Layman's terms please! Tower collapse issue

[rwguinn]

Now that's saying something considering where he started. He's always assumed that the columns from the upper block landed on the lower in perfect alignment and simultaneously.

What I find amusing it his basic, unstated, but inherent assumption:
When a tightrope walker steps off of the tower onto the rope, we can now remove the towers and he'll stay up there, along with the wire!

Waaaayyy too much Buggs Bunny and Roadrunner...

 

[Heiwa]

So, it the 33,000 ton mass was no longer being supported by the columns, what was supporting it then?

You do not know?? Come on! Use your brain! Nothing, of course! The 33 000 tons are alleged to free fall, impact on the column stubs below, create shock waves in the columns below and a 4000 m² crush front somewhere (in the columns??), etc = no support of any kind is absolutely required for that. The 280+ supports in the impact/initiation zone disappeared instantaneous according various 'experts' allowing free fall, etc. Never happened before, though. Happened twice on 911. Never seen on any video. Reminds me of WW2 901 1939. Hitler announced that Poland had attacked Germany (so Poland had to be wiped out).

 

[DGM]

You do not know?? Come on! Use your brain! Nothing, of course! The 33 000 tons are alleged to free fall, impact on the column stubs below, create shock waves in the columns below and a 4000 m² crush front somewhere (in the columns??), etc = no support of any kind is absolutely required for that. The 280+ supports in the impact/initiation zone disappeared instantaneous according various 'experts' allowing free fall, etc. Never happened before, though. Happened twice on 911. Never seen on any video. Reminds me of WW2 901 1939. Hitler announced that Poland had attacked Germany (so Poland had to be wiped out).

Alleged by who? Your the only one I've ever seen suggest anything so absurd. How do you translate what is reported into what you say they said (crap, that hurt my head)?

 

[Heiwa]

It's always entertaining to watch the process by which unsupportable assertions descend into total, utter, unarguable lunacy. Heiwa, what you're suggesting is that the upper block should have shifted sideways so that none of the columns were aligned, but remained upright. It should then have fallen till the columns impacted the floors, then... what?

I think we have to go to multiple choice here.

Did the floors (a) suddenly acquire the ability to support the 30,000 ton weight of the upper block, or (b) collapse?

Choose (a) and you're clearly insane. Let's assume (b).

Now, even if the upper block shifted sideways, it must have rested on the lower block at two specific points, where the perimeter columns crossed each other.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/1476447daaa50d8833.jpg[/qimg]

This must have concentrated the entire weight of the upper block on two column trees of the perimeter structure. Did these column trees either (a) suddenly increase in strength by over 20 times and support the upper block all by themselves, or (b) fail under the additional load?

Again, choose (a) and you're clearly insane. Choose (b) and suddenly the perimeter column structure is starting to collapse.

Of course, none of this actually happened, because the upper block actually tilted as it fell, giving the additional result that oblique impacts occurred between formerly vertical columns. However, even if we imagine that the upper block miraculously just shifted a small amount sideways and stayed upright throughout the collapse, it's still geometrically impossible for all the columns to have missed each other, and this is obvious to anyone with a kindergarten level understanding of geometry.

Heiwa's explanations are getting more insane with every post.

Dave

It is always fascinating to see what gray ideas/questions the yellow greenhorns produce to support the red tape of NIST.

To start with - if an upper column is misaligned with a lower column a distance corresponding to the thickness of the plate of the columns after free fall (takes 0.5 seconds - not seen of course), the columns will never impact each other. In layman's terms the upper column misses the lower column.
I would then assume that 50% of the upper perimeter columns are outside the building - no floors there unless balconies were fitted (not seen on any videos) - and will meet no resistance. They should thus drop straight down.

So, the columns never impact! What we would expect then is that it is the bottom floor of the upper part that impacts the upper floor of the lower part.

No problem according NIST. Nothing happens! The upper block just drops another storey. Another floor then impacts the floor sandwich on the top of the lower structure. Nothing happens according NIST except that another floor impacts the tripple sandwich below. According NIST you can stack 11 floors on top of the uppermost floor of the lower structure and then that floor will fall down. The global collapse apparently starts.

Bfore that time 50% of the perimeter columns of the upper block are hanging in free air on the outside of two walls, and the remaining 50% perimeter columns have been punching holes in 11 floors below just inside the other walls. Never seen on any videos or Hollywood production. It is quite insane, what NIST proposes.

Very strange collapse, cowboy! Just watching the ears of your horse?

 

[DGM]

It is always fascinating to see what gray ideas/questions the yellow greenhorns produce to support the red tape of NIST.

To start with - if an upper column is misaligned with a lower column a distance corresponding to the thickness of the plate of the columns after free fall (takes 0.5 seconds - not seen of course), the columns will never impact each other. In layman's terms the upper column misses the lower column.
I would then assume that 50% of the upper perimeter columns are outside the building - no floors there unless balconies were fitted (not seen on any videos) - and will meet no resistance. They should thus drop straight down.

So, the columns never impact! What we would expect then is that it is the bottom floor of the upper part that impacts the upper floor of the lower part.

No problem according NIST. Nothing happens! The upper block just drops another storey. Another floor then impacts the floor sandwich on the top of the lower structure. Nothing happens according NIST except that another floor impacts the tripple sandwich below. According NIST you can stack 11 floors on top of the uppermost floor of the lower structure and then that floor will fall down. The global collapse apparently starts.

Bfore that time 50% of the perimeter columns of the upper block are hanging in free air on the outside of two walls, and the remaining 50% perimeter columns have been punching holes in 11 floors below just inside the other walls. Never seen on any videos or Hollywood production. It is quite insane, what NIST proposes.

Very strange collapse, cowboy! Just watching the ears of your horse?

Does this mean something when it's translated back to your native language? In English it's pure gibberish.

 

[Heiwa]

Alleged by who? Your the only one I've ever seen suggest anything so absurd. How do you translate what is reported into what you say they said (crap, that hurt my head)?

NIST in its report, of course! It is not absurd, it is a fact. Release of PE. I quote them in my article. Another word for free fall. This PE is supposed to exceed the strain energy, SE, of the structure below and global collapse ensued. NIST forgot to explain that the PE must first be applied to the structure below. And that it could not.

 

[rwguinn]

Does this mean something when it's translated back to your native language? In English it's pure gibberish.

I think it translates to "I am out of Dried Frog Pills can you help me?"

 

[X]

What about the floors, Heiwa?
The floors, which provide supporting structure without which the building could not stand (yes, I am aware that you claim it was a "birdcage", but you have been unable to provide any proof of this, and many people have shown that assertion to be false). The floors, which, by an amazing coincidence, cover a significant portion of the cross-sectional area of the building. The floors, which could not avoid being impacted unless the top of the building shifted sideways by the full width of the building.

You are, in effect, claiming that because the columns didn't line up exactly when they failed, not load would have been transmitted since the top part of the building would have fallen right through the gaps between the columns of the remaining lower half to the ground below.

It's insane! Utterly insane.
You claim to be an engineer. Can you not see the flaw in your reasoning? Or are you going to keep spinning obfuscations to try and handwave it away?

 

[DGM]

NIST in its report, of course! It is not absurd, it is a fact. Release of PE. I quote them in my article. Another word for free fall. This PE is supposed to exceed the strain energy, SE, of the structure below and global collapse ensued. NIST forgot to explain that the PE must first be applied to the structure below. And that it could not.

Heiwa:
COULD IT FREAKING MISS!

Let me put this as a child could understand. The top was over the bottom. When the top fell it hit the bottom. It couldn't miss.

Does that help you understand, Heiwa?

 

[rwguinn]

Heiwa:
COULD IT FREAKING MISS!

Let me put this as a child could understand. The top was over the bottom. When the top fell it hit the bottom. It couldn't miss.

Does that help you understand, Heiwa?

Apparently, between the bouts of talking with himself, heiwa has trouble understanding that .5g =/= 1.0g.
(i have him on ignore, so I wonder --is he arguing with himself, and if so, does he win those arguments?)

 

[Newtons Bit]

I'm making an exception to my rule of not responding to Heiwa:

It is always fascinating to see what gray ideas/questions the yellow greenhorns produce to support the red tape of NIST.

To start with - if an upper column is misaligned with a lower column a distance corresponding to the thickness of the plate of the columns after free fall (takes 0.5 seconds - not seen of course), the columns will never impact each other. In layman's terms the upper column misses the lower column.
I would then assume that 50% of the upper perimeter columns are outside the building - no floors there unless balconies were fitted (not seen on any videos) - and will meet no resistance. They should thus drop straight down.

So, the columns never impact! What we would expect then is that it is the bottom floor of the upper part that impacts the upper floor of the lower part.

No problem according NIST. Nothing happens! The upper block just drops another storey. Another floor then impacts the floor sandwich on the top of the lower structure. Nothing happens according NIST except that another floor impacts the tripple sandwich below. According NIST you can stack 11 floors on top of the uppermost floor of the lower structure and then that floor will fall down. The global collapse apparently starts.

Bfore that time 50% of the perimeter columns of the upper block are hanging in free air on the outside of two walls, and the remaining 50% perimeter columns have been punching holes in 11 floors below just inside the other walls. Never seen on any videos or Hollywood production. It is quite insane, what NIST proposes.

Very strange collapse, cowboy! Just watching the ears of your horse?

Nothing could be further from the truth than this insane drivel of a mindless fanatical zealot of a ******** religion. All you have done here is show the extent of your own ignorance. You have told us all what you think NIST proposes and knocked this down, but all you have knocked down is your own fantasy: every word about NIST comes out of your mouth is a lie. Their report says nothing of what you do. Stop doing this, it is childish.

This is what NIST actually says:

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

They discounted the pancake or sandwich theory. That theory was the speculation FEMA, and it is old and incorrect and has been stated so.

I've already done hand-calcs verifying that the columns would pull in as NIST states. I've shown that the idiotic truther notion that there isn't enough potential energy to continue the collapse is complete BS.

What have you done? You wrote a paper that has been self-described as targeting to children. But this forum is where men* dwell, Heiwa. You want to make these bold claims you do, do so with math and with engineering. I don't want to see completely false metaphors to small real-world objects. Start breaking out engineering principles and perform accurate computations of this inane drivel you spout. Put up or shut up.

*And women.

 

[Heiwa]

Heiwa:
COULD IT FREAKING MISS!

Let me put this as a child could understand. The top was over the bottom. When the top fell it hit the bottom. It couldn't miss.

Does that help you understand, Heiwa?

Of course it misses, if misaligned >thickness of the column plates. If <thickness of the column plates it may slide off. Very difficult to hit a nail with another nail.

We are talking columns of course.

That a complete lowest floor of the top part (weight 0.4 ton/m²) impacts a complete uppermost floor of the lower structure (that can carry according to Nist 4 ton/m²) is a completely different matter and just causes local failure (when 11 floors have been loaded) and will not affect the columns evidently, function of which is to transmit the load in the floors via the columns to the ground.

 

[Architect]

It is always fascinating to see what gray ideas/questions the yellow greenhorns produce to support the red tape of NIST.

Listen, pal, I've had just about enough of your insanity.

How many nation awards have you won for your work on tall buildings, eh?

How about if I can show to a mod that I've got more than you, you admit that you're the greenhorn and I'm the friggin expert?

Put up, or shut up.

 

[Heiwa]

This is what NIST actually says:


They discounted the pancake or sandwich theory. That theory was the speculation FEMA, and it is old and incorrect and has been stated so.

I've already done hand-calcs verifying that the columns would pull in as NIST states. I've shown that the idiotic truther notion that there isn't enough potential energy to continue the collapse is complete BS.

What have you done? You wrote a paper that has been self-described as targeting to children. But this forum is where men* dwell, Heiwa. You want to make these bold claims you do, do so with math and with engineering. I don't want to see completely false metaphors to small real-world objects. Start breaking out engineering principles and perform accurate computations of this inane drivel you spout. Put up or shut up.

*And women.

Hm, NIST is not talking about any global collapse in your quote but only about initiation in the so called initiation/impact zone before global collapse of structure below, that is not described at all. And that description is not very accurate, to say the least!

It ignores that the WTC1 upper block above the initiation/impact zone telescopes into itself, disintegrates, visible columns high above are displaced sidways several meters, etc. several seconds before 'initiation'. Such a block cannot cause and damage below!

That is the one main message of my article at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm . Have you actually read it? Some easy maths there to check! BTW, my audience is also women. The Nist paper includes women as writers.

Normally I do not reply to obnoxious comments but your quote was a little ... misaligned.

 

[Heiwa]

Listen, pal, I've had just about enough of your insanity.

How many nation awards have you won for your work on tall buildings, eh?

How about if I can show to a mod that I've got more than you, you admit that you're the greenhorn and I'm the friggin expert?

Put up, or shut up.

You just proved my point.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

I would then assume that 50% of the upper perimeter columns are outside the building - no floors there unless balconies were fitted (not seen on any videos) - and will meet no resistance. They should thus drop straight down.

Like this?

 

[Alferd_Packer]

It ignores that the WTC1 upper block above the initiation/impact zone telescopes into itself, disintegrates,

Even if it telescopes into itself and disintegrates, as you put it, the mass will still be there. All 33,000 tons of it.

Furthermore, because it has telescoped into itself and disintegrated, the load path of that mass will no longer be transmitted to the columns, now, will it?

visible columns high above are displaced sidways several meters, etc. several seconds before 'initiation'. Such a block cannot cause and damage below!

Once again, I ask you: Under your theory, if the 33,000 ton mass of the upper block was no longer supported by the columns, then how would the lower block have supported it as you claim that it should have? How would this structure been able to withstand the dynamic load of the falling mass?

 

[bofors]

Listen, pal, I've had just about enough of your insanity.

How many nation awards have you won for your work on tall buildings, eh?

How about if I can show to a mod that I've got more than you, you admit that you're the greenhorn and I'm the friggin expert?

Put up, or shut up.

How do your "nation awards" make up for your inability to understand basic physics?

 

[stateofgrace]

How do your "nation awards" make up for your inability to understand basic physics?

Maybe you could back up this question and point out the inabilities.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Hm, NIST is not talking about any global collapse in your quote but only about initiation in the so called initiation/impact zone before global collapse of structure below, that is not described at all. And that description is not very accurate, to say the least!

It ignores that the WTC1 upper block above the initiation/impact zone telescopes into itself, disintegrates, visible columns high above are displaced sidways several meters, etc. several seconds before 'initiation'. Such a block cannot cause and damage below!

That is the one main message of my article at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm . Have you actually read it? Some easy maths there to check! BTW, my audience is also women. The Nist paper includes women as writers.

Normally I do not reply to obnoxious comments but your quote was a little ... misaligned.

No, don't squirm away. Don't dodge. It's right there. You said that the columns would "miss" on two whole walls. That they would slide off. How can they do that if the collapse initiation results in the one whole wall being pulled inwards and the tower rotating into that void? They didn't miss on the outside, the missed on the INSIDE. Like this:

Or like this:

The columns did not just magically move over a foot, like you claim. They obvious fell inside the building due to the rotation, not outside. Do you want to retract this claim? Man up to something.

I asked you to provide actual calculations, not the inaccurate little childish things you do on your "paper". I've read it, I posted criticisms of it, and then you called me a fraud and a charlatan because I didn't agree with you. Remember that? Do you want to respond to my criticisms are shall we just let it stand that your paper is complete b.s.?

Now then, are you actually going to do something real, or you going to keep squirming away and dodging serious questions? I've already shown that the PE is far greater than the strain energy of the towers. But if you think otherwise, show us with man. Come now, there's a lot of people here who can understand this. Don't be shy, do some math for us. Show us your theory based on engineering principles, not ridiculous metaphors to beds or fish tanks. But remember, I get paid to design buildings so they won't fall down. I'm going to look at what you say carefully.