• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

I need all debunkers I can get!

From your 'paper':
Introduction - a bird cage

The structural design of the World Trade Center Twin Towers is very simple as its very lightweight framework is similar to a box shaped bird cage in which human beings are working. Most skyscrapers or office towers in the world are built similarly. None has ever globally collapsed in seconds before or after 911 except WTC 1, 2 and 7.
Click to expand...

Could you name for me another building that shares the same design as the towers? This should be easy because most are built that way, right?
Why would you say this or do you not know how the towers were designed? Are you trying to deceive children into thinking like you by lying to them?
 
A W Smith said:
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?
Click to expand...

So another imposter and trouble maker! Don't you think you are a little OT ... or very much OT?
 
Heiwa said:
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
Click to expand...
1 Ton (1000kg) of TNT is equal to 4184MJ. (you can read about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ton)

1221MJ * 1000kg TNT/4184MJ = 291kg of TNT equivalent.

By contrast, there is approximately 38.6MJ of energy per liter of diesel. So:
1221MJ * 1liter/38.6MJ = 31.6 liters.

What does this really mean? It means 31.6 liters of diesel would be burned in a crane motor with 100% efficiency and no mechanical losses to raise this mass, 33,000 tons, 3.7m up.

The calculations of the columns are available here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=97584

Read them. They're simple and straight-forward. Instead of adjusting reality to meet your incorrect beliefs, you should mold your beliefs into what science and math state.
 
Heiwa said:
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.
Click to expand...

Are you blind?

You state this in your article (which yes, I have read).

The mass above the core is only 13 200 tons supported by the 47 core columns with total area 2.1 m². On average each core column carries abt 280 tons so the average compression is 629 kgs/cm² or 63 MPa. However the outer core columns carry more mass and the outer corner core columns the most load, e.g. no. 501 with cross area 950 cm². It may carry as much as 700 tons.

The compressive stress in the no. 501 core column at floor 94 is thus abt 736 kgs/cm² or 74 MPa or 30% of the yield stress of the steel. It is assumed that the compressive stress in the other core columns is abt the same.
Click to expand...

I have pointed out that you must analyze the bending moments that are developed in the columns from adjacent columns failing as they contribute to the stress in the columns. You have failed to provide an answer.

You also stated in your paper:
A floor can only transmit its own weight and load on top of to the nearest column. A floor cannot transmit any major load from a core column to a wall column and vice versa - the bolts will then shear off or the trusses will tear apart. The concrete just cracks!
Click to expand...

Of which I asked which mechanism prevents severed core columns from collapsing. You have failed to provide an answer.

The ONLY topic that we have been discussing here is your paper. And you refuse to answer our questions. Why won't you answer them?
 
Last edited:
Heiwa said:
2. Yes!
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but one last time: you are saying unequivocally that steel framed structres cannot fail due to normal office fire loadings? You're quite sure about that, inasmuch as it appears to be a significant foundation to the arguments you are presenting here?
 
Last edited:
Rather than let you walk into this trap, allow me to comment on the actual performance of steel framed structures in fires. This is an area which I have some passing familiarity with.

Fortunately the subject is well documented.

Lets look at some building regulations.

The Scottish Regs, section D, are a bit detailed - http://www.scotland.gov.uk/build_regs/sect-d.pdf - but you'll notice do flag up the need for fire protection in structural components and steelwork.

In England, Part B of the Regs flags up a similar position - its not available on-line free but Corus (who do know a thing about steel) have a useful and relatively non-technical summary at http://www.corusconstruction.com/leg...s_section1.pdf . Some of you will note on page 5 the admission that most unportected steel sections only have fire integrity for about 15 minutes.

The Canadian Regs aren't available on-line free either, but their national buildings institute flags up across all their documents the risk posed by fire and the need for protection - see, by way of example, http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/cbd/cbd071e.html .

The New Zealand and Australian steel codes, (SNZ, 1997 and SAA 1990) are very similar to each other. The NZ regs section C4 requires....wait for it......structural protection of steel in fire ( http://www.building.govt.nz)

Now what is required to protect steel against even a domestic fire for, say, half an hour. British Gypsum give us a useful summary, but similar advice permeats construction advice around the globe: http://www.british-gypsum.bpb.co.uk/...prin_07_05.pdf. Note the opening comments on page 14 and then the page after page of details necessary to provide fire protection at the end. You'll see BG also do seperate systems to encase and protect steel beams.

Further afield, a lot of bodies and firms focus on the fire performance of steel:

http://www.shef.ac.uk/fire-research/..._meetings.html
http://www.corusconstruction.com/page_1416.htm
http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/866/CIB_W14/workprog.htm (you'll like this one, engineers)

Then we have this helpful thesis by an engineer in NZ:

http://www.civil.canterbury.ac.nz/fi...rts/KLewis.pdf

Note in particular the strength/temperature/yield grading charts

On an academic front, the sadder amongst us find this UK paper illuminating. Note that the example they use does not in fact collapse due to a normal - lets stress that - fire but does deform significantly. The summary does also flag up the need to consider the impact of fire after an explosion, I would suggest for fairly obvious reasons.

http://www.umist.ac.uk/departments/c...rs/default.htm

I can go on, but its getting too much like a day at the office.

I put it to you that the performance of steel in fire and need for protection to prevent catastrophic failure in fires is universally acknowledged. Any consipracy would involve not thousands, or tens of thousands, but hundreds of thousands of architects, engineers, surveyors, contractors, building control officers, and steel manufacturers the world over. It is not only incredible (in the dictionary sense) but wholly implausable.

Would you care to reconsider your position on this particular point?
 
DGM said:
I did read it and you offer no explanation for your "facts. How did you come to these load figures. You put out statements with no sources or explanation.
Click to expand...

You have not read properly! If you do that the find the calculations of the mass above with explanations. Read again. Be more specific!
 
Architect said:
I'm sorry, but one last time: you are saying unequivocally that steel framed structres cannot failr due to normal office fire loadings? You're quite sure about that, inasmuch as it appears to be a significant foundation to the arguments you are presenting here?
Click to expand...

Yes - steel buildings built to Western standards do no globally collapse due to normal office fires.

Now, read my article and come up with some improvements to it. Or corrections for that matter.
 
WRONG, please do not lie.

Heiwa said:
Yes - steel buildings built to Western standards do no globally collapse due to normal office fires.
Click to expand...
WRONG - do you get anything right? There are examples you can find, so this is a lie since you are such a great researcher. Please stop telling lies.

Improve you paper by putting it in the round file!
 
Last edited:
Heiwa said:
Yes - steel buildings built to Western standards do no globally collapse due to normal office fires.
Click to expand...
No, but they do collapse due to enormous, unfought office fires, as we saw with WTC 7. And if they're hit by airliners, all bets are off.
 
Architect said:
.

Would you care to reconsider your position on this particular point?
Click to expand...

Not really. You are a bit OT. Subject is my article and generally speaking steel structures do not collapse due to office fires. Especially if they are originally over-designed with low stresses. I have seen a number of fire damaged steel structures and associated big deformations but no collapses. I have seen structures where everything that could burn burnt and the only thing that was left was the steel skeleton of the steel structure, etc. (In that case 20 tons of butter was burning for five day = not normal office fire). Deformed of course where it was subject to big local loads. No collapse.

Take Hiroshima as an example - an atombomb was dropped - and only steel skeleton structures remained of the few buildings that were steel framed.
 
Heiwa said:
Yes - steel buildings built to Western standards do no globally collapse due to normal office fires.

Now, read my article and come up with some improvements to it. Or corrections for that matter.
Click to expand...

Then why are the papers I refered you to all predicated upon the understanding that steel structures are all at risk under normal fire loadings?


Make life easy for you: which of these is wrong then:

Architect said:
Rather than let you walk into this trap, allow me to comment on the actual performance of steel framed structures in fires. This is an area which I have some passing familiarity with.

Fortunately the subject is well documented.

Lets look at some building regulations.

The Scottish Regs, section D, are a bit detailed - http://www.scotland.gov.uk/build_regs/sect-d.pdf - but you'll notice do flag up the need for fire protection in structural components and steelwork.

In England, Part B of the Regs flags up a similar position - its not available on-line free but Corus (who do know a thing about steel) have a useful and relatively non-technical summary at http://www.corusconstruction.com/leg...s_section1.pdf . Some of you will note on page 5 the admission that most unportected steel sections only have fire integrity for about 15 minutes.

The Canadian Regs aren't available on-line free either, but their national buildings institute flags up across all their documents the risk posed by fire and the need for protection - see, by way of example, http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/cbd/cbd071e.html .

The New Zealand and Australian steel codes, (SNZ, 1997 and SAA 1990) are very similar to each other. The NZ regs section C4 requires....wait for it......structural protection of steel in fire ( http://www.building.govt.nz)

Now what is required to protect steel against even a domestic fire for, say, half an hour. British Gypsum give us a useful summary, but similar advice permeats construction advice around the globe: http://www.british-gypsum.bpb.co.uk/...prin_07_05.pdf. Note the opening comments on page 14 and then the page after page of details necessary to provide fire protection at the end. You'll see BG also do seperate systems to encase and protect steel beams.

Further afield, a lot of bodies and firms focus on the fire performance of steel:

http://www.shef.ac.uk/fire-research/..._meetings.html
http://www.corusconstruction.com/page_1416.htm
http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/866/CIB_W14/workprog.htm (you'll like this one, engineers)

Then we have this helpful thesis by an engineer in NZ:

http://www.civil.canterbury.ac.nz/fi...rts/KLewis.pdf

Note in particular the strength/temperature/yield grading charts

On an academic front, the sadder amongst us find this UK paper illuminating. Note that the example they use does not in fact collapse due to a normal - lets stress that - fire but does deform significantly. The summary does also flag up the need to consider the impact of fire after an explosion, I would suggest for fairly obvious reasons.

http://www.umist.ac.uk/departments/c...rs/default.htm

I can go on, but its getting too much like a day at the office.

I put it to you that the performance of steel in fire and need for protection to prevent catastrophic failure in fires is universally acknowledged. Any consipracy would involve not thousands, or tens of thousands, but hundreds of thousands of architects, engineers, surveyors, contractors, building control officers, and steel manufacturers the world over. It is not only incredible (in the dictionary sense) but wholly implausable.

Would you care to reconsider your position on this particular point?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Heiwa, you haven't actually read the full Nist report, have you? And you're not very familiar with structures or fire engineering? Tell the truth now.
 
Heiwa said:
Not really. You are a bit OT. Subject is my article and generally speaking steel structures do not collapse due to office fires. Especially if they are originally over-designed with low stresses.
Click to expand...
The buildings that collapsed on 9/11 did not have low stresses on them. Stop using that ignorant phrase.

No skyscrapers in history had similar construction, damage, and unfought fires to the three 9/11 skyscrapers. None. Your problems accepting reality, and your insistence on using inappropriate comparisons, continue. Stop doing that, Heiwa. It's ignorant.
 
beachnut said:
WRONG - do you get anything right? There are examples you can find, so this is a lie since you are such a great researcher. Please stop telling lies.

Improve you paper by putting it in the round file!
Click to expand...

My paper is on the Internet and Lennart Hyland asked you to debunk it. I have not found any steel office buildings collapsing due to office fires. Damaged yes - plenty - but no total collapses.

Only example so far provided is an 18 floor tower that was partly damaged due to a gas explosion. Not very similar to WTC1.

But it is OT. Topic is WTC1 design, construction and strength to resist collapse. WTC 1 resisted a plane crash. It resisted a big fire. Then the fire got smaller. No risk to enter and fight it. Everybody agreed to that. And my article shows there were no risks. But plenty of official BS to the contrary. It smells.

Come on - debunk the article.
 
Gravy said:
The buildings that collapsed on 9/11 did not have low stresses on them. Stop using that ignorant phrase.

No skyscrapers in history had similar construction, damage, and unfought fires to the three 9/11 skyscrapers. None. Your problems accepting reality, and your insistence on using inappropriate comparisons, continue. Stop doing that, Heiwa. It's ignorant.
Click to expand...

The stresses in WTC1 wall columns were 22.5% of yield/buckling. In the core they might have been 30% of yield/buckling. Quite obvious from the calculations in my article. Probably less, as the steel was probably better than I assume.

Every skyscraper built in the 60's were built with similar stresses.

Come on, prove the information in the article wrong. Wrong masses? Wrong dimensions of the columns? Errors in the calculations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom