Another Question for Heiwa : Amazing Fireproof Steel

cloudshipsrule said:
Basically wrong!
Click to expand...


At the very core, he is correct--gravitational force is a function of the masses involved.
But when
M1=Earth
M2= anything on the Earth

M1 wins, and g is to all intents and purposes, a Constant, at 9.802 m/sec^2, 32.2 ft/sec^2, or 386.1 in/sec^2--your choice of units.


This is why I don't b'leev that Heiwa is an engineer. HE gets his basics confused with his reality...
 
Heiwa said:
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.
Click to expand...

This building had a steel structure and the normal fire caused it to collapse.

Look at the parts with paint still on them, pulled and deformed by the collapse of the rest of the building.

Normal fires cause steel framed buildings to collapse, so as we know this we must look at the masses involved in the towers and see if the mass above the plane hits and weakened structure, was enough to destroy the part below when dropped on it due to this fire damage, in conjunction with the plane damage, and the force of gravity acting on it.

Show us your calculations as to why the collapse would have stopped.

1824447b1cfcfa7614.jpg
 
Heiwa said:
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.
Click to expand...

You can work on whatever you like. However if you call yourself in an architect in the UK without having gone to the bother of actually being qualified as one, and studying all those pesky academic subjects which don't involve largely irrelevant subjects such as boats, then you will have committed a criminal offence.

Before you ask why this is, here's the proof:

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.
Click to expand...

Now, you're really squirming here.

You originally claimed that fire structures weren't susceptible to fire induced failure under normal conditions. Unfortunately for you, this is complete bollocks and I note with some amusement that you've not actually responded to any of the technical points put to you in the OP.

However not to be caught out in fantasy land, you now qualify your position. No structure has ever collapsed due to fire. Wellllllll, that's wrong too. Rather a few have, including a recent case in the UK which took out some firemen when the steel roof structure failed.

But now, wait a minute, now we've got another get out clause......it has to be like an avalanche. Incidentally, I've been in an avalanche and they look nothing like WTC. A big white wall with death written on it is, I believe, the phrase I used at the time.

What next......no steel framed building with the initials "WTC" has ever collapsed?

But this overlooks the fact that you've wholly failed to grasp the composite nature of the building's structure and hence analyse the impact on the collapse pattern.

Why would this be?


Just a minute, I know.......ah yes, it's because IT'S NOT A RUDDY BOAT!
 
Last edited:
Heiwa said:
The structure that collapses below the initiation zone is unheated and low stressed.
Click to expand...

Um, I guess I'll agree that unheated steel is essentially fireproof, as long as it remains unheated. :boggled: After all, that is rather the purpose of fire rated insulation in a steel structure - to keep the temperature down for as long as possible.

As far as the steel structure below the area of impact and fires in the WTC, I don't think that anyone here has argued that heating due to fire is the direct cause of that particular aspect of the collapse. (other pieces of steel and concrete floors and office contents slamming into them with a lot of momentum did the job there)

So, your contention is then that "the rest of the structure should have been resilient enough to withstand the impact of those many tons of debris from the impact area and above" then - not that "the structure in the impact zone shouldn't have failed due to fire / impact damage". Is that correct?

I do believe that some folks would be in disagreement with you as to how "low stress" the situation was, especially during the collapse.
 
Architect said:
<snip extremely polite, thourogh, and effective spanking>
Just a minute, I know.......ah yes, it's because IT'S NOT A RUDDY BOAT!
Click to expand...

Why does it have to be brick-red color? Are brick-red boats easier to analyze?
I personally like Battleship grey, and even blue as a boat color...
 
rwguinn said:
Why does it have to be brick-red color? Are brick-red boats easier to analyze?
I personally like Battleship grey, and even blue as a boat color...
Click to expand...

It's you language, mate, I'm just working with what you've got.....

...which, form a Gaelic perspective, is not nearly enough dh's and gh's.
 
Heiwa said:
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.
Click to expand...

And what, exactly, is trying to drop a spaghetti onto another spaghetti supposed to prove?
 
Heiwa said:
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.
Click to expand...

"The sub-items may deform, crumple, sag or bend due to heat ... but the total structure never totally collapses ..."

If we assume structural element (your "sub-items") serve a purpose, that is, they hold a load, it is very reasonable to assume that the failure ("deform, crumple, sag or bend") may lead to a total failure of the building.

Think about it:

1) You have stated that sub-elements can fail due to fire.
2) You agree, I presume, that elements carry structural load.
3) So then you must agree that the failure of a sub-element must redistribute the load among the remaining elements.
4) Thus the remaining elements carry more load.
5) As more elements fail, the load on the remaining elements becomes greater.
6) At some point, the load will be too large for the remaining elements to bear.
7) When this happens, the structure will fail.

However, it seems that your reasoning is that the load can be re-distributed endlessly, without overwhelming the capacities of the remaining elements. Does this seem logical to you?


ETA: Sorry to keep popping in posts instead of dealing with everything together. It's just that each time I read through this, I find something new.
 
Last edited:
Disbelief said:
So, how can you make calculations in physics if gravity is not a constant? Don't you use 9.81m/s^2?
Click to expand...

9.82 at the North Pole and 9.80 at the Equator or whatever and 1.5 on the Moon and 3.1 on the planet Mars. 0 at a certain location between Earth and Moon, and so on.
 
Heiwa said:
9.82 at the North Pole and 9.80 at the Equator or whatever and 1.5 on the Moon and 3.1 on the planet Mars. 0 at a certain location between Earth and Moon, and so on.
Click to expand...

That's not really relevant to a discussion of structural collapses on Earth.
 
[X] said:
1) You have stated that sub-elements can fail due to fire.
2) You agree, I presume, that elements carry structural load.
3) So then you must agree that the failure of a sub-element must redistribute the load among the remaining elements.
4) Thus the remaining elements carry more load.
5) As more elements fail, the load on the remaining elements becomes greater.
6) At some point, the load will be too large for the remaining elements to bear.
7) When this happens, the structure will fail.
Click to expand...

1. Right
2. Of course
3. Right
4. Right
5. Right
6. Wrong
7. Not applicable

Imagine three subelements A, B and C of equal mass/density stacked on each other with C on top.

A carries B and B carries C and C carries nothing.

Imagine that C is weakened by fire! What happens to A and B. Nothing evidently because they are not weakened by fire.

Imagine that B is weakened by fire. What happens to A and C?

C may overload B but C and B will not overload A.
 
Heiwa said:
1. Right
2. Of course
3. Right
4. Right
5. Right
6. Wrong
7. Not applicable
Click to expand...


You realise that what you're saying is that when a structural element fails, the load it carried is in some magical manner is redistributed but also somehow - magically - vanishes into thin air, hence the altered load path cannot fail due to excess capacity and the structure cannot undergo progressive failure.


I mean, that's what you really think, is it?

:eye-poppi
 
Last edited:
Heiwa said:
1. Right
2. Of course
3. Right
4. Right
5. Right
6. Wrong
7. Not applicable

Imagine three subelements A, B and C of equal mass/density stacked on each other with C on top.

A carries B and B carries C and C carries nothing.

Imagine that C is weakened by fire! What happens to A and B. Nothing evidently because they are not weakened by fire.

Imagine that B is weakened by fire. What happens to A and C?

C may overload B but C and B will not overload A.
Click to expand...

It may be because I am new here, but I cannot believe that this is the root of your argument. Are you saying that unless the fire starts in the basement, the building cannot possibly fail?
 
Heiwa said:
1. Right
2. Of course
3. Right
4. Right
5. Right
6. Wrong
7. Not applicable

Imagine three subelements A, B and C of equal mass/density stacked on each other with C on top.

A carries B and B carries C and C carries nothing.

Imagine that C is weakened by fire! What happens to A and B. Nothing evidently because they are not weakened by fire.

Imagine that B is weakened by fire. What happens to A and C?

C may overload B but C and B will not overload A.
Click to expand...

You would be much more correct stating that A, B and C are of equal mass/density using interconnected parts as an assembly and not solid blocks.

By the way, nice to see that you realized that gravity is a constant.
 
9.82 at the North Pole and 9.80 at the Equator or whatever and 1.5 on the Moon and 3.1 on the planet Mars. 0 at a certain location between Earth and Moon, and so on.
Click to expand...

Are you trying to say "When I said gravity wasn't constant, I was not reffering to the WTC collapse event."? (Because the gravitational differences you've just described here have nothing to do with the WTC collapse.)
 
Last edited:
Smackety said:
It may be because I am new here, but I cannot believe that this is the root of your argument. Are you saying that unless the fire starts in the basement, the building cannot possibly fail?
Click to expand...

He probably means "hull".

:boggled:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom