• 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.

Question for Heiwa

I think the Heiwa threads prove without any doubt why the Swedish Navy is such a huge maritime threat. Of course, this threat is only to the sailors that dare to go aboard one of Heiwa's vessels...
 
Heiwa said:
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.
Click to expand...


Heiwa, you did not include the mass of the top section of WTC 2 which was 110,000 tons, yet you state that your analysis applies to <b>both</b> towers. So, immediately, you have made a major error.

Please redo your calculations for WTC 2 and report back.
 
Gravy said:
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.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/8790477b839294822.jpg[/qimg]


Five minutes before collapse.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/8790477b82f38893b.jpg[/qimg]

​
Click to expand...

Re the first figure (No 8-44 South wall) I observe that all floor 94 wall columns are intact. At floor 95 - five columns at the left are close to fire. No deformations are seen there as expected. The aluminium wall cladding may be hot, but as we know, inside is some heat insulation, so I assume the steel columns there are not very hot ... and that any heat there in a column is spread up/down. It is very difficult to heat up a wall column protected by alu (outside) and gypsum plate (inside) cladding with heat insulation in between.

But if a few wall columns would reduce their strength due to heat, the adjacent ones carry the load. All other columns are intact. And, when the fire changes location, the previously affected columns cool down ... and regain their original strength (compression wise).

Re second figure (Five minutes before collapse) I do not see any deformed wall columns.

The two photos confirm my calculations and UK expertize. The heat due to fire will not affect the steel structure. Thank you for your assistance.
 
Heiwa said:
Re the first figure (No 8-44 South wall) I observe that all floor 94 wall columns are intact. At floor 95 - five columns at the left are close to fire. No deformations are seen there as expected. The aluminium wall cladding may be hot, but as we know, inside is some heat insulation, so I assume the steel columns there are not very hot ... and that any heat there in a column is spread up/down. It is very difficult to heat up a wall column protected by alu (outside) and gypsum plate (inside) cladding with heat insulation in between.

But if a few wall columns would reduce their strength due to heat, the adjacent ones carry the load. All other columns are intact. And, when the fire changes location, the previously affected columns cool down ... and regain their original strength (compression wise).

Re second figure (Five minutes before collapse) I do not see any deformed wall columns.

The two photos confirm my calculations and UK expertize. The heat due to fire will not affect the steel structure. Thank you for your assistance.
Click to expand...
Who are you trying to convince here with your opinion? Yourself. Why don't you take it to Loose Change forum there's lot's of impressionable children there.

ETA I see you added insulation to the columns. Maybe there is hope for you.
 
Last edited:
bje said:
Heiwa, you did not include the mass of the top section of WTC 2 which was 110,000 tons, yet you state that your analysis applies to <b>both</b> towers. So, immediately, you have made a major error.

Please redo your calculations for WTC 2 and report back.
Click to expand...

Article is only about WTC 1. I can do the same for WTC2 and you will find that the compressive stresses in the columns are the same, even if the mass above there is bigger, etc.

Nist states that the two towers collapsed exactly for the same cause. I took WTC 1 as an example that the Nist cause is incorrect. Doesn't it suffice?

Also WTC1 is easier to analyse. The perpetrators got sloppy or tired. WTC2 had 'collapsed' as per plan but WTC1 was still standing and the fire was reducing. No way the columns in the initiation zone could fail. So they committed many mistakes as shown in my article.
 
Heiwa said:
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.
Click to expand...
As always, you are dead wrong.



Reality's a bitch, ain't she?
 
Heiwa said:
Also WTC1 is easier to analyse. The perpetrators got sloppy or tired. WTC2 had 'collapsed' as per plan but WTC1 was still standing and the fire was reducing. No way the columns in the initiation zone could fail.
Click to expand...

As always, you are dead wrong. Again, please describe what YOU see, Anders. Five minutes before collapse:

8790477b82f38893b.jpg
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
Who are you trying to convince here with your opinion? Yourself. Why don't you take it to Loose Change forum there's lot's of impressionable children there.

ETA I see you added insulation to the columns. Maybe there is hope for you.
Click to expand...

I am replying to 'bje'.

The heat insulation of the wall columns was always there. It has nothing to do with fire proofing, which is much thicker and obviously completely different.
 
Heiwa said:
I am replying to 'bje'.

The heat insulation of the wall columns was always there. It has nothing to do with fire proofing, which is much thicker and obviously completely different.
Click to expand...
So you say 'Blazeshield' is not for fire? You really need to read up on what you claim to be knowledgeable about.
 
Gravy said:
As always, you are dead wrong. Again, please describe what YOU see, Anders. Five minutes before collapse:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/8790477b82f38893b.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

I see some minor office fires at different floors above the impact where there originally was jet fuel and no deformations of any wall columns at all. No floors sagging. Etc.

The picture is very good! No concentrated fires anywhere but spread apart in different locations on different floors, mostly secondary small fires. Making a lot of smoke but cannot cause any risk to the structure. Evidently.

To be a real hazard, the fire must be concentrated - on one floor - attacking all the columns at the same time. Small fires here and there is no hazard. The redundancy of the structure takes care of that. Evidently.

Gravy, don't you understand that you do not understand ... and are fooled by nonsense? In cases like that I recommend a cold shower. But thank you for the picture showing me right.
 
Last edited:
Heiwa said:
Re second figure (Five minutes before collapse) I do not see any deformed wall columns.
Click to expand...
You've already seen the photos with the vertical lines added that follow the columns, showing enormous inward bowing. One is an enlargement of the photo I just posted above, in which the roof CLEARLY has not started to fall, because it's five minutes before collapse. Present your evidence that the photos and videos are fake now, or retract your claim, Anders. You agree that's the correct way for rational people to behave, don't you? Or are you too ill to understand?

The two photos confirm my calculations and UK expertize. The heat due to fire will not affect the steel structure. Thank you for your assistance.
Click to expand...
Why do no structural or fire protection engineers agree with you, Anders? What do you know that they don't? Present your expert studies and experiments that counter their decades of work, NOW, or retract your claims.

Fair enough, Anders? Then proceed with your evidence. No one cares about your arguments from incredulity.
 
Heiwa said:
Re the first figure (No 8-44 South wall) I observe that all floor 94 wall columns are intact. At floor 95 - five columns at the left are close to fire. No deformations are seen there as expected. The aluminium wall cladding may be hot, but as we know, inside is some heat insulation, so I assume the steel columns there are not very hot ... and that any heat there in a column is spread up/down. It is very difficult to heat up a wall column protected by alu (outside) and gypsum plate (inside) cladding with heat insulation in between.
Click to expand...
You seem to be blissfully unaware that this wall was blasted by airliner and office debris. Here's one of the south wall panels, about 700 feet away. Do you think such impacts would have affected the spray-on and wallboard insulation, Anders?

879046b25850d7b3a.jpg
 
Last edited:
Heiwa said:
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.
Click to expand...

Heiwa said:
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.
Click to expand...
Holy crap, that's an incredible amount of ignorance!

I really can't help but wonder how you function in your life, being so disconnected from reality.
 
Heiwa said:
Re second figure (Five minutes before collapse) I do not see any deformed wall columns.
Click to expand...

Heiwa said:
no deformations of any wall columns at all.
Click to expand...

I'm glad you accept that photo as authentic. Do you see the pronounced inward bowing from about floors 95-98, around columns 316-321?

879047797a8d614f3.jpg
 
Last edited:
Heiwa said:
Article is only about WTC 1. I can do the same for WTC2 and you will find that the compressive stresses in the columns are the same, even if the mass above there is bigger, etc.
Click to expand...


No, you make it clear that you are writing about both WTC 1 and WETC 2. Let me refresh your memory, Heiwa:

This means that we can conclude the following:

Conclusions
The Twin Towers structure was very simple and its wall and core columns can be likened to steel bars in a bird cage full of air ... and humans. The compressive stress in the bird cage bars due to mass incl. floor loads is very small (<30% of yield stress). The Towers' structure was very strong!
Click to expand...

Since the mass of the top section of WTC 2 was 110,000 tons, and not 33,000 tons, you must do recalculations. You may not exclude mass from any calculation.

Please do the recalculations for WTC 2 and get back to us with your corrections for that tower.
 
Heiwa said:
I see some minor office fires at different floors above the impact where there originally was jet fuel and no deformations of any wall columns at all. No floors sagging. Etc.

The picture is very good! No concentrated fires anywhere but spread apart in different locations on different floors, mostly secondary small fires. Making a lot of smoke but cannot cause any risk to the structure. Evidently.

To be a real hazard, the fire must be concentrated - on one floor - attacking all the columns at the same time. Small fires here and there is no hazard. The redundancy of the structure takes care of that. Evidently.

Gravy, don't you understand that you do not understand ... and are fooled by nonsense? In cases like that I recommend a cold shower. But thank you for the picture showing me right.
Click to expand...

When you argue with the puppets here Heiwa, you are really taking on their masters and all the unlimited resources they can bring to bear.

Good luck and keep a thick skin.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
When you argue with the puppets here Heiwa, you are really taking on their masters and all the unlimited resources they can bring to bear.
Click to expand...
:dl:

Thanks for the laugh before I head out to the museum on cold-weather day off work!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom