Question for Heiwa

[A W Smith]

I doubt very much the information that any crew on a police hkp saw the WTC1 south wall at floor 94 being deformed at any time. Reason of course is my calculation to the opposite. Prove me wrong!

Evidently I do not assert anything else than what is shown in my article, i.e. that the Bazant and Nist suggestions are incorrect and should be improved. NYPD has nothing to do with that.

Anders Bjorkman, You have been proven wrong. Time to conform to reality or get psychological help.

Buckling Steel
According to Shyam-Sunder, the concave bowing of the steel was seen on the sides of the towers opposite where the planes hit them. At 10:06 a.m. that morning, an officer in a police helicopter reported that ``it's not going to take long before the north tower comes down.'' This was 20 minutes before it collapsed. In another radio transmission at 10:21 a.m., the officer said he saw buckling in the north tower's southern face, Shyam-Sunder said.
The report includes photographs taken from police helicopters showing the bending columns

Is this officer lying? it is a simple question. The photos taken from police helicopters disprove your assertion. You can no longer hand wave it away. Your Doubt does not negate reality. Your entire work is an argument from incredulity.

 

[stateofgrace]

Did the police hkp video film or take photos of WTC1 before and during the collapse? Pls provide more info.

Irrelevent, you have seen the photographs , you claimed they were fake.

Now back up your claim or retract it.

 

[Heiwa]

Stop derailing this thread, stop avoiding the subject. Your junk is being dicussed in another thread.

This thread is about YOUR claim that the photograghs are fake, now get to it and prove your claim.

You need to prove you are right and back up your claim.

You are right that my paper was subject of another thread and I stopped writing there for reasons given there. Now we are discussing photos (and videos) ... that do not conform to the calculations in my paper.

It seems the photos of the 'buckled wall columns' are extracted from a video showing the collapse but this video starts a little late, i.e. a couple of seconds after the roof on WTC1 started to drop (not seen on the video). I assume the wall columns we are talking about was not buckled a few seconds earlier.

Anyway - according to Nist and Bazant the wall at the initiation zone should fail at the same time as the roof starts to fall ... and that does not seem to be the case.

Then the part above the initiation zone should fall down intact and hit the structure below ... and that does not seem the case either.

It seems the part above is disintegrating before it hits floor 94.

I do not see any part above falling down where the columns are deformed!

Before the columns then buckle, it seems more smoke and dust are spewing out before that. Floors falling down from above? I cannot see that.

So the photos are maybe not really faked! Just taken out of the sequence of events? Taken after the roof started to fall.

 

[uk_dave]

Anyway - according to Nist and Bazant the wall at the initiation zone should fail at the same time as the roof starts to fall ... and that does not seem to be the case.

Bowing of the columns indicates an imminent failure

Stick to boats

 

[stateofgrace]

You are right that my paper was subject of another thread and I stopped writing there for reasons given there. Now we are discussing photos (and videos) ... that do not conform to the calculations in my paper.

It seems the photos of the 'buckled wall columns' are extracted from a video showing the collapse but this video starts a little late, i.e. a couple of seconds after the roof on WTC1 started to drop (not seen on the video). I assume the wall columns we are talking about was not buckled a few seconds earlier.

Anyway - according to Nist and Bazant the wall at the initiation zone should fail at the same time as the roof starts to fall ... and that does not seem to be the case.

Then the part above the initiation zone should fall down intact and hit the structure below ... and that does not seem the case either.

It seems the part above is disintegrating before it hits floor 94.

I do not see any part above falling down where the columns are deformed!

Before the columns then buckle, it seems more smoke and dust are spewing out before that. Floors falling down from above? I cannot see that.

So the photos are maybe not really faked! Just taken out of the sequence of events? Taken after the roof started to fall.

YOU said the photograghs were obvious fakes, are you now retracting that statement yes or no?

 

[Mancman]

Reason for that? The floor is just bolted to the columns. The force/moment transmitted by the floor to the column does not change due to sagging/heat. No deformation of the wall can therefore take place.

The amount of force does not change when the floors sag but the direction of the force does.

 

[Miragememories]

Bowing of the columns indicates an imminent failure

Stick to boats

Bowing of the columns indicates bowing of the columns.

"Imminent failure" expectation is nothing but speculation, and is often applied to the bowing column observation as a means of bolstering the Official Conspiracy Theory collapse hypothesis.

There were no boats.

MM

 

[Good Lt]

Prove 9-11 was an inside job or leave, mirage.

You talk smack, but you haven't proved and can't prove that 9-11 was an inside job.

Cite evidence. We'll wait.

 

[beachnut]

lack of knowledge?

Bowing of the columns indicates bowing of the columns.

"Imminent failure" expectation is nothing but speculation, and is often applied to the bowing column observation as a means of bolstering the Official Conspiracy Theory collapse hypothesis.

There were no boats.

MM

Poor research is showing again. The guy who this OP is for is a boat guy (The writer is a structural engineer for Heiwa Coalbeit in the shipbuilding). He thinks things float! He has no respect for gravity and thinks mass can be ignored. If you could understand his paper you could show us his errors. But your lack of knowledge on his paper is only exceeded by you lack of facts on 9/11.

We have a shipbuilder making errors on a topic he proves he has poor grasp on, 9/11 WTC failure due to impact and fire. Read his paper, as an engineer I suggest he remove his paper before his company finds out he can not think rationally on an important topic. He needs to correct errors even a lay person can catch; why not try and tell us his error MM?

 

[bje]

Reason why any picture of deformation of the south wall is faked is that the mass above is too small to deform the wall in the first place.

Heiwa,

What is the actual mass above and whose calculations did you use?

What are the calculations you used to determine the mass was too small?

 

[Gravy]

I doubt very much the information that any crew on a police hkp saw the WTC1 south wall at floor 94 being deformed at any time. Reason of course is my calculation to the opposite. Prove me wrong!

Same conspiradroid crapola, different day.

Accounts of structural instability in the Twin Towers, Bowing of columns, Collapse expected

 

[CHF]

I doubt very much the information that any crew on a police hkp saw the WTC1 south wall at floor 94 being deformed at any time.

Yet another twoofer calls the first responders liars.

So we now have the NYPD lying about the columns and the FDNY lying about WTC7.

But don't ever accuse twoofer pukes of insulting the New York police and firefighters.

 

[Heiwa]

YOU said the photograghs were obvious fakes, are you now retracting that statement yes or no?

Both videos referred to above are evidently edited. Pictures extracted from the first video showing that the wall is deformed are apparently taken after the roof starts to fall!! Clever manipulation!

I always trust my own calculations and not those of 200 'experts' or similar. US authorities have got different things wrong many times since 911 and the explanation of the WTC1 collapse is just one in a long row of mistakes.

 

[Heiwa]

Heiwa,

What is the actual mass above and whose calculations did you use?

What are the calculations you used to determine the mass was too small?

All is explained in my article at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm .

The mass above is 33 000 tons, the stresses in the wall columns are 22.5% of the yield stress, the wall columns are not heated very much, slenderness ratio is very low = no buckling or deformation can take place.

 

[Heiwa]

The amount of force does not change when the floors sag but the direction of the force does.

The direction of the load on the floor is evidently that of gravity and does not change. This load/force is then transmitted to the wall column via two bolts.

It is suggested that a floor between the wall and the core sags due to heat and the load on the floor and that a horizontal force is added in the floor and that this force should pull the wall inwards. OK, show how much the direction changes and then make a little calculation of how the wall column should deflect due to that!

 

[gumboot]

Did the police hkp video film or take photos of WTC1 before and during the collapse? Pls provide more info.

Astounding level of ignorance. Not only did they take photos, but one of the three photos in the original OP is from the NYPD Aviation Unit, as clearly stated on the photograph which NIST have stamped (c) 2001. New York Police Department. All Rights Reserved.

Could you possibly be more incompetent?

-Gumboot

 

[Heiwa]

Astounding level of ignorance. Not only did they take photos, but one of the three photos in the original OP is from the NYPD Aviation Unit, as clearly stated on the photograph which NIST have stamped (c) 2001. New York Police Department. All Rights Reserved.

Could you possibly be more incompetent?

-Gumboot

Well, one photo is apparently from a video film and it is not clear when that frame was taken. You see, there are many strange things here, e.g. (repeat):

Nist says that (A) potential energy is released when the columns at the initiation zone starts to crumble but it is clear that the mass above, e.g. the roof, starts to move down before the columns crumble, actually the columns are not seen to crumble at all.
Then Nist suggests that this potential energy (B) exceeds the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure (undefined) forgetting that the potential energy released (no value) must be applied to the (other) structure to affect it.
Just looking at videos of the collapse we see many effects (C) taking place in intact structure before any (A) potential energy released from above is (B) applied to structure.
(A) is for example seen throwing dust sideways and upward which is not according to laws of physics.
So the Nist suggestion that global collapse ensued due to (A) and (B) is not proven and not even seen on the videos, while (C) is observed but not explained.
My article accuses nobody of anything; just recommends the relevant parties to improve and/or correct their work.

 

[DGM]

Well, one photo is apparently from a video film and it is not clear when that frame was taken. You see, there are many strange things here, e.g. (repeat):

Nist says that (A) potential energy is released when the columns at the initiation zone starts to crumble but it is clear that the mass above, e.g. the roof, starts to move down before the columns crumble, actually the columns are not seen to crumble at all.
Then Nist suggests that this potential energy (B) exceeds the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure (undefined) forgetting that the potential energy released (no value) must be applied to the (other) structure to affect it.
Just looking at videos of the collapse we see many effects (C) taking place in intact structure before any (A) potential energy released from above is (B) applied to structure.
(A) is for example seen throwing dust sideways and upward which is not according to laws of physics.
So the Nist suggestion that global collapse ensued due to (A) and (B) is not proven and not even seen on the videos, while (C) is observed but not explained.
My article accuses nobody of anything; just recommends the relevant parties to improve and/or correct their work.

Keep trying to fool the children. That's obviously your speed. Us adults know your agenda.

 

[Gravy]

the wall columns are not heated very much

Anders, again you have made this claim, despite being shown photos and being directed to studies that show otherwise. You don't strike me as a stupid person, so I can only guess that when you look at these photos and say the columns are not heated very much, either mental illness has afflicted you or you are lying to try to support an untenable position.

Please describe what YOU see when you look at these photos, Anders. I'm genuinely interested to know.

Five minutes before collapse.

​

 

[CptColumbo]

IIRC one of the photos is taken by Allen Murabayashi, who worked at the WTC (I don't remember which tower).