Layman's terms please! Tower collapse issue

[Heiwa]

We're still waiting for your in-depth calculations. Any problems doing those?

None at all! Just provide the input data: time when free fall starts, masses involved, time when free fall ends and impact or impacts occur and where i.e. locations and the relevant structure at that location.

Then I will tell you what happens backed up with calculations.

Happy?

 

[DC]

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.

i readed his theory several times, its always good for a laugh.

 

[DGM]

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.

Is this question for real? The load path around the documented damage caused by the airplanes.

Do I need to explain if you remove a structural member the load it was carrying needs to be redistributed some where. You don't think this is in some way different than as built? You must not because you don't calculate for it in your paper. This is a critical factor in determining the collapse initiation.

Stop hand waving the planes and the damaged caused by them away.

 

[padragan]

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

Well, since I've seen your attempts to discuss Estonia on the Flashback website, I must raise my hand. I've laughed many times at you there.

 

[rwguinn]

Well, since I've seen your attempts to discuss Estonia on the Flashback website, I must raise my hand. I've laughed many times at you there.

that makes at least 2 of us...

 

[SpitfireIX]

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.

Heiwa, how much weight do you think that a single floor of one of the World Trade Center towers could have carried before it failed? Do you understand that most of the weight and impact force of the collapsing upper levels would have fallen on the floors, and not on the support columns?

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.

You claim in your paper that no buckled columns were recovered from the WTC wreckage. Please explain what happened to these columns, if not buckling?

 

[Zorglub]

that makes at least 2 of us...

*gets in line as well*
Can we please add *shaking head in disbelief* and *clinching fist and making a deep sigh and then laugh* as well?

 

[Zorglub]

that makes at least 2 of us...

*gets in line as well*
Can we please add *shaking head in disbelief* and *clinching fist and making a deep sigh and then laugh* as well?

 

[Zorglub]

that makes at least 2 of us...

*gets in line as well*
Can we please add *shaking head in disbelief* and *clinching fist and making a deep sigh and then laugh* as well?

 

[Zorglub]

that makes at least 2 of us...

*gets in line as well*
Could we please add *shaking head in disbelief* and *clinching fist and making a deep sigh and then laugh* as well?

 

[Newtons Bit]

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.

Don't lie Heiwa. You yourself stated that there would be plastic deformation and that the yield stress would be exceeded. This is what we engineers call buckling and thus failure. Here's the quote from your "article".

To compress the 'spring' d = 78 centimeters you need a force F corresponding to 1.56 GN (because F = d C) and as the spring cross area at the top is 5.64 m², the compressive stress in the spring becomes temporarily 277 MPa which is above yield stress (248 MPa) but below the rupture stress. So maybe the 'spring' deforms plastically a little at the top just below the initiation zone but hardly lower down, where the spring cross area is 20 - 35 m² and the yield stress is higher and thus the force in the spring will produce much smaller stresses

You've been caught in a lie Heiwa. Will you admit it?

 

[DC]

Don't lie Heiwa. You yourself stated that there would be plastic deformation and that the yield stress would be exceeded. This is what we engineers call buckling and thus failure. Here's the quote from your "article".



You've been caught in a lie Heiwa. Will you admit it?

Buckling thus failure?

 

[funk de fino]

wrong, i laughed. i alsways have to laugh when ppl take the Bazantsche Collapse theory as a fact lol.

I also have to laugh when people try to be smart and their english is so poor that they embarrass themselves.

Try to "Readed" the posts or theories again Dictator! The OP is out of your league, stand back, nothing to see here for you my friend.

 

[DC]

I also have to laugh when people try to be smart and their english is so poor that they embarrass themselves.

Try to "Readed" the posts or theories again Dictator! The OP is out of your league, stand back, nothing to see here for you my friend.

Is language skill in english a precondition of being smart?

 

[DGM]

Buckling thus failure?

Yes!

ETA Sorry Newtons Bit, This answer was the only one that came to mind. I figured you're probably shaking your head.

 

[funk de fino]

Is language skill in english a precondition of being smart?

It is when you try to read technical papers written in english and then claim to understand them. Unfortunately the rest of your posts since you have been here negates the smart claim you may care to make.

If your english is poor you should maybe stick to facts and not try to be a smartmouth. It only makes you look silly.

 

[Heiwa]

Is this question for real? The load path around the documented damage caused by the airplanes.

Do I need to explain if you remove a structural member the load it was carrying needs to be redistributed some where. You don't think this is in some way different than as built? You must not because you don't calculate for it in your paper. This is a critical factor in determining the collapse initiation.

Stop hand waving the planes and the damaged caused by them away.

Yes, it is clear from my article. WTC1 = 35 wall columns cut, two, three floors damaged, etc. 100+ minutes before collapse. The redistribution is explained. No collapse followed! Stresses in intact columns increased a little. I did not include a photo of a woman and other persons waving from the impact hole but they were there. No fire, etc.

 

[tsig]

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?

I think it's a definitional problem Heiwa thinks that Layman=complete idiot.

 

[DGM]

Yes, it is clear from my article. WTC1 = 35 wall columns cut, two, three floors damaged, etc. 100+ minutes before collapse. The redistribution is explained. No collapse followed! Stresses in intact columns increased a little. I did not include a photo of a woman and other persons waving from the impact hole but they were there. No fire, etc.

Why no load calculations? Only a "no big deal" hand wave.

 

[Heiwa]

Don't lie Heiwa. You yourself stated that there would be plastic deformation and that the yield stress would be exceeded. This is what we engineers call buckling and thus failure. Here's the quote from your "article".



You've been caught in a lie Heiwa. Will you admit it?

But you have to read the whole article! Nist does not explain its 'buckling'! Buckle bending, buckle torsion, buckle crumple up? Which one? All local failures, of course. Collapse has not even started of the lower structure. So local 'buckling' leads to free fall? Sure? Anyway, after these local failures any PE may be released, but, when and if it is applied to some intact structure (a floor?) below,it is certain it is deflected sideways = does not contribute to gravity collapse any more! On the contrary = it contributes to collapse arrest. All explained in the article. Loose parts get entangled in each other. It is not one solid mass suddenly dropping down!

Topic is collapse issues - not really the initiation before that, which nobody has been able to prove. Massive local failures, free fall, impact (and then collapse should start)? Not seen anywhere!