

3. What's your point about the bolts and how does it apply to failure of structural members within a truss-girder floor system, in particular as regards the failure mechanism proposed by NIST?

4. Why would engineers and architectsoutwith the US feel some sort of need to keep quiet about these "obvious" holes in the "official" story? Moreover how does your comment square with (amongst others) the work of Sheffield or Edinburgh Universities on the subject? What do you make of the Arup paper?

 

[Heiwa]

What do you mean by "plenty of redundancy"?

Extra strength = low static (design) stresses to begin with, low slenderness ratios, thick plates, plenty of connections that will be activated if something breaks, etc.

 

[Heiwa]

Yes, why ignore the basics, like the facts that the fires were hotter than that and the buildings were severely damaged by high-speed airliner impacts and had missing fire insulation? "Low static stress!" Are you insane?

Fire-protected steel. Office fire only.
[qimg]http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/076.jpg/076-full.jpg[/qimg]

Fire Safety Engineering and the Performance of Structural Steel in Fires

Why not learn something, rather than spewing ignorance, Heiwa? You might find that learning is fun.
​

?? Thin plates? What were the stresses?

 

[Newtons Bit]

4. Why would engineers and architectsoutwith the US feel some sort of need to keep quiet about these "obvious" holes in the "official" story? Moreover how does your comment square with (amongst others) the work of Sheffield or Edinburgh Universities on the subject? What do you make of the Arup paper?

The end-effect of 9/11 and the NIST report will increase the level of analysis that engineers (and even architects to a degree) will have to do. This is a level of analysis not previously needed and owners are not going to want to start paying substantially more for this. It is going to affect the industries bottom-line for a long time as we (engineers) will have to do a lot more work without getting paid any more.

I'd say that's a very serious motivator for any engineers world-wide to come out and say that the results of NIST are bunk, because they could save a lot of money by doing so.

 

[Heiwa]

33,000 tons * 1000 kg/ton * 3.7m * 10m/(s^2) = 1221 * 10 ^ 6 J or 1221MJ

1221MJ * 1KW*h / 3.6MJ = 339.17KW*h. Hey, you calculated that right, amazing. But that's also equal to over 250 kg of TNT equivalent. You want to tell me that's not a lot?

However, even with only 1221MJ of available potential energy, THE COLLAPSE STILL CONTINUES.

But you still haven't answered the direct questions. Are you unable to do this simple of an analysis?

Again:
What moments are developed in the exterior columns due to adjacent columns failing?

What mechanism prevents a core column from collapsing all the way to the basement when it is severed on the 94th-ish floor?

Is 339.17 kWh = 250 kg of TNT? Are you talking about an explosion?

Actually it is equivalent to 80-100 litres of diesel oil to run a 330 kW engine for one hour.

I would say you need much more than 339.17 kWh to overstress, deform, buckle and rip apart 250 steel columns of various types + rip off x floors from the columns, etc. Of course the local collapse will end before it starts. Because there is not enough heat to start any buckling. It is obvious according my article!

You ask: What moments are developed in the exterior columns due to adjacent columns failing?

Answer - look at the hole in the wall after the plane impact. The spandrels transfer the load in the broken columns above the hole to intact columns beside the hole and the reverse happens below the hole. It is like a bird cage! Read my article!

You ask: What mechanism prevents a core column from collapsing all the way to the basement when it is severed on the 94th-ish floor?

Answer - if a core column is severed on the the 94th floor level, evidently the mass above is not acting on the lower part any longer = the compressive stress in the column below floor 94 is reduced. However, what happens to the mass/load above that was putting load on the column? Well - that load is mostly concrete (70-80%) of the floors disconnected from the core column and I assume the concrete breaks up in smaller pieces and will drop down beside the column. Of course most of the floors will still be supported by the wall columns and the core column above - that is now hanging free. The floors and the core columns are still hanging on the perimeter walls! Like the photo shown above of a building that exploded! A bit of wall was hanging from the roof. You follow?

Imagine you are at the 94th floors and decide to remove 3.7 meter of one core column!

Do you think the whole building collapses, when you do that?

Take away a similar piece from another core column.

Do you think the whole building collapses, when you do that? No - not yet. The loads in the cut off core columns are transmitted to intact core/wall columns.

And so on.

You can do this until structural parts starts to buckle and rip apart and the mass above will maybe drop down a little here and there.

But there will never be any global collapse.

Otherwise you have invented a new type of Controlled Demolition of towers = just cut off some columns at the top and the whole building falls down by itself.

 

[Newtons Bit]

?? Thin plates? What were the stresses?

That was a wide-flange genius.

 

[Heiwa]

With the deepest respect, and commenting from a professional position, this is all bollocks.

1. Provide your source regarding the performance of structural steelwork in fires of 500 deg. C.

2. Are you suggesting that normal office fires are of insufficient intensity to cause structural failure?

3. What's your point about the bolts and how does it apply to failure of structural members within a truss-girder floor system, in particular as regards the failure mechanism proposed by NIST?

4. Why would engineers and architectsoutwith the US feel some sort of need to keep quiet about these "obvious" holes in the "official" story? Moreover how does your comment square with (amongst others) the work of Sheffield or Edinburgh Universities on the subject? What do you make of the Arup paper?

1. The link is in the article itself! Read it and click on the link.

2. Yes.

3. In NIST FAQ Appendix December 2007 6 or 11 floors are said to just fall down = 4200 or 7700 bolts ripped apart. I have no clue how that happens.

4. They are afraid!

 

[Newtons Bit]

Is 339.17 kWh = 250 kg of TNT? Are you talking about an explosion?

I would say you need much more than 339.17 kWh to overstress, deform, buckle and rip apart 250 steel columns of various types + rip off x floors from the columns, etc. Of course the local collapse will end before it starts. Because there is not enough heat to start any buckling. It is obvious according my article!

Are you intentionally dense? It's 250kg of EQUIVALENT ENERGY.

The energy required to "deform, buckle and rip apart 250 steel columns of various types + rip off x floors from the columns, etc" as follows:

Elastic Strain Energy of the Lower Stories - 213MJ
Inelastic Strain Energy of the Lower Story - 171MJ
Elastic Strain Energy of the Upper Block - 71MJ
Inelastic Strain Energy of the Upper Story - 171MJ

Gee, that's only 626MJ of energy. And why should there be any significant amount of energy expended in removing the trusses from the columns? You've already said

No load of mass above can be transmitted from core to walls; the floor bolted connections the columns are too weak.

You can't have it both ways. Either the truss-bolts can carry the severed core columns or the truss-bolts are too weak to seriously affect the energy balance.

And you still haven't answered the direct questions I've asked to you. I'm left with no other choice but to believe you WONT analyze the moments in columns and you wont answer what keeps a severed core column from falling down because looking at those two issues completely invalidates everything you believe.

 

[Architect]

1. The link is in the article itself! Read it and click on the link.

2. Yes.

3. In NIST FAQ Appendix December 2007 6 or 11 floors are said to just fall down = 4200 or 7700 bolts ripped apart. I have no clue how that happens.

4. They are afraid!

1. I intend to.

2. Sorry, I need you to be entirely clear on this. Are you saying that in normal circumstances a typical office fire is of insufficient intensity to cause damage to and ultiamtely failure of structural steelwork?

3. Are you suggesting that the failure of the bolts is the cause of the collapse and if so can you please cross-refer to this to the appropriate section of the full NIST report?

4. Of what? And what do you make of the Sheffield, Edinburgh, and Arup studies?

 

[Heiwa]

Are you intentionally dense? It's 250kg of EQUIVALENT ENERGY.

The energy required to "deform, buckle and rip apart 250 steel columns of various types + rip off x floors from the columns, etc" as follows:

Elastic Strain Energy of the Lower Stories - 213MJ
Inelastic Strain Energy of the Lower Story - 171MJ
Elastic Strain Energy of the Upper Block - 71MJ
Inelastic Strain Energy of the Upper Story - 171MJ

Gee, that's only 626MJ of energy. And why should there be any significant amount of energy expended in removing the trusses from the columns? You've already said

You can't have it both ways. Either the truss-bolts can carry the severed core columns or the truss-bolts are too weak to seriously affect the energy balance.

And you still haven't answered the direct questions I've asked to you. I'm left with no other choice but to believe you WONT analyze the moments in columns and you wont answer what keeps a severed core column from falling down because looking at those two issues completely invalidates everything you believe.

No 340 kWh is not equivalent to 250 kgs of TNT - only 80-100 litres of diesel oil.

Re your other 'energies' don't you think they are very small?? Sorry - I must conclude you are an imposter and trouble maker and will not reply to you any more.

Kind regards

heiwa

 

[DGM]

Extra strength = low static (design) stresses to begin with, low slenderness ratios, thick plates, plenty of connections that will be activated if something breaks, etc.

Do you have any numbers or should i take your word for this? What did you mean when you said the columns were only loaded to 30% of yield? What does this:

And the total mass is only 10% steel columns and the rest is the rest (floors, glass, etc), most of it concrete in the floors.

have to do with anything? Are you saying something other than the steel frame supports this load?

 

[Heiwa]

1. I intend to.

2. Sorry, I need you to be entirely clear on this. Are you saying that in normal circumstances a typical office fire is of insufficient intensity to cause damage to and ultiamtely failure of structural steelwork?

3. Are you suggesting that the failure of the bolts is the cause of the collapse and if so can you please cross-refer to this to the appropriate section of the full NIST report?

4. Of what? And what do you make of the Sheffield, Edinburgh, and Arup studies?

2. Yes!

3. No.

4. Have not studied their articles at any depth. I write my own article for children ... based on basic principles that somebody suggested was going to be debunked on this forum. So far nobody has pointed out any error in my article that simply shows the WTC1 was a very strong building ... and could not collapse due to fire.

 

[uk_dave]

4. They are afraid!

Thank you. I now have to clean my monitor and keyboard.

 

[Heiwa]

Do you have any numbers or should i take your word for this? What did you mean when you said the columns were only loaded to 30% of yield? What does this:


have to do with anything? Are you saying something other than the steel frame supports this load?

Pls - read my article at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm before you ask questions like the ones above. It is all explained there.

You are supposed to debunk the content in that article.

 

[A W Smith]

No 340 kWh is not equivalent to 250 kgs of TNT - only 80-100 litres of diesel oil.

Re your other 'energies' don't you think they are very small?? Sorry - I must conclude you are an imposter and trouble maker and will not reply to you any more.

Kind regards

heiwa

We therefore conclude that Heiwa will not analyze the moments in columns. Looks like your ship is sunk Heiwa.

Heiwa Can you provide a list of passenger ships your firm is responsible for so we can safely avoid them?