Layman's terms please! Tower collapse issue

[tsig]

Most (95%) of the towers was air. Uniform density of the mass of the tower top part was <0.18, i.e. less than wool. Could not do much damage to anything.

Could've blown away on any given day.

 

[tsig]

Read my easy to understand paper written in layman's terms at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm and you will see that the main conclusion is that Nist, Bazant and Seffen should improve their analysises of the initiations and collapses of WTC1 (and 2). For the sake of our children.

Rigid upper bodies, free fall, impacts, high velocity, enormous amount of potential energy released, shock waves, crush fronts, uniform density ... unscientific nonsense and dim assumptions, all of it. Every child understands that.

Shame we are not children.

 

[tsig]

?? Unable to respond? Nothing wrong with my analysis. Give me an example where I err!

Your analysis is totally anal do you love puppies too?

 

[tsig]

?? Unable to respond? Nothing wrong with my analysis. Give me an example where I err!

You are wrong every time you touch your fingers to the keys. lies are at your fingertips.

 

[Heiwa]

In Heiwa's example of the density when he accounts for all the air as part of the building, it's ludicrous for a number of reasons. And his comparison to the density of wool? I'm not sure how he resolves that with his position that steel is such a super strong material that it holds up just fine after losing much of its strength due to heavy fire conditions. Obviously the structure at the WTC was quite different from wool. Citing the density doesn't do anything to negate the mass of what's falling, unless he's expecting it to be rather buoyant in the ambient air, or something.

Well, it is Bazant and Seffen that introduced the assumtion that the upper block was rigid and of uniform - not varying in form or quality - density (relation of weight to volume) - and 0.18 is then the density (18% of water) = very light according my calculations. Most if it is air, which evidently is part of the volume of the upper block! How it then can be rigid (stiff, unbending, that cannot be bent, inflexible), I query.

The structure in initiation/fire zone was apparently not rigid at all! All supporting columns failed simultaneously within a second - and was swept away - allowing a rigid upper block structure of uniform density (0.18) to free fall, etc. we are told. Nonsense, of course. Only a fool believes that.

And not seen on any video. WTC1 is a clear example. Upper block is disintegrating long before anything happens to the supporting steel structure at the initiation/fire zone below. It does not bend or is being swept away. Clearly described in my paper. The supporting structure was only compressed <20-30% of yield at ambient temperature. Cannot crumple if heated to 500°C. Basic! And individual columns can definitely not be ripped apart at two locations with the intermediate part being swept away. Only a fool believes that.

And that this very light upper block impinges on the structure below and that gravity then produces a shock wave + a crush front that rips the structure below in 10 000 pieces in 10-15 seconds is simply not possible - and not seen on any videos. The upper block disappeared long before that.

Only a fool believes that the upper block crushed the lower structure during 10-15 seconds. Whar you see on the videos is a completely different collapse. Just look. No upper block anywhere.

 

[Heiwa]

You are wrong every time you touch your fingers to the keys. lies are at your fingertips.

Haven't I heard it before? Like parrots. Some kinds can be trained to imitate human speech. But also a person who repeats, without understanding what others say. Why am I wrong? Give an example!

 

[Heiwa]

Bear in mind that his research was so comprehensive that he didn't know that the towers had concrete floors, and he diesn't understand the composite nature of the building structure.

It wasn't a good start, and it just kept getting worse.

?? Concrete floors? The floor design/weight is well described in my paper. Why invent things, that are not true? Nothing better to do?

 

[Architect]

?? Concrete floors? The floor design/weight is well described in my paper. Why invent things, that are not true? Nothing better to do?

Is like you "forgetting" that you claimed that steel was inherrently fire resistant and didn't fail under normal fire loadings?

 

[Architect]

Haven't I heard it before? Like parrots. Some kinds can be trained to imitate human speech. But also a person who repeats, without understanding what others say. Why am I wrong? Give an example!

Well pretty much everywhere, to be frank. And it's been pointed out to yout time and time again on this and other threads. For example:

- The structural design of the WTC towers

- The ability of the outer envelope to stand on it's own

- The initiation zone.

- The initiation sequence.

- The meaning of basic technical terms such as "initiation".

- The performance of steel in fire.

- The error in suggesting that core column integrity is a key part of the initiation sequence.

- Any structural analogy comparing the towers to the density of wool.

- The use of concrete for floors.

But, hey - that doesn't matter, does it? Because all these pesky trained academics and professionals are all fools, right? Only YOU can see the truth!

 

[MRC_Hans]

Well, it is Bazant and Seffen that introduced the assumtion that the upper block was rigid and of uniform - not varying in form or quality - density (relation of weight to volume) - and 0.18 is then the density (18% of water)

There are some simulations out there that use a rigid upper block to show that progressive collapse will ensue. Obviously, nobody sane will claim that it actually stayed that way during the collapse.

= very light according my calculations. Most if it is air, which evidently is part of the volume of the upper block! How it then can be rigid (stiff, unbending, that cannot be bent, inflexible), I query.

Just like any other large building consists of mostly air and is rigid. Unflexible, it is not; high-rise buildings can sway a surprising amount under wind loads.

You know, not only would a solid block of material not be very useful, but it would collapse under its own weight.

Actually, very large, almost completely solid structures have in fact been built by man. They were indeed not particularly useful, and they have a quite different shape. We call them pyramids.

The structure in initiation/fire zone was apparently not rigid at all!

Exactly! That was sorta the reason the building collapsed: Part of it lost its rigidity.

All supporting columns failed simultaneously within a second - and was swept away -

Yes, all supports failing in rapid succession due to progressive oveload is a good description of a structural break-down. They weren't swept away, however. They just crumbled, snapped, etc.

allowing a rigid upper block structure of uniform density (0.18) to free fall, etc. we are told. Nonsense, of course. Only a fool believes that.

Absolutely nonsense, yes. Only a fool would claim that.

And that this very light upper block impinges on the structure below

Very light as in weighing 20-25% of the total mass of one of the world's largest building.

and that gravity then produces a shock wave + a crush front that rips the structure below in 10 000 pieces in 10-15 seconds is simply not possible - and not seen on any videos.

Gravity? Let's see you construct something that can withstand 1/5 of a skyscraper dropped from about 10 ft.

The upper block disappeared long before that.

Disappeared? It ceased being a block, obviously, but disappeared? Where on earth should it disappear to?

Hans

 

[einsteen]

There are some simulations out there that use a rigid upper block to show that progressive collapse will ensue. Obviously, nobody sane will claim that it actually stayed that way during the collapse.

Utter nonsense, a solid structure (no air) cannot collapse like the twin towers, if your simulation is based on the crush-down equation then I understand why. But the crush-down equation is only valid if there are floor slabs that can collapse because of the empty space between them. It's only a continuous (energetically) equivalence that makes it possible to solve using differential equations. Tree chunks topple.

 

[Heiwa]

Well pretty much everywhere, to be frank. And it's been pointed out to yout time and time again on this and other threads. For example:

- The structural design of the WTC towers

- The ability of the outer envelope to stand on it's own

- The initiation zone.

- The initiation sequence.

- The meaning of basic technical terms such as "initiation".

- The performance of steel in fire.

- The error in suggesting that core column integrity is a key part of the initiation sequence.

- Any structural analogy comparing the towers to the density of wool.

- The use of concrete for floors.

But, hey - that doesn't matter, does it? Because all these pesky trained academics and professionals are all fools, right? Only YOU can see the truth!

Well - evidently you have not read my paper because the structural design of WTC1 (or at least its upper part) is well described. One conclusion then is that the outer envelope, you mean the four outer walls consisting of 63 columns each, can stand on its own. The outer envelope does not need any floors to stand. Quite the opposite, the floors need the outer envelope to hang on (via bolts). Remove all floors and the walls stand. The initiation zone is apparently where the collapse started - no problem for me, except that the roof of WTC1 drops 20-25 meters and there is still no big damages at the initiation zone. The initiation sequence? One thing is sure - no mention that the upper block disintegrates prior to collapse below the initiation zone starts. The meaning of 'initiation' and other basic technical terms! Is 'initiation' a technical term? Sound more like magic and secret society to me! The performance of steel in fire is described (with a link) in the paper. The steel gets hot, etc! Strength is hardly affected below 500°C. Core column integrity! Yes, it is a mystery how 47 strong core columns were destroyed. Not by gravity in my opinion as explained in the paper. Solid stuff. Should deflect anything dropping on it. Comparison with wool! Well the uniform density of the upper block is less than that of wool, so I think it is a useful comparison. The use of concrete of floors. I thought you thought I did not know that there were concrete floors? Anyway - they poured concrete on the steel floors pans held by trusses to even them out, provide noise and fire insulation, etc. No big deal. I know Nist suggests that 6 or 11 floors fell down suddenly into the initiation zone and initiated the collapse, but it is nonsense. Only fools believe that.

Do you believe that 6 or 11 floors fell down and initiated the collapse?

 

[Heiwa]

There are some simulations out there that use a rigid upper block to show that progressive collapse will ensue. Obviously, nobody sane will claim that it actually stayed that way during the collapse.



Disappeared? It ceased being a block, obviously, but disappeared? Where on earth should it disappear to?

Hans

So you say the Mr Seffen of Cambridge university is not sane?

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/Seffen4.GIF

It is the basic assumption of Seffen that the upper block does not disappear. If it disappears, there will be no impact, no 30x local 'overload' and no global collapse. Obvious, n'est pas?

 

[applecorped]

So, everyone who contributed to the NIST report regarding collapse initiation are fools and you know the "real" truth. What have you done over the past several years to correct this? Just post at JREF?

 

[Minadin]

One conclusion then is that the outer envelope, you mean the four outer walls consisting of 63 columns each, can stand on its own. The outer envelope does not need any floors to stand.

There aren't any building professionals who will agree with your opinion here. This is one of those things even lay-people can look at and see that you're completely wrong about.

One thing is sure - no mention that the upper block disintegrates prior to collapse below the initiation zone starts.

When you use words like "disintegrate" or "destroyed" and etc, it seems that you're using the break-up of the structure to completely discount the mass of the upper portion. The mass doesn't go away for being smaller pieces. Does a 10-ton block of ice weigh more than 10 tons of ice cubes?

The performance of steel in fire is described (with a link) in the paper. The steel gets hot, etc! Strength is hardly affected below 500°C.

You persist with this idiocy despite all available data to the contrary. Structural steel has lost 40% of its strength at 500°C. And that's not even taking into account the changes in the modulus of elasticity or thermal expansion.

Comparison with wool! Well the uniform density of the upper block is less than that of wool, so I think it is a useful comparison.

Well, I think it's pretty stupid as comparisons go. How do the other properties of the two materials compare? They're pretty darn dissimilar as materials go.

The use of concrete of floors. I thought you thought I did not know that there were concrete floors? Anyway - they poured concrete on the steel floors pans held by trusses to even them out, provide noise and fire insulation, etc. No big deal.

Yet, in another thread here on this very forum, less than a month ago, you said:

Ships are built only of steel and the WTCs could probably have been done like that too. I always wonder why they poured so much concrete (4 inches) on the floors! Any ideas?

So, your position has changed? It's good to see that you can learn, but you might want to apply this to other areas when your ideas are shown to be in error as well.

I know Nist suggests that 6 or 11 floors fell down suddenly into the initiation zone and initiated the collapse, but it is nonsense. Only fools believe that. Do you believe that 6 or 11 floors fell down and initiated the collapse?

Only fools who haven't read the NIST report, or even the FAQ, believe that what you've described above is actually what the NIST states as the cause for collapse initiation.

 

[Mr X]

:

He better get a cup.

Are you offering tea?...........

 

[Wolrab]

For the hell of it, if the upper block had the density of wool, wouldn't the lower portion also? Wouldn't the towers still collapse? It seems to be just switching one constant for another.

 

[Newtons Bit]

For the hell of it, if the upper block had the density of wool, wouldn't the lower portion also? Wouldn't the towers still collapse? It seems to be just switching one constant for another.

That's Heiwa's modus operandus. He changes the problem from something real to something that he can visualize (and usually absurd). He wouldn't need to do this if he actually had real training in engineering.

 

[Pookster]

:


Are you offering tea?...........

Actually, something more like a tee off.

 

[Heiwa]

So, everyone who contributed to the NIST report regarding collapse initiation are fools and you know the "real" truth. What have you done over the past several years to correct this? Just post at JREF?

I have last year written a paper about WTC1 for children that I copied Nist of course and then Nist changed opinion and suggested that 6-11 floors dropped down and caused global collapse. My paper has then been noted at JREF and there we are. No need to call anyone at Nist or contributing to Nist a fool. They are just working for the government.