• 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

Architect said:
Prove it.
Click to expand...

Wait, Architect, does that matter? Is it really a good idea to delve into his qualifications? His thesis either reflects reality or it does not, and invoking his credentials does nothing more than give other conspiracy peddlers something to hang a facade of credibility on.

I think the way this thread's developed so far has been good. There's not really been that much worrying about authority and credentials; on the contrary, there's been a lot more concentration on the actual engineering (sorry!) issues. That says much more about who's qualifications enable them to construct the collapse events than any external activities they may have participated in.

Just my 2 cents.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
Wait, Architect, does that matter? Is it really a good idea to delve into his qualifications? His thesis either reflects reality or it does not, and invoking his credentials does nothing more than give other conspiracy peddlers something to hang a facade of credibility on.

I think the way this thread's developed so far has been good. There's not really been that much worrying about authority and credentials; on the contrary, there's been a lot more concentration on the actual engineering (sorry!) issues. That says much more about who's qualifications enable them to construct the collapse events than any external activities they may have participated in.

Just my 2 cents.
Click to expand...

Well, I was in two minds about posting. Qualifications are not in themselves germaine to the argument however he's the one accusing the rest of us as being "greenhorns" and claiming he's qualified to do building design.

But in any event you're right, his grasp (or lack thereof) of the engineering issues has spoken far, far more eloquently regarding the integrity (hah!) of his argument.
 
SpitfireIX said:
A statement of his was added to the record by a committee witness. See here, p. 8. That may qualify as "testifying" using the US Congress's definition, even if not under the everyday definition.
Click to expand...

Is that testifying under anyone's definition? Surely it's just a citation?
 
Heiwa said:
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!
Click to expand...

Huh? The tower collapse started when an entire wall was pulled inwards. I go into extreme detail about that mechanism. You've seen this before. This is why the upper block leaned: one wall failed first, then others, causing one side of the tower to begin falling before the other. However the end of the the tower that falls first eventually hits the lower block. A vertical impact you might say.



The columns of the upper block do not impact the columns of the lower block. The upper columns fall INSIDE of the upper blocks. You previously argued they would magically fall outside, remember that? But your entire argument is that since the upper columns missed the lower columns, the collapse stops! Which is pure insanity. The upper columns can (and did) easily punch through the floor slab and continue downwards. The two-way shear capacity of a 4" thick 3000psi floor slab is about 32kips (for the laypeople, it would take a force of 32,000lb over a 14"x14" area to punch through the floor slab). This is a fraction of the compressive capacity of the columns.

This is impossible to model mathematically. Which is why Bazant chose to use a column to column impact which gives the structure the largest possible resistance to vertical collapse.

Take your fingers out of your ears. Start thinking.
 
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...

Just for funsies, here's the worlds largest crane. It can only lift 20,000tons. And there's no way in hell it can lift 20,000tons over 3.7m in 6 seconds.
 
Last edited:
Heiwa said:
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.
Click to expand...

How could there possibly be no impact? Did the upper block slide 200+ feet to the side before it started to fall?
 
Newtons Bit said:
[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1632947dbe85f60a84.jpg[/URL]

The columns of the upper block do not impact the columns of the lower block. The upper columns fall INSIDE of the upper blocks.

...

The upper columns can (and did) easily punch through the floor slab and continue downwards.

This is impossible to model mathematically. Which is why Bazant chose to use a column to column impact which gives the structure the largest possible resistance to vertical collapse.
Click to expand...
I guess you ment "The upper columns fall INSIDE of the lower blocks".
Great picture! now rotate it 180 degrees. Then that becomes

The columns of the lower block do not impact the columns of the upper block. The lower columns fall INSIDE of the upper blocks. In other words if you assume that they finally bypass each other at collapse initiation (at that moment they are really still connected and perfectly aligned) after the drop of a story then it is trival to see that if

- the core columns of the top section destroy the concrete floor slabs of the lower remaining building

that also implies that

- the core columns of the remaining building destroy the concrete floor slabs of the top section.

I think it is no bad attempt at all but a little bit trigono shows that they will touch each other.
 
phunk said:
How could there possibly be no impact? Did the upper block slide 200+ feet to the side before it started to fall?
Click to expand...

You have not read Nist, Bazant, Seffen & Co? Before the upper block, rigid + uniform density, starts to fall vertically, all 280+ columns in the so called initiation zone fail ... and disappear. Then the upper block falls. It takes 0.8-0.9 seconds to drop one storey = the initiation zone. Not seen on any videos, of course.

And then there is an impact. The upper block impacts the lower structure. But the upper block is neither rigid nor of uniform density. It consists of 280+ columns on which many floors are hanging. It is mostly air! The total cross area of all columns is abt 5 m² so each column has an average area of 0.017 m². Actually just thin plates 15-90 mm thick. So the columns above must impact the columns below. If they are misalligned 15-90 mm they will miss completely! Little less - they will slide off. No impact. No global collapse.

The lowest floor of the upper block - it is 4000 m² big - may drop on the uppermost floor on the lower structure ... but that is no impact. Nothing will happen according to Nist. You need to stack 6-11 floors on the top floor of the lower structure before ... the top floor drops down one storey. Not seen either on any video. And no global collapse due to that.

And none of the above is seen on any videos. On the videos we see how the upper block disintegrates before anything happens to the lower structure. WTC2 is very clear - there is a big explosion at the initiation zone tipping the upper block 20° sideways.

Some people suggest it was just one wall that collapsed in WTC2 causing this tipping but ... a second later the whole upper block of WTC2 disappears.

According Bazant and Seffen, in order for a gravity driven collapse to take place, the upper block must be intact (and have uniform density) and aligned vertically with the structure below all the time! It is this upper block, or its released energy, that destroys the lower structure, storey by storey during the collapse. The upper block should actually, at the end of the collapse remain intact on top of the rubble, according Bazant and Seffen. They forget to say that in their articles, so I have asked them to explain what happens to the upper block after collapse.

No reply of course.

BTW - the unform density of the upper block is 0.18 (tons/m3) or less than baled wool! Read my article, and you will understand how 'scientists' and civil servant engineers (Nist) are fooling the adult public ... with help from the media. Luckily they cannot fool children ... my audience.
 
Last edited:
Newtons Bit said:
Huh? The tower collapse started when an entire wall was pulled inwards. I go into extreme detail about that mechanism. You've seen this before. This is why the upper block leaned: one wall failed first, then others, causing one side of the tower to begin falling before the other. However the end of the the tower that falls first eventually hits the lower block. A vertical impact you might say.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1632947dbe85f60a84.jpg[/qimg]

The columns of the upper block do not impact the columns of the lower block. The upper columns fall INSIDE of the upper blocks. You previously argued they would magically fall outside, remember that? But your entire argument is that since the upper columns missed the lower columns, the collapse stops! Which is pure insanity. The upper columns can (and did) easily punch through the floor slab and continue downwards. The two-way shear capacity of a 4" thick 3000psi floor slab is about 32kips (for the laypeople, it would take a force of 32,000lb over a 14"x14" area to punch through the floor slab). This is a fraction of the compressive capacity of the columns.

This is impossible to model mathematically. Which is why Bazant chose to use a column to column impact which gives the structure the largest possible resistance to vertical collapse.

Take your fingers out of your ears. Start thinking.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the picture. Bazant and Seffen treats the collapse in 1-D. Therefore only vertical movement down is possible. And alignment is guaranteed (by definition! 1-D). Only problem is what happens with the upper block after the collapse. It must remain ... intact.

Your picture is 2-D! Very good. You indicate a local failure on one side. Very good. The result would be that the upper part tips outside ... end of collapse. No global collapse. It actually happens rarely in certain structures that bits fall down on the outside due to local failures.
 
Last edited:
Heiwa said:
If they are misalligned 15-90 mm they will miss completely!
Click to expand...

Yes! And they will hit the floors! And they will collapse! Because they are not designed to take such loads! I have explained this simply in order that children might understand.

The lowest floor of the upper block - it is 4000 m² big - may drop on the uppermost floor on the lower structure ... but that is no impact. Nothing will happen according to Nist. You need to stack 6-11 floors on the top floor of the lower structure before ... the top floor drops down one storey. Not seen either on any video. And no global collapse due to that.
Click to expand...

This is wrong! See our previous posts!

And none of the above is seen on any videos. On the videos we see how the upper block disintegrates before anything happens to the lower structure. WTC2 is very clear - there is a big explosion at the initiation zone tipping the upper block 20° sideways.
Click to expand...

This is wrong! See our previous posts!

Some people suggest it was just one wall that collapsed in WTC2 causing this tipping but ... a second later the whole upper block of WTC2 disappears.
Click to expand...

Yes! What is your point!

No reply of course.
Click to expand...

Yes! This is simple! It is because you are mad!
BTW - the unform density of the upper block is 0.18 (tons/m3) or less than baled wool! Read my article, and you will understand how 'scientists' and civil servant engineers (Nist) are fooling the adult public
Click to expand...

Yes! The whole world is wrong except you, Sun-tze! I must follow you! Now, stand here whilst I drop 33,000t of baled wool on your head! It will not hurt, the density is low!

Luckily they cannot fool children ... my audience.
Click to expand...

I think they will stick with Lazytown and Noddy! Yes!
 
Heiwa said:
Very good. The result would be that the upper part tips outside ... end of collapse. No global collapse. It actually happens rarely in certain structures that bits fall down on the outside due to local failures.
Click to expand...

Do you understand the meaning of the term "complete bollocks"?

:eek:
 
SpitfireIX said:
A statement of his was added to the record by a committee witness. See here, p. 8. That may qualify as "testifying" using the US Congress's definition, even if not under the everyday definition.
Click to expand...

Whatever, my oil tanker design, approved by all member nations of the United Nations International Maritime Organization and becoming part of international law September 1997 (protection of the maritime environment) (except USA that had to withdraw from the complete law (Marpol I) and make their own) got the US Congress interested, so I was asked to contribute to the discussion, e.g. provide evidence (testify!) that my design is as good as stated. According the the US law (OPA 90), the US administration (USCG) should in fact check the claims and report to the Secretary of Transport, and if found correct, it would be allowed according to the US law. But no such checks were ever made by the USCG. Not interested in the protection of the maritime environment? Or corrupt? Or incompetent? Or just lazy? Or a combination?

It could be added that the design is made of steel - put in the right position of course - and will not globally collapse if you hit it by another big tanker, say 150 000 tons or run it aground! Just local failures ... and minimal oil spills. Much better than the OPA90 designs that may actually collapse when the outer hull is damaged and the inner hull drops down due to lack of support.
 
Last edited:
We get it Heiwa, The USG doesn't adopt your tanker design so 9/11 has to be an inside job. Enough said, all of your posts make sense now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom