• 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

Heiwa said:
The article ( http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm ) evidently shows and calculates the loadings on the columns and their stressess in the impact zone pre impact. The loads produce compressive stresses <30% yield in the columns, i.e. very safe. No big deal! Then there is some destruction due alleged plane crash and a fire. Nist advices the small redistribution of loadings due to that = all is still safe. All described in the article;

Then there is the mysterious free fall/impact. The loadings in the impact zone just prior, i.e. pre impact are then ZERO. The upper block is detached from the lower structure and has not yet impacted = ZERO loads.

In the article an impact is assumed, energy/force/loads are transmitted to the lower structure and ... generally only elastic compression takes place according calculations. Some plastic failures may occur, but the loads are then diverted sideways and ... the progressive collapse is arrested as excpected.

Hope this clarifies your questions? Thanks for your interest.
Click to expand...
Heiwa:
How does this even come close to answering my question? Did you or did you not calculate the loads post impact at the initiation zone? If not how is anyone except a child supposed to think of you as anything but a fraud?
 
Architect said:
I find it interesting to learn that he's a no-planer (always assuming that Zorgulb's post is a fair transaltion).
Click to expand...
Well, if so, that's the final nail in the coffin.

Actually, Architect nailed that coffin shut some time ago, so I suppose it'd be more accurate to say if Heiwa is a no-planer, then that's the last of the dirt being shovelled onto the coffin.
 
DGM said:
Heiwa:
How does this even come close to answering my question? Did you or did you not calculate the loads post impact at the initiation zone? If not how is anyone except a child supposed to think of you as anything but a fraud?
Click to expand...

?? Everything is described ... in layman's terms. From the article: "Let's assume the 'spring' below is suddenly compressed by 0.5 KE = E = 0.61 GNm at time Teffect.
The maximum compression d of the 'spring' due to energy E then becomes 78 centimeters (because d² = 2 E/C) and after that all the 0.61 GNm or 170 kWh of energy is absorbed as compression! And any motion has stopped! This is a good indication of the elastic strain energy that could be absorbed by a 'spring' without any permanent deformations. "

Suddenly compressed = impact. Happy?
 
Heiwa said:
?? Everything is described ... in layman's terms. From the article: "Let's assume the 'spring' below is suddenly compressed by 0.5 KE = E = 0.61 GNm at time Teffect.
The maximum compression d of the 'spring' due to energy E then becomes 78 centimeters (because d² = 2 E/C) and after that all the 0.61 GNm or 170 kWh of energy is absorbed as compression! And any motion has stopped! This is a good indication of the elastic strain energy that could be absorbed by a 'spring' without any permanent deformations. "

Suddenly compressed = impact. Happy?
Click to expand...

No Heiwa, that does not comprise any meaningful level of structural analysis or calculation, indeed you have overlooked very basic structural engineering issues which one would have expected a second year student to have picked up.
 
tsig said:
Heiwa is the one who always laughed at the jokes even though he never got them.
Click to expand...

I am minded of the old phrase, "We're not laughing with you"........


(This may not translate readily into other languages)
 
Architect said:
No Heiwa, that does not comprise any meaningful level of structural analysis or calculation, indeed you have overlooked very basic structural engineering issues which one would have expected a second year student to have picked up.
Click to expand...

It does given the assumptions! Bazant/Seffen (and Nist in its first attempt) on the other hand assume that the upper block and the structure below the first storey of the lower structure are 100% solid/rigid/aligned and then of course the poor storey in between gets flattened hammer/nail style. And that should be the end of the collapse under those assumptions. Strangely however, the second storey below, that was previously rigid and solid, now suddenly becomes neither and is mysteriously crushed, etc. The upper block is still indestructible, due to its uniform density, and can continue the destruction below until the end. Pure folly and not possible if you read my article as a whole and the conclusions.

Cock-sure certainty is the source of much that is worst in our present world.

BTW - what basic engineering issues are overlooked?
 
Architect said:
I am minded of the old phrase, "We're not laughing with you"........


(This may not translate readily into other languages)
Click to expand...

I am still waiting for the pictures of free fall, impact and first failures. Any problems to find those?
 
Heiwa said:
I am still waiting for the pictures of free fall, impact and first failures. Any problems to find those?
Click to expand...

You appear to have overlooked my post where I pointed out that you'd qualified your request for photographic evidence to a level whereby you knew fine it couldn't be produced.

Really, you're not very good at the hand-waving - are you?
 
Heiwa said:
?? Everything is described ... in layman's terms. From the article: "Let's assume the 'spring' below is suddenly compressed by 0.5 KE = E = 0.61 GNm at time Teffect.
The maximum compression d of the 'spring' due to energy E then becomes 78 centimeters (because d² = 2 E/C) and after that all the 0.61 GNm or 170 kWh of energy is absorbed as compression! And any motion has stopped! This is a good indication of the elastic strain energy that could be absorbed by a 'spring' without any permanent deformations. "

Suddenly compressed = impact. Happy?
Click to expand...


It seems very clear that the reason you describe it that way is because you are indeed one (laymen that is). How can you do any analysis if you can't calculate the load on the structure post impact at that zone? Your paper is nothing more than a poor attempt to sway unknowing people to your believes. Pure propaganda.

The engineering world is laughing at you on this as it did over your "Estonia" analysis. You need help.
 
DGM said:
It seems very clear that the reason you describe it that way is because you are indeed one (laymen that is). How can you do any analysis if you can't calculate the load on the structure post impact at that zone? Your paper is nothing more than a poor attempt to sway unknowing people to your believes. Pure propaganda.

The engineering world is laughing at you on this as it did over your "Estonia" analysis. You need help.
Click to expand...

are you representant for the Engineering world?
 
Last edited:
Architect said:
I am minded of the old phrase, "We're not laughing with you"........


(This may not translate readily into other languages)
Click to expand...

We use the exact same phrase in swedish, so the point should be obvious for the designated target.

(btw I noticed that he ignored my last posting, perhaps he realised that I'm not interested in replies not related to what I asked for)
 
Last edited:
Dictator Cheney said:
are you representant for the Engineering world?
Click to expand...
Can you point to were he calculates the load post impact in that zone? You don't think it's pertinent to take into consideration the damage to a building to know how it collapsed?

He writes for children because they're all he fool. Show me where I'm wrong?
 
DGM said:
Can you point to were he calculates the load post impact in that zone? You don't think it's pertinent to take into consideration the damage to a building to know how it collapsed?

He writes for children because they're all he fool. Show me where I'm wrong?
Click to expand...

can you point me to tha calculations of Bazant, where he calculates away the mass that falls next to the towers and not on them?

and can you point me out something that would backup Bazant0s claims that only the most upper floor is affected at impact of the upper part.

can you show me where Bazant calculates the energy "used" for deformation of the upper tower part?
 
Dictator Cheney said:
can you point me to tha calculations of Bazant, where he calculates away the mass that falls next to the towers and not on them?

and can you point me out something that would backup Bazant0s claims that only the most upper floor is affected at impact of the upper part.

can you show me where Bazant calculates the energy "used" for deformation of the upper tower part?
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? How does any of this pertain to my question of Heiwa's analysis (or his paper for that matter)?

BTW Read Bazant's papers you may gain so insight into the questions you asked. Dr Greening's paper is also helpful.
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
It seems very clear that the reason you describe it that way is because you are indeed one (laymen that is). How can you do any analysis if you can't calculate the load on the structure post impact at that zone? Your paper is nothing more than a poor attempt to sway unknowing people to your believes. Pure propaganda.

The engineering world is laughing at you on this as it did over your "Estonia" analysis. You need help.
Click to expand...

What load on the structure (below, I assume) post impact are you talking about?

The total weight of the upper block? Evidently the lower structure can carry that! It did for 30+ years.

Some dynamic impact load? No impact occurs, as far as I am concerned, so I assume one (read the article) and the result is only a dynamic, elastic reaction force developing in the lower structure (spring) cancelling any further progressive collapse.

Of course the lower structure is not just 1000's of springs; there are many parts, e.g. floors, that deflect the dynamic load away from the structure, etc. All that can evidently be simulated and calculated - see link in the paper.

Propaganda? Did your sect leader propose that? Develop the topic in another thread, please.

Estonia? Nobody is laughing! So give me only the name of one person laughing at me to back up your statement.

Suggest we return discussing tower collapse issues; no photos of free fall, impact, post loads on the structure below, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom