Another Question for Heiwa : Amazing Fireproof Steel

[Disbelief]

Reason is that the gravity force, accurately applied, can only deform one part locally ... and when that part is deformed the gravity force, accurately applied, will slip off and ... pouff it is gone. To accurately apply this force to another part and deform it, and so on (total collapse) is not possible.

How do you "accurately apply" gravity? Isn't gravity always applied?

 

[Architect]

Sorry that I missed this thread adressed to me.

How peculiar. You were reminded of it often enough on other threads. I wonder why you missed it before.

Evidently heat affects steel! I heat/cool steel regularly to, e.g. align it. I do not need any potential energy at all for that. Just heat/cool. OK, these are wavy steel plates, etc.

I never heat vertical columns under axial compression loads, though, except in model fire tests http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist1.htm#6 ). It seems that a heated, vertical column under axial compression will slowly deform locally in different ways, depending on its transverse shape. No sudden collapse!


This local deformation of a heated part cannot evidently induce ruptures in adjacent, non-heated strutcure by brute forces and induce sudden 'collapse' of the latter, etc.

That's not correct, though, is it?

A beam will reach the point - slowly - where load exceeds capacity. This may be exacerbated by changing load paths arising from any deflections and the like.

Now, you may argue that we should see a very gradual failure of the structure, and you may be right about individual elements. Indeed that's what we see with the buckling of the facades as the additional loads transfer following internal failure.

However when these alternative load paths fail, through satraightforward overloading, it's not going to be gradual - is it?

In fact, you have no data whatsoever to support your theory, do you?

A ship of mine was burning for a week in a cargo hold and a lot of steel was deformed but no collapses. And no ruptures.

Yes, well, that would be a ship - not a building. Electricians don'e design plumbing, and naval architects don't do buildings. Hopefully.

It is very simple - gravity forces cannot cause total, global collapses of unheated multiple part steel low stressed structures even if applied very accurately!

Reason is that the gravity force, accurately applied, can only deform one part locally ... and when that part is deformed the gravity force, accurately applied, will slip off and ... pouff it is gone. To accurately apply this force to another part and deform it, and so on (total collapse) is not possible.

And where do the imposed loads on the failed elements go at this point?

It is very easy to verify this phenomenon with tests. That is why no steel building ever collapses due to release of potential energy above and associated gravity forces.

This doesn't make sense. Are you suggesting that steel framed buildings have not suffered collapse due to fires?

However, tell that to FEMA and Nist and they collapse! Their trousers and knickers fall down. Quite embarrassing but censored for national security reasons. So, please, go on and believe that gravity forces applied above can cause total collapse of a steel structure of many parts. In reality it does not work, though.

Yet amazingly they pool the wool over almost the entire engineering and architectural communities. They even fool the likes of Arup and Edinburgh University into writing papers on the subject! Amazing!!!

By the way, you never responded about these papers either.

 

[twinstead]

Yet amazingly they pool the wool over almost the entire engineering and architectural communities. They even fool the likes of Arup and Edinburgh University into writing papers on the subject! Amazing!!!

Never underestimate the devious power of the NWO!

 

[Heiwa]

How do you "accurately apply" gravity? Isn't gravity always applied?

Gravity is a force that attracts objects, e.g. all structural parts of the upper block of WTC1, towards the centre of the earth.

Take one column of the upper block! It is attracted to the centre of the earth by its gravity force. Fantastic, isn't it.

Now, when this column of upper block is still connected or applied to or put in position on a column of the lower block, the column of the upper block remains there. Guess why?

if you remove the column of the lower block, what happens to the column of the upper block? Right, the force of gravity attracts it to the centre of the earth. What happens? Do you know? Does it fall to the centre of the earth? No, it doesn't.

It is applied to the ground, that happens to be in the way between the starting point of the column and the centre of the earth, and it deforms itself and the ground when it is applied to the ground.

However, if the lose column is accurately applied to another column above the ground but below the lose column before it impinges the ground then it might deform that unlucky column. But only in one location. But it would be a miracle that the lose column is accurately applied to this other column. Small probabilty.

Try it yourself. Drill a little hole in your floor, dia 1 mm, and put a stick of spaghetti in it facing up. Take another stick of spaghetti and drop it from above on the stick of spaghetti facing up. Do this 1 000 000 times!

How many times is the dropped spaghetti accurately applied to the fixed spaghetti (and breaks it)? And how many times does the dropped spaghetti stick just miss and drops to the ground?

Pls advise me the result when you have done this simple test.

 

[rwguinn]

How peculiar. You were reminded of it often enough on other threads. I wonder why you missed it before.



That's not correct, though, is it?

A beam will reach the point - slowly - where load exceeds capacity. This may be exacerbated by changing load paths arising from any deflections and the like.

Now, you may argue that we should see a very gradual failure of the structure, and you may be right about individual elements. Indeed that's what we see with the buckling of the facades as the additional loads transfer following internal failure.

However when these alternative load paths fail, through satraightforward overloading, it's not going to be gradual - is it?

In fact, you have no data whatsoever to support your theory, do you?



Yes, well, that would be a ship - not a building. Electricians don'e design plumbing, and naval architects don't do buildings. Hopefully.




And where do the imposed loads on the failed elements go at this point?





This doesn't make sense. Are you suggesting that steel framed buildings have not suffered collapse due to fires?



Yet amazingly they pool the wool over almost the entire engineering and architectural communities. They even fool the likes of Arup and Edinburgh University into writing papers on the subject! Amazing!!!

By the way, you never responded about these papers either.

I am truly amazed.
Heiwa cannot see the difference between the load paths of a continuous metal hull, immersed in water (so the load path steel at and below the waterline is never is going to exceed about 250 F (120C)) (Hint: The deck plates do not carry grav loads) which is evenly loaded as a pressure function, and a discrete set of columns at 250C-> 1000C, with no heat sink available, carrying grav loads of everything above them.

A mouse and an elephant--4 legs a tail, and a nose--they are the same thing, exactly! Right?

 

[Heiwa]

1. Electricians don'e design plumbing, and naval architects don't do buildings. Hopefully.

2. Are you suggesting that steel framed buildings have not suffered collapse due to fires?

1. Strutural design is same for naval architects and building architects. Don't worry. Building architects put their steel structures on land, naval architects on the sea (a little more complex but feasible, thanks to Arkimedes). And according EU-legislation I can work in the building industry ashore. Doing it right now, actually.

2. Yes, steel structure buildings (where the loads are supported by steel columns, spandrels and horizontal beams) do not collapse due to normal fires. The sub-items may deform, crumple,sag or bend due to heat, and some local parts may rupture (rarely) ... but the total structure never totally collapse in 1 000 000's of pieces by their own weights and ever present gravity, like an avalanche. Never heard of! Except WTC1, 2 and 7 of course.

Thanks for the questions.

 

[Heiwa]

I am truly amazed.
Heiwa cannot see the difference between the load paths of a continuous metal hull, immersed in water (so the load path steel at and below the waterline is never is going to exceed about 250 F (120C)) (Hint: The deck plates do not carry grav loads) which is evenly loaded as a pressure function, and a discrete set of columns at 250C-> 1000C, with no heat sink available, carrying grav loads of everything above them.

A mouse and an elephant--4 legs a tail, and a nose--they are the same thing, exactly! Right?

Don't be amazed. Think of off-shore structures with plenty of top side equipment fitted on steel decks/platforms on top of structure below. My biz.

The upper block of WTC1 33 000 tons but volume wise mostly air was very well supported by the lower structure fixed on the ground and the two could never crumple or crumble by their own weight due to fire. It is as easy as that.

 

[Minadin]

It is very simple - gravity forces cannot cause total, global collapses of unheated multiple part steel low stressed structures even if applied very accurately!

When did we introduce unheated / low stress into the equation?

 

[rwguinn]

When did we introduce unheated / low stress into the equation?

So, the columns of WTC1 and WTC2 were unheated and low stress, after the airplanes took out some of them and a huge fire was busily heating more of them?

ETA:
Anybody se a set of goalposts around here? I swore I saw them earlier/...

 

[Disbelief]

Gravity is a force that attracts objects, e.g. all structural parts of the upper block of WTC1, towards the centre of the earth.

Take one column of the upper block! It is attracted to the centre of the earth by its gravity force. Fantastic, isn't it.

Now, when this column of upper block is still connected or applied to or put in position on a column of the lower block, the column of the upper block remains there. Guess why?

if you remove the column of the lower block, what happens to the column of the upper block? Right, the force of gravity attracts it to the centre of the earth. What happens? Do you know? Does it fall to the centre of the earth? No, it doesn't.

It is applied to the ground, that happens to be in the way between the starting point of the column and the centre of the earth, and it deforms itself and the ground when it is applied to the ground.

However, if the lose column is accurately applied to another column above the ground but below the lose column before it impinges the ground then it might deform that unlucky column. But only in one location. But it would be a miracle that the lose column is accurately applied to this other column. Small probabilty.

Try it yourself. Drill a little hole in your floor, dia 1 mm, and put a stick of spaghetti in it facing up. Take another stick of spaghetti and drop it from above on the stick of spaghetti facing up. Do this 1 000 000 times!

How many times is the dropped spaghetti accurately applied to the fixed spaghetti (and breaks it)? And how many times does the dropped spaghetti stick just miss and drops to the ground?

Pls advise me the result when you have done this simple test.

What? You are not "accurately applying" gravity, it is a constant.

 

[cloudshipsrule]

The upper block of WTC1 33 000 tons but volume wise mostly air was very well supported by the lower structure fixed on the ground and the two could never crumple or crumble by their own weight due to fire. It is as easy as that.

Well, DUH! That's why the terrorists didn't just start fires in the buildings. They flew fully loaded passenger jets into them hoping to make the buildings fail to some degree. What do ya' know? It worked!

So the lesson here is, a simple fire may or may not cause a steel structure to collapse (Unless it's a bridge of course.), but when you throw a passenger jet into the equation strange things happen. That about sum it up punk?

 

[Heiwa]

When did we introduce unheated / low stress into the equation?

The structure that collapses below the initiation zone is unheated and low stressed.

 

[Heiwa]

So, the columns of WTC1 and WTC2 were unheated and low stress, after the airplanes took out some of them and a huge fire was busily heating more of them?

ETA:
Anybody se a set of goalposts around here? I swore I saw them earlier/...

The structure that collapses below the initiation zone is unheated and low stressed.

 

[Heiwa]

What? You are not "accurately applying" gravity, it is a constant.

The gravity force that attracts the lose part of WTC1 will pull it to the centre of the earth unless it is accurately applied to something else in the meantime.

Gravity is not constant at all. It is a function of the masses involved. Basic!

 

[Heiwa]

So the lesson here is, a simple fire may not cause a steel structure to collapse. That about sum it up?

Right! I edited your input to make it right.

Do not alter a quote without making the alteration very clear.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

 

[cloudshipsrule]

You actually completely changed the meaning of my post, and you are actually completely wrong in your beliefs. Here's hoping you aren't actively working in an engineering field where you have any impact on any product/object which might eventually make it to market.

"Gravity is not constant."

You mean I've been wrong all these years using 32ft/s/s?

 

[cloudshipsrule]

The structure that collapses below the initiation zone is unheated and low stressed.

You do mean low stresssed until being impacted by several thousand tons of falling building, right?

 

[Disbelief]

The gravity force that attracts the lose part of WTC1 will pull it to the centre of the earth unless it is accurately applied to something else in the meantime.

Gravity is not constant at all. It is a function of the masses involved. Basic!

So, how can you make calculations in physics if gravity is not a constant? Don't you use 9.81m/s^2?

 

[beachnut]

Gravity is not constant at all. It is a function of the masses involved. Basic!

gravity on 9/11 for the WTC was essentially constant; you can use 9.81m/ss and come up with exactly what we saw on 9/11. lol

 

[cloudshipsrule]

Gravity is not constant at all. It is a function of the masses involved. Basic!

Basically wrong!