WTC collapses - Layman's terms again

[Heiwa]

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.

Yes, only 0.13% of the footprint of the building is load bearing = columns. The rest is floor! You know - to walk on!
If a massive weight falls on the floor there might be a hole in the floor or the floor is deformed. All explained in the article, actually.

The peer reviewers of my article for children have requested to not to be named. You don't know them anyway. BTW - who peer reviewed the Bazant and Seffen articles? The Bazant article was issued a few days after 911 - time for peer review? Or prepared beforehand?

 

[Par]

Monkeys only chatter OT and is a frequent occurence on this thread.

I wonder what that means!

 

[pomeroo]

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.

Your response is utter gibberish. What can it possibly mean to say that a block of several floors of a collapsing skyscraper "corresponds to the energy of 40 kgs of diesel oil"? You can't be any sort of engineer!

Your article reflects your incompetence in that it doesn't reflect the corrections that have been made over and over by real engineers, people smarter and much more knowledgeable than yourself.

 

[Dumb All Over]

The peer reviewers of my article for children have requested to not to be named. You don't know them anyway. BTW - who peer reviewed the Bazant and Seffen articles? The Bazant article was issued a few days after 911 - time for peer review? Or prepared beforehand?

Hey, great! Thanks so much for answering one of my questions. I appreciate it.

That leaves only two questions left unanswered. One down, two to go-

What were their qualifications?
In which scholarly journal did you publish your paper?

ETA: I'm not sure who peer reviewed the Bazant and Seffen articles. Did Bazant and Seffen claim their articles were peer reviewed like you claim for your article?

 

[Heiwa]

1. 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?

2. 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.


3. 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.

4. 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.

1. NIST suggest in FAQ December 2007 that a floor can carry 11 floors or resist 6 floors dropping down. All nonsense of course. Why would a floor drop down?

2. The uppermost floor of the lower structure or the lowest floor of the upper block can evidently not resist a column punching a hole in or slicing through it.

3. Read the article! Sliced floors - weight say 400 kgs/m² (not a huge mass BTW) - evidently hinges and drops down in a mess entangled in one another. I show it with green and red floors just to make it easy to follow. Geometry changes and intact upper block columns are pushed against intact lower structure columns, etc. Collapse is arrested.

4. No, I say the locally failed floor will hinge being sliced by columns and drop down on a floor below that may also have hinged. Yes, they will only hinge 10°-20°. There is plenty of space/volume for just that. It is the complete remaining upper block structure that tilts due to assymmetrical local failures. Have you ever seen a partially, locally failed steel structure after collapse has been arrested? Big failures occur in way of contacts, other parts may be deformed, joints are really not damaged, etc. Contacts are very localised as the load bearing structure occupies so small space.

It is really absurd, like NIST, to believe that steel beam structures collapse like a house of cards, floors are suddenly dropping down from nowhere and that solid columns are ripped apart like spaghetti.

 

[CHF]

Heiwa,

when can I expect to see your "research" published and in which journal?

 

[Heiwa]

Your response is utter gibberish. What can it possibly mean to say that a block of several floors of a collapsing skyscraper "corresponds to the energy of 40 kgs of diesel oil"? You can't be any sort of engineer!

Your article reflects your incompetence in that it doesn't reflect the corrections that have been made over and over by real engineers, people smarter and much more knowledgeable than yourself.

You have not read the article have you? What 40 kgs of diesel are in GJ and kWh and how it all is calculated is shown there. 40 kgs of diesel is easy to understand, x GJ or y kWh is not so easy. But energy wise it is the same. Some clown suggested I compared it to kgs of TNT but that would give the wrong ideas.

Something reflects that it doesn't reflect ??? NWO lingo? Actually there have been a lot of improvement since first publishing it on the Internet last year. Perfect media for this type of article. 1000's of readers. Much more than any HC journal.

 

[Heiwa]

I'm not sure who peer reviewed the Bazant and Seffen articles. Did Bazant and Seffen claim their articles were peer reviewed like you claim for your article?

Must have been! Their papers are published in some obscure HC journals!

 

[tanabear]

Your response is utter gibberish. What can it possibly mean to say that a block of several floors of a collapsing skyscraper "corresponds to the energy of 40 kgs of diesel oil"? You can't be any sort of engineer!

Heiwa explains this at his website.

"7.4 Possible Release of potential Energy due to downward Movement - 340 kWh

But let's assume that potential energy is released vertically as all low stressed columns wall/core collapse simultaneously and are removed allowing a free drop.

When 33 000 tons of mass above in WTC1 falls down 3.7 metres due to gravity and crushes all the columns abt 340 kWh (1.22 GNm) of potential, PE, or kinetic energy, KE, is produced by gravity force and a fair part of that energy is consumed to crush the columns. Let's assume that this event by gravity takes 5-6 seconds based on video clips and that there is a certain velocity when the upper block impinges the lower structure. In reverse - to first stop and second pull the upper block back up again you need a very big engine with power 204 000 kW that pulls up the mass above. Let's assume this engine is very effective and that you require 120 grams of diesel oil to produce 1 kWh. It means that 40 800 grams or 40.8 kgs of diesel oil is required to stop and pull the mass up again! It takes 6 seconds! It can be done. It shows how much energy was released when the top fell. 40.8 kgs of diesel oil."
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist1.htm#5

 

[Heiwa]

Heiwa,

when can I expect to see your "research" published and in which journal?

It is already published on the internet (and being improved all the time). Do not call it research! It is an aid to understand the WTC collapses and that gravity alone could not produce them. Simple, common sense stuff. I write for average people. Very popular. Congress persons should read it.

 

[CHF]

It is already published on the internet (and being improved all the time). Do not call it research! It is an aid to understand the WTC collapses and that gravity alone could not produce them. Simple, common sense stuff. I write for average people. Very popular. Congress persons should read it.

Are you sure the internet is the best place to "publish" such important information?

I mean if you want it to educate people and have "congress persons" read it then the best place for that would be in an engineering journal, no?

 

[Dumb All Over]

It is already published on the internet (and being improved all the time). Do not call it research! It is an aid to understand the WTC collapses and that gravity alone could not produce them. Simple, common sense stuff. I write for average people. Very popular. Congress persons should read it.

I do understand it was published on your own website. Was it published anywhere else?

I accept you do not call it research. On the contrary, you call it peer reviewed, to be clear.

 

[Myriad]

Heiwa explains this at his website.

"7.4 Possible Release of potential Energy due to downward Movement - 340 kWh

But let's assume that potential energy is released vertically as all low stressed columns wall/core collapse simultaneously and are removed allowing a free drop.

When 33 000 tons of mass above in WTC1 falls down 3.7 metres due to gravity and crushes all the columns abt 340 kWh (1.22 GNm) of potential, PE, or kinetic energy, KE, is produced by gravity force and a fair part of that energy is consumed to crush the columns. Let's assume that this event by gravity takes 5-6 seconds based on video clips and that there is a certain velocity when the upper block impinges the lower structure. In reverse - to first stop and second pull the upper block back up again you need a very big engine with power 204 000 kW that pulls up the mass above. Let's assume this engine is very effective and that you require 120 grams of diesel oil to produce 1 kWh. It means that 40 800 grams or 40.8 kgs of diesel oil is required to stop and pull the mass up again! It takes 6 seconds! It can be done. It shows how much energy was released when the top fell. 40.8 kgs of diesel oil."
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist1.htm#5

Ah! So Heiwa has stated that arresting the collapse would require a 204,000 kW engine attached to the upper mass!

Was the upper mass attached to such an engine? Clearly, no. There was evidently no 204,000 kW engine present when the towers collapsed.

Heiwa has proven that the collapse could not be arrested, because arresting it would require a 204,000 kW engine that wasn't there!

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[pomeroo]

You have not read the article have you? What 40 kgs of diesel are in GJ and kWh and how it all is calculated is shown there. 40 kgs of diesel is easy to understand, x GJ or y kWh is not so easy. But energy wise it is the same. Some clown suggested I compared it to kgs of TNT but that would give the wrong ideas.

Something reflects that it doesn't reflect ??? NWO lingo? Actually there have been a lot of improvement since first publishing it on the Internet last year. Perfect media for this type of article. 1000's of readers. Much more than any HC journal.

You are not playing with a full deck of cards.

 

[Kage]

Heiwa, There are several principles that you misunderstand.

You are confusing acceleration with jerk. Acceleration is a change in velocity over time, jerk is a change in acceleration over time. Certainly the upper section experienced a negative jerk when it impacted the lower floors, but the acceleration isn't negative because the weight of the upper section was way more than the resistance of the lower section. The upper section doesn't slow down, it just stops speeding up as fast. Were the resistance greater, one would be able to assume that the building would be able to stand with all of it's columns severed. Kind of ridiculous.

 

[DC]

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?

Do you belive the upper "block" of the building was a solid steel block?

 

[DC]

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.

yes but calling me a liar......

i think you are a fraud.

 

[DC]

Heiwa, There are several principles that you misunderstand.

You are confusing acceleration with jerk. Acceleration is a change in velocity over time, jerk is a change in acceleration over time. Certainly the upper section experienced a negative jerk when it impacted the lower floors, but the acceleration isn't negative because the weight of the upper section was way more than the resistance of the lower section. The upper section doesn't slow down, it just stops speeding up as fast. Were the resistance greater, one would be able to assume that the building would be able to stand with all of it's columns severed. Kind of ridiculous.

how much is the resistance of that upper block?

how come its assumed undistructable till the crush up phase starts?

its unbelivable, you guys call yourself skeptics and you belive in such a fantasy collapse theory......

 

[gumboot]

Do you belive the upper "block" of the building was a solid steel block?

Where would the people go?

This is a ridiculous statement. No one thinks any part of the WTC was a "solid steel block".

 

[DC]

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.

im not his protege, you liar....