If it's an unshaven, overweight, middle-aged guy, badly dressed with Twinkies crumbs around his month, could you ask him if he has a check for agent "Pomeranian-lover*UBLoonz"?
WTC collapses - Layman's terms again
- Thread starter Heiwa
- Start date
-
- Tags
- wtc collapse
If it's an unshaven, overweight, middle-aged guy, badly dressed with Twinkies crumbs around his month, could you ask him if he has a check for agent "Pomeranian-lover*UBLoonz"?
Your "work" is incompetent rubbish. Nobody who assisted you with it can possibly be clever.
Dumb All Over
A Little Ugly on the Side
Anders Björkman, aka Heiwa, you have been asked several times in this thread by more than one person about the nature of your "peer reviewed" paper. You have noticeably avoided any of these important questions. Before I draw my own conclusions about your deliberate avoidance, I'd like to give you the benefit of a doubt and allow you to answers these. Please answer the following-
Who reviewed your paper?
What were their qualifications?
In what scholarly journal was your paper published?
Who reviewed your paper?
What were their qualifications?
In what scholarly journal was your paper published?
Last edited:
Idiocy.
No, we can't. You are an incompetent. The hammer demonstrably hit the nails.
{snip-mindless drivel}
Last edited:
Your embarrassingly transparent evasion reveals you as a fraud, like Heiwa. Review your hero's words again:
"If you read carefully you find that of the 33 000 tons (WTC1) about 10 000 tonnes (carried by two perimeter walls) are shifted outside of the building due to misalignment and cannot do much harm."
Do you believe that the "misalignment" reduces the momentum of the falling mass or not?
Viper Daimao
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2007
- Messages
- 496
Drudgewire
Critical Doofus
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2006
- Messages
- 9,421
Before this thread (the first Heiwa one I've really followed) I would have agreed with you.
But Heiwa needs professional help. It's sad enough I actually am starting to feel bad about the youtube video I put on the first page, and that should never happen.
I LIEK TO MAEK WEARWOLF MOVIES!!!
OK, I'm cured.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by NIST as answer to FAQs:
As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:
“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.
Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”
In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass."
End quote.
Actually - the tremendous energy released for WTC1 was equivalent to the energy of 40 kgs of diesel oil as shown in my article. Tremendous?
40 kgs of diesel oil is what is required to pull up the WTC1 upper block 3.7 metres (the alleged distance of free fall - never seen of course).
Therefore NIST does not calculate it.
The claim that the structure below could not absorb the energy equivalent of 40 kgs of diesel oil is likewise not substantiated at all by NIST.
It is in fact pure nonsense. I point it out several times in my article. The intact structure below is evidently much stronger than that.
Regarding collapse times - NIST cannot neither say when the WTC1 collapse starts (when the roof drops, or when the 250+ wall columns in the initiation zone collapses (never seen) or when the intact structure below starts to collapse below the initiation zone) or ends (as it is not possible due to too much dust).
Just by looking at any video you see that the upper block collapses itself prior to any damage occurs below the initiation zone.
That the upper block IMPACTS the lower structure is evidently not proven anywhere. The load carrying structure only occupies 0.13% of the footprint. NIST conveniently forgets to mention that.
NIST avoids to mention and analyse the possibility of collapse arrest in its 10 000 pages report. I wonder why? Don't they know that it is the reason why no tower steel structure ever collapses due to gravity? They are always arrested in different ways. I propose one in the article.
As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:
“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.
Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”
In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass."
End quote.
Actually - the tremendous energy released for WTC1 was equivalent to the energy of 40 kgs of diesel oil as shown in my article. Tremendous?
40 kgs of diesel oil is what is required to pull up the WTC1 upper block 3.7 metres (the alleged distance of free fall - never seen of course).
Therefore NIST does not calculate it.
The claim that the structure below could not absorb the energy equivalent of 40 kgs of diesel oil is likewise not substantiated at all by NIST.
It is in fact pure nonsense. I point it out several times in my article. The intact structure below is evidently much stronger than that.
Regarding collapse times - NIST cannot neither say when the WTC1 collapse starts (when the roof drops, or when the 250+ wall columns in the initiation zone collapses (never seen) or when the intact structure below starts to collapse below the initiation zone) or ends (as it is not possible due to too much dust).
Just by looking at any video you see that the upper block collapses itself prior to any damage occurs below the initiation zone.
That the upper block IMPACTS the lower structure is evidently not proven anywhere. The load carrying structure only occupies 0.13% of the footprint. NIST conveniently forgets to mention that.
NIST avoids to mention and analyse the possibility of collapse arrest in its 10 000 pages report. I wonder why? Don't they know that it is the reason why no tower steel structure ever collapses due to gravity? They are always arrested in different ways. I propose one in the article.
Originally Posted by NIST as answer to FAQs:
As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:
“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.
Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”
In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass."
End quote.
Actually - the tremendous energy released for WTC1 was equivalent to the energy of 40 kgs of diesel oil as shown in my article. Tremendous?
40 kgs of diesel oil is what is required to pull up the WTC1 upper block 3.7 metres (the alleged distance of free fall - never seen of course).
Therefore NIST does not calculate it.
The claim that the structure below could not absorb the energy equivalent of 40 kgs of diesel oil is likewise not substantiated at all by NIST.
It is in fact pure nonsense. I point it out several times in my article. The intact structure below is evidently much stronger than that.
Regarding collapse times - NIST cannot neither say when the WTC1 collapse starts (when the roof drops, or when the 250+ wall columns in the initiation zone collapses (never seen) or when the intact structure below starts to collapse below the initiation zone) or ends (as it is not possible due to too much dust).
Just by looking at any video you see that the upper block collapses itself prior to any damage occurs below the initiation zone.
That the upper block IMPACTS the lower structure is evidently not proven anywhere. The load carrying structure only occupies 0.13% of the footprint. NIST conveniently forgets to mention that.
NIST avoids to mention and analyse the possibility of collapse arrest in its 10 000 pages report. I wonder why? Don't they know that it is the reason why no tower steel structure ever collapses due to gravity? They are always arrested in different ways. I propose one in the article.
As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:
“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.
Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”
In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass."
End quote.
Actually - the tremendous energy released for WTC1 was equivalent to the energy of 40 kgs of diesel oil as shown in my article. Tremendous?
40 kgs of diesel oil is what is required to pull up the WTC1 upper block 3.7 metres (the alleged distance of free fall - never seen of course).
Therefore NIST does not calculate it.
The claim that the structure below could not absorb the energy equivalent of 40 kgs of diesel oil is likewise not substantiated at all by NIST.
It is in fact pure nonsense. I point it out several times in my article. The intact structure below is evidently much stronger than that.
Regarding collapse times - NIST cannot neither say when the WTC1 collapse starts (when the roof drops, or when the 250+ wall columns in the initiation zone collapses (never seen) or when the intact structure below starts to collapse below the initiation zone) or ends (as it is not possible due to too much dust).
Just by looking at any video you see that the upper block collapses itself prior to any damage occurs below the initiation zone.
That the upper block IMPACTS the lower structure is evidently not proven anywhere. The load carrying structure only occupies 0.13% of the footprint. NIST conveniently forgets to mention that.
NIST avoids to mention and analyse the possibility of collapse arrest in its 10 000 pages report. I wonder why? Don't they know that it is the reason why no tower steel structure ever collapses due to gravity? They are always arrested in different ways. I propose one in the article.
Your protege Dictator Cheney failed miserably in his attempt to duck the issue. Perhaps you will clarify for us children and monkeys if you, as an "engineer," really believe that the misalignment reduces the momentum of the falling mass of the upper block of floors.
Your article, incidentally, reflects incompetence.
Last edited:
Mr. Skinny
Alien Cryogenic Engineer
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2001
- Messages
- 7,843
Before this thread (the first Heiwa one I've really followed) I would have agreed with you.
But Heiwa needs professional help. It's sad enough I actually am starting to feel bad about the youtube video I put on the first page, and that should never happen.
I LIEK TO MAEK WEARWOLF MOVIES!!!
OK, I'm cured.
Your point is well-taken. But, when dealing with 9/11 fantasists, there is always that fine line between dishonesty and insanity. The most cynical of the twoofers is David Ray Griffin. He peddles, literally, idiotic rubbish and makes, presumably, some sort of living from conning the suckers. We could place him at one end of the spectrum. Still, we have to wonder what would motivate a man to blast his own reputation, to establish himself as a fraud and a charlatan, when the reward is considerably less than fabulous wealth. Griffin, after all, is not a best-selling author. His return from promoting his pernicious nonsense is relatively small. Accordingly, crazier frauds such the Penta-conmen are also in it for the money, but they make very little. Griffin displays self-awareness far beyond anything Aldo, Craig, and Rob are capable of, as he carefully and deliberately shuns debates with well-prepared rationalists. He wouldn't dream of subjecting himself to the comprehensive humiliations the bogus "pilots" seem to relish. Gage appears to be a pure con artist. He plays strictly for profit. Jim Fetzer sells books, but he sells very few, and he is a conspiracist for all seasons. At the other end of the spectrum, we have the loons who post nonsense on tiny blogs and internet forums. People like Heiwa and Tony Szamboti claim to engineers, get regularly exposed by real engineers, and keep coming back for more punishment. Szamboti strikes me as sane, as a fraud who knows when to quit. Heiwa, as you correctly observe, is something else. He is ineducable in the sense that Ace Baker is ineducable. His brain simply cannot process any information that contradicts his delusions.
Last edited:
stateofgrace
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 3,843
Only 0.13% of the building was load bearing?
So what happens if massive weights fall onto the other 99.87% of the building? The non load bearing part?
ETA. Please answer DAO's questions, post #123.
Last edited:
tanabear
Critical Thinker
Which descended faster, the top part of the North Tower through the area beneath the impact zone(steel and concrete) or the Titanic through the water?
Why doesn't it make sense? When someone makes a comparison between the top of the North Tower and the Titanic, this is obviously done to give the impression that what crushed the North Tower was very massive. So why is extending the analogy wrong? Maybe because it wouldn't support the government's contention on how the towers were destroyed. Regardless, which would you expect to descend faster, the top part of the North Tower through the area beneath the impact zone or the Titanic through the water?
What about this analogy. Assume the Titanic was suspended 3.7 meters above the North Tower then dropped, would the destruction look similar to what happened to the North Tower on 9/11?
Why doesn't it make sense? When someone makes a comparison between the top of the North Tower and the Titanic, this is obviously done to give the impression that what crushed the North Tower was very massive. So why is extending the analogy wrong? Maybe because it wouldn't support the government's contention on how the towers were destroyed. Regardless, which would you expect to descend faster, the top part of the North Tower through the area beneath the impact zone or the Titanic through the water?
What about this analogy. Assume the Titanic was suspended 3.7 meters above the North Tower then dropped, would the destruction look similar to what happened to the North Tower on 9/11?
As your fellow liars have been rendered speechless, would you care to tell us if the misalignment reduces the momentum of the falling mass? No? Cat got your tongue?
tanabear
Critical Thinker
Mark Roberts claimed that the substance leaking from around the 82nd floor of the South Tower before it collapsed was aluminum. He knew this because he held it in his hands at one point. He mentioned it on the Hardfire debate with Dylan Avery and Jason Bermas. My brother a had discussion about it with Ron Wieck at the Amazon forums last summer. You can read Mark's response here. Ron appeared unaware of what was on his own television show. Hilarious.
p.s. My brother posted under the name DenVilda.
Last edited:
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
You admitted in another thread that you accept that each floor of the WTC could only bear the weight of eleven floors above if applied gradually, or six if applied all at once (and that assuming no damage), so why do you believe that the wreckage of at least 11 stories crashing down would not fail the floors in succession?
Please explain what the following video shows, if not the perimeter columns failing:
The next floor below the initiation zone could have borne the weight of at least a few floors of the upper block, so the lower part wouldn't necessarily have started to collapse until the wreckage of several stories of the upper part had fallen onto it.
This is totally irrelevant, yet you seem to have latched onto it like a dog with a bone. Most of the wreckage will land on the next-lowest intact floor, the floor will fail, and the collapse will continue.
I asked you about this in another thread and you never responded. You evidently believe that the huge mass of wreckage will somehow be caught and slowed and eventually stopped by getting tangled up. Tangled up in what? The support columns? You stated yourself that they're only 0.13% of the footprint, so how much of the falling mass can they arrest? The floor structure? Each floor can still only support the weight of at most eleven floors above it, and that's only if it's intact and the load is applied gradually.
You claim in your paper that a partially failed floor would tilt and cause the wreckage to start to move to the side. This is frankly absurd. First, if the floor immediately below remains intact, the partially failed floor can only tilt at most about 20 degrees, and that's only on the 35-ft truss sides. On the 60-ft truss sides, it can only tilt at most about 10 degrees (the trigonometry is trivial). Thus it is exceedingly unlikely that any significant amount of wreckage will slide off, due to friction. Second, once the floor has partially failed in such a way as to tilt to one side, additional wreckage landing on it will most likely cause the edge that is still connected to the support columns to fail.
Can we assume that you won't be attempting to answer my question, either?
Here's a sunburst: I cannot possibly remember everything that is said on the shows I host.
Here is what Mark wrote:
"One of the benefits of my work is that I sometimes get tours behind the scenes in a wide range places: theaters, TV studios, skyscraper mechanical systems, power plants, laboratories, museums, and exhibits.
The pieces of WTC aluminum I handled had characteristics of having cooled while falling in the air (I suppose falling through water is also a possibility). The curator said to me "I bet you can't guess what this is," but I guessed right away. This was before I knew of the conspiracy nonsense or the video of molten material coming from the south tower.
There is a place where the public can handle small debris from Ground Zero: steel, glass, and rubble (which has been cleared for this purpose by investigators and by families). I'm not going to advertise it here because I'm certain that 9/11 deniers would steal these things. People can PM me if they want to visit that place.
At Ground Zero, on Liberty Street next to FDNY 10 House there is a small exhibit that includes large pieces of structural steel, the battered uniform of a fallen firefighter, part of an aircraft fuselage, metal that has melted and cooled (appears to be mostly aluminum), and other artifacts from the towers. Tribute 9/11 WTC Visitor Center (http://www.tributewtc.org/)"
We conclude, then, that Mark told the truth, and--surprise!--the liars were attempting to twist his words. As usual, I am left wondering why you, a fantasist, would call attention to a statement that lends no support whatever to the false claims of your evil movement.
The momentum - upper block drops near free fall (not seen of course! It selfdestructs long before that) - corresponds to the energy of 40 kgs of diesel oil and has nothing to do with misalignment! In my opinion the 40 kgs of diesel oil are abt sufficient for columns to slice 2-3 floors in the lower structure and 2-3 floors in the upper structure pushing the upper block against intact columns where a lot of energy is consumed as friction and then the energy/momentum is consumed and the collapse is arrested.
In what way does my article reflect incompetence? Pls be more specific! Incompetence of NIST, Bazant and Seffen? Yes, I agree.
Monkeys only chatter OT and is a frequent occurence on this thread.