I need all debunkers I can get!

[Gravy]

Was this your idea? http://www.commercialinvestments.co.uk/propertyimages/15/ztfloorplan.jpg

You don't like it when architects think outside the "box," eh?

 

[Gravy]

So instead of taking the obvious bowing inward as a clue that his theory may need some 'adjusting', Heiwa simply proclaims that it's 'unlikely to occur' and any videos or images that show a bowing inward must be fakes. Or maybe we just need to take another look.

Rational people don't do that.

Indeed. That's exactly what mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti (realcddeal) did: claimed the images were fakes.

Reality's a bitch for some people.

 

[Heiwa]

Hi Heiwa,

You have described a mechanism by which loads are transferred from a compressed, buckled, or severed column to adjacent intact columns. However, you have not answered my question regarding the suggestion in your paper (quoted above) that load carrying capacity transfers from a compromised column to adjacent columns. Do you agree that the quoted passage is in error? Do you acknowledge that the notion that load carrying capacity "transfers" from one column to another is absurd?

Do you plan to change this passage, to avoid misleading and confusing the kiddies whom you expect to read your paper?

Further, assuming that you can agree that load is transferred to intact columns while load carrying capacity is not, what happens to the load on the intact columns, when load from adjacent compromised columns is transferred to them? Let's start with a simple question that shouldn't require any calculations or analysis software to answer: does it (a) stay the same, (b) decrease, or (c) increase?

Respectfully,
Myriad

You might have a point. Maybe I should use the word ability. The intact column still has ability to carry the extra load transmitted to it. The ability of this part to carry load is evidently unchanged (part of the redundancy of the total structure).

 

[Heiwa]

Indeed. That's exactly what mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti (realcddeal) did: claimed the images were fakes.

Reality's a bitch for some people.

I must agree with Tony Szamboti - the pictures or rather the deformations look strange to me. Hollywood manipulations?

 

[WildCat]

Erm, Actually I had projecting balconies. The boss decided on the inline ones.

The engineers love the curves. Honest. No, Really. Would I lie to you?


If its any consolation, my previous one was a plain old boring rectangle.

No closets in the bedrooms? I don't think you can legally call a room a bedroom if it doesn't have a closet around here... just sayin'.

 

[WildCat]

I must agree with Tony Szamboti - the pictures or rather the deformations look strange to me. Hollywood manipulations?

Man, this stuff just writes itself!

 

[Gravy]

I must agree with Tony Szamboti

I know you must. That's your whole problem, Heiwa. Your beliefs compel you to accept falsehoods as truth. We can't change that for you, but you can change your behavior.

- the pictures or rather the deformations look strange to me. Hollywood manipulations?

You didn't click on the link that I've repeatedly given you. The video was shot by Evan Fairbanks with the same Trinity Church camera that forum member 60Hzxtl has used. There is no manipulation applied.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2873871255585611926#1m10s

The photos are also real.

What are you afraid of, Heiwa? Why do simple facts hurt you so much?

 

[Myriad]

You might have a point. Maybe I should use the word ability. The intact column still has ability to carry the extra load transmitted to it. The ability of this part to carry load is evidently unchanged (part of the redundancy of the total structure).

Wouldn't that depend on the magnitude of the additional transferred load?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Gravy]

No closets in the bedrooms? I don't think you can legally call a room a bedroom if it doesn't have a closet around here... just sayin'.

There could have been if the balconies had been overhanging as Architect wanted. As is, the building looks sleek and cramped: that's fashion for you.

 

[BenBurch]

No closets in the bedrooms? I don't think you can legally call a room a bedroom if it doesn't have a closet around here... just sayin'.

In WV you will hardly EVER find closets in an older house, just wardrobe cabinets. The reason is that to the Tax Man, a closet is a room, and houses were taxed by the number of rooms. (That might have changed since I learned this fact years ago.)

 

[A W Smith]

Heiwa must ignore reality. To do otherwise would invalidate his body of work. A blow fatal to his ego.




Heiwa about that fireproofing

 

[Heiwa]

Wouldn't that depend on the magnitude of the additional transferred load?

Respectfully,
Myriad

I have corrected the (unclear) text in my article on the website based on your observations and comments. Thanks for pointing it out.

Evidently redundancy is not easy to specify but the hole in the north wall shows that you can remove a fair amount of wall columns and nothing happens (except that adjacent columns in the north wall become higher stressed but still have ability to carry the total load in the wall above).

The alleged deflections in the south wall cannot develop as the stresses there are virtually unchanged with the hole in the opposite wall. I have a distinct feeling that the pictures shown above are faked and it can probably be verified by checking other forensic evidence, history of which is known.

HNY

 

[JimBenArm]

I have corrected the (unclear) text in my article on the website based on your observations and comments. Thanks for pointing it out.

Evidently redundancy is not easy to specify but the hole in the north wall shows that you can remove a fair amount of wall columns and nothing happens (except that adjacent columns in the north wall become higher stressed but still have ability to carry the total load in the wall above).

The alleged deflections in the south wall cannot develop as the stresses there are virtually unchanged with the hole in the opposite wall. I have a distinct feeling that the pictures shown above are faked and it can probably be verified by checking other forensic evidence, history of which is known.

HNY

I have a distinct feeling as well. Mostly that you will never be able to admit to the reality staring you right in the face.

 

[Heiwa]

Was this your idea? [qimg]http://www.commercialinvestments.co.uk/propertyimages/15/ztfloorplan.jpg[/qimg]

Terrible but totally OT.

 

[Heiwa]

Heiwa must ignore reality. To do otherwise would invalidate his body of work. A blow fatal to his ego.




Heiwa about that fireproofing

Or maybe just insulation to prevent the sun to heat up the steel in the summer, more likely! Of course steel wall columns are fitted with decorative cladding of e.g. aluminium to look nice and protect the column from rain, etc. Have a friend that is in that thin plate alu business and has covered multiple buildings Doesn't change any basics in my article.

 

[twinstead]

Oh great, Heiwa, now you have to prove that the video and images of the inward bowing are faked.

Your choice. Accept that your theory may be flawed in the face of visual evidence to the contrary, or show how that visual evidence is fake.

 

[A W Smith]

Or maybe just insulation to prevent the sun to heat up the steel in the summer, more likely! Of course steel wall columns are fitted with decorative cladding of e.g. aluminium to look nice and protect the column from rain, etc. Have a friend that is in that thin plate alu business and has covered multiple buildings Doesn't change any basics in my article.

well yes it does.
The blaze shield on the exterior columns had a 4 hour fire rating. The cladding on the columns also prevents the suns rays from reaching the columns.

your assertion that the fireproofing was simply used as insulation is an obvious attempt to hand wave off the fact that structural steel is required to be fireproofed in buildings.

 

[Gravy]

I
The alleged deflections in the south wall cannot develop as the stresses there are virtually unchanged with the hole in the opposite wall. I have a distinct feeling that the pictures shown above are faked and it can probably be verified by checking other forensic evidence, history of which is known.

You're a sad, deluded person, Heiwa, and you've dug a hole for no rational reason whatsoever. I'm done here.

 

[Myriad]

I have corrected the (unclear) text in my article on the website based on your observations and comments. Thanks for pointing it out.

Evidently redundancy is not easy to specify but the hole in the north wall shows that you can remove a fair amount of wall columns and nothing happens (except that adjacent columns in the north wall become higher stressed but still have ability to carry the total load in the wall above).

So, for instance, here is a diagram representing a load-bearing wall of eight columns, connected by horizontal members and bearing a total load of 800 units, evenly distributed. Each column can bear 400 units individually, so each is only bearing 25% of its capacity.

 100   100   100   100   100   100   100   100
units units units units units units units units

  |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
  V     V     V     V     V     V     V     V

  I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I
  I     I     I     I     I     I     I     I
  I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I
  I     I     I     I     I     I     I     I
  I     I     I     I     I     I     I     I
  I     I     I     I     I     I     I     I
  I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I
 
  A     B     C     D     E     F     G     H

Now, along comes the Big Bad Wolf, who huffs and puffs and blows columns C, D, E, and F in.

 100   100   100   100   100   100   100   100
units units units units units units units units

  |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
  V     V     V     V     V     V     V     V

  I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I
  I     I     I     I     I     I     I     I
  I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I
  I     I     X     X     X     X     I     I
  I     I                             I     I
  I     I     X     X     X     X     I     I
  I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I
 
  A     B     C     D     E     F     G     H

At this point, consider the loads on columns B and G. It would take some calculations to determine exactly what loads they're under now, and we'd need more information such as the stiffness of the spandrels and their connections. However, for some such values, it's quite possible that columns A and H are now under tension (I'm sure, with your experience in this area, you can immediately see why), which would mean that columns B and G are now bearing their loads, plus the magnitude of the tension on A and H, plus the loads from the damaged columns C-D-E-F, plus their own original loads -- in other words, the entire load on the wall, and then some.

But, since our wall is still standing, we know that that couldn't be the case here. Let's say, instead, that the stiffness of the spandrels is such that B and G are each bearing half of A and H's load, plus the loads from the damaged columns, plus their own original loads. That's 350 units each. Good thing they can bear 400.

Except... unfortunately, the BBW's huffing and puffing also ignited the interior space behind the wall on fire. In a few minutes, columns B and G will be heated up to 500 degrees C. Thus losing an "insignficant" 20% of their strength. What, one must wonder, will happen then? Is it not obvious?

Now, I'm not saying this accurately represents the specifics of what happened in the WTC towers on 9/11. (For one thing, no wolf appears on the videotapes.) NIST did quite a good job of explaining what did happen, and it involves, as you pointed out, the third dimension. However, this simple example does show that the general principles that you claim prove a progressive collapse impossible, namely transferring of loads and redundant capacity, does not show that failure from overstressing of structural members is ruled out in all cases. Thus, your categorical qualitative argument for impossibility fails. You must make case based on a quantitative analysis instead (for example, using actual figures instead of phrases like "very strong"), and I believe that if and when you do so, you will only end up repeating other engineers' findings that the NIST collapse scenario is quite plausible, and fits the available evidence, after all.

The alleged deflections in the south wall cannot develop as the stresses there are virtually unchanged with the hole in the opposite wall. I have a distinct feeling that the pictures shown above are faked and it can probably be verified by checking other forensic evidence, history of which is known.

I look forward to reading the results of your pending investigation into that matter. Until then, I'm sure you'll pardon me if I trust the consensus of hard evidence from multiple independently recorded sources over your "distinct feeling."

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I must agree with Tony Szamboti - the pictures or rather the deformations look strange to me. Hollywood manipulations?

Such willful ignorance in the face of reality. I've seen so much of this same nonsense, but it still floors me. Unbelievable...