• 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.

Layman's terms please! Tower collapse issue

Some more remarks, now that my irritation has subsided a bit.

Heiwa said:
Yes, a big crane can lift 33 000 tons 3.7 metres in six seconds and for that it requires about 40 litres of diesel oil. Quite big engine, though in the crane. Explained in my article incl. calculation.
Click to expand...
Please show me this crane. A picture would be nice.

Hiewa said:
I wonder why Nist didn't do it? It helps to retrieve some failed columns from the initiation zone also. Quite incompetent not doing either. Just saying PE/KE > SE without any calculations/evidence of any sort!
Click to expand...
Bazant already did the calculation. He discovered that it was a very small amount of the total potential energy available. I've done my own calculation of this and confirmed his result.

Hiewa said:
You still maintain the upper block was perfectly aligned with the lower structure during the gravity collapse?
Click to expand...

NO HEIWA. Do not put words in my mouth. IT IS OLD AND CHILDISH. No one on this forum, EXCEPT TRUTHERS, have ever made this argument. It is a strawman. DROP IT. We assume that it is aligned because this is both favorable to collapse prevention and easier to model.

Heiwa said:
100% alignment between upper block (with rigid, uniform density, mass that drives the gravity collapse!) of lower structure is an ABSOLUTE requirement for a gravity collapse, like an avalanche. If no alignment the upper block slides off the lower structure due to gravity = no gravity collapse or avalanche.
Click to expand...

Completely false. For the mass to slide off the top, a force has to act on the mass. This force has to be provided by the lower structure. The only way it could do that is if the floor slab on the topmost floor of the lower block was invulnerable and sloped. It was neither.

You need to find a new topic to harp on. The ones you're doing right now are old and debunked.
 
I just can't believe that he's a professional engineer. It's as simple as that.
 
Duplicate post. See if my original just slides off it.
 
Last edited:
Heiwa said:
Let's assume the column has low slenderness ratio and will not buckle before yield. So first you have to compress elastically the column to yield! Assume it is a spring! The energy/force formula is in the article. After that it becomes a little more complex. The column will deform plastically somewhere depending on its configuration and supports, so you have to establish, where this deformation takes place.
Click to expand...

Now I'm curious.

What constitutes a low slenderness ratio?
What would be the approximate slenderness ratio of the columns in the Towers?

In other words: Can you justify this assumption?
 
Newtons Bit said:
Some more remarks, now that my irritation has subsided a bit.


1. Please show me this crane. A picture would be nice.


2. Bazant already did the calculation. He discovered that it was a very small amount of the total potential energy available. I've done my own calculation of this and confirmed his result.



3. NO HEIWA. Do not put words in my mouth. IT IS OLD AND CHILDISH. No one on this forum, EXCEPT TRUTHERS, have ever made this argument. It is a strawman. DROP IT. We assume that it is aligned because this is both favorable to collapse prevention and easier to model.



4. Completely false. For the mass to slide off the top, a force has to act on the mass. This force has to be provided by the lower structure. The only way it could do that is if the floor slab on the topmost floor of the lower block was invulnerable and sloped. It was neither.

5. You need to find a new topic to harp on. The ones you're doing right now are old and debunked.
Click to expand...

1. I do it in layman's terms in my article.

2. ?? According Bazant:

"Stage 3 (Collapse starts): Once more than half of the columns in the critical floor (floors 94-95 of WTC1) that is heated most suffer buckling, the weight of the upper part of the structure above this floor can no longer be supported, and so the upper part starts falling down onto the lower part below the critical floor (floor 95 of WTC1), gathering speed until it impacts the lower part (floor 94 of WTC1). At that moment, the upper part has acquired an enormous kinetic energy and a significant downward velocity.

Stage 4: The vertical impact of the mass of the upper part onto the lower part applies enormous vertical dynamic load on the underlying structure, far exceeding its load capacity, even though it is not heated."

I my article I show: no vertical impact (WTC2 >20° off due to a big explosion), no enormous vertical dynamic load, no falling down, no gathering speed, no impact, etc.

Show your calculations about, e.g. vertical impact!

3. ?? If it is not aligned, there is no impact. If it is aligned, it evidently favours an impact, ... but it is not aligned. No impact = no initiation = nothing serious will happen. Easier to model? Look at the videos and model according to them.

4. ?? Nonsense. Sloped invulnerable floor slab? Pls use layman's terms.

5. ?? I like this thread. Rigid upper blocks with uniform density that vertically impacts lower structure, etc. Not seen anywhere. Just invented by Nist & Co and supported by JREF greenhorns. Fascinating. BTW I play piano. But I wish I could harp.
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
I think it's conspiracy theorist first engineer second. He just can't stand to let go of the good old days with the "Estonia" conspiracy.
Click to expand...

I'd start a poll regarding the fellows qualifications and sanity, but know that the mods would rightly accuse me of mocking the afflicted and close it down PDQ.
 
[X] said:
Now I'm curious.

1. What constitutes a low slenderness ratio?
2.What would be the approximate slenderness ratio of the columns in the Towers?

3. In other words: Can you justify this assumption?
Click to expand...

1. <40
2. Read my article. <24.
3. Yes, of course.
 
Heiwa said:
4. ?? Nonsense. Sloped invulnerable floor slab? Pls use layman's terms.
Click to expand...


1. No, you've failed to explain how the 30,000t magically slides off.

2. Why should we use layman's terms when you purport to be a qualified engineer?
 
Heiwa said:
4. ?? Nonsense. Sloped invulnerable floor slab? Pls use layman's terms.
Click to expand...

I'm a layman, when it comes to engineering at least.

After approximately 3 seconds contemplation, I deciphered this to mean the only way for the upper block to slide off the lower would be if the floor slab it impacted was ;

1. Sloped... Objects do not slide off horizontal surfaces. and
2. Invulnerable.... Unbreakable, so that the upper block doesn't just punch through the floor slab and continue on its merry way downwards in a gravity driven progressive collapse.

Am I right? Do I win teh interwebs?
 
Architect said:
1. No, you've failed to explain how the 30,000t magically slides off.

2. Why should we use layman's terms when you purport to be a qualified engineer?
Click to expand...

1. If it is not aligned, it will slide off. WTC2 is a better example than WTC1. Clearly seen sliding off (and defintely not by gravity alone).

2. It helps! Once I testified for a US Congressional committée about oil tanker safety and risks of oil pollution caused by collisions and groundings and I tried to keep it in layman's terms. However, it seems the committée did not grasp very much anyway :)- . As only country in the world US later unilaterally disallowed my clever tanker design that according international standards would spill less oil in accidents than the US OPA 90 permitted DH design!! And had been accepted by everybody else just for that simple reason! Crazy world. But it seems the US Congress at least recognized my engineering qualifications. But who knows? Just 40+ years experience, today.
 
Well Heiwa, please define some of the laymans terms you wish to use. Or should we call them "Truther-mans" terms?

THe problem is that those types of terms have vauge and/ or multiple meanings. please. give us a laymans term ad define it for us.

You first.
 
Evilgiraffe said:
I'm a layman, when it comes to engineering at least.

After approximately 3 seconds contemplation, I deciphered this to mean the only way for the upper block to slide off the lower would be if the floor slab it impacted was ;

1. Sloped... Objects do not slide off horizontal surfaces. and
2. Invulnerable.... Unbreakable, so that the upper block doesn't just punch through the floor slab and continue on its merry way downwards in a gravity driven progressive collapse.

Am I right? Do I win teh interwebs?
Click to expand...

Indeed!
 
Heiwa said:
1. If it is not aligned, it will slide off. WTC2 is a better example than WTC1. Clearly seen sliding off (and defintely not by gravity alone).
Click to expand...

No, it has rotated about one wall. The wall that collapsed LAST no less, which I suppose means that the columns didn't all collapse at the same time. When it rotated, the far end moves inside the building, not out. If you want to suggest that it can slide off, I want to see a free-body-diagram. Something like this: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3278462&postcount=82 . That truther could make one, and he's just an undergrad. Why can't you? Too afraid to put something down that isn't just conjecture and thus can be disproved?
 
Heiwa said:
Once I testified for a US Congressional committée about oil tanker safety and risks of oil pollution caused by collisions and groundings and I tried to keep it in layman's terms... But who knows? Just 40+ years experience, today.
Click to expand...

Prove it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom