WTC collapses - Layman's terms again

uk_dave said:
Heiwa doesn't believe that the floors provided any bracing function. He cannot believe it because if he did he wouldn't believe the rest of his nonsense.

Heiwa doesn't understand the design of the wtc towers and, like all good 'truthers', his ego (and pocket) won't allow him to go and actually speak with someone who does.

I ask again, to all the 'truthers' who think they know why the towers couldn't have collapsed due to impact damage and fire, please, the deaths of 3000 people is worth you stumping up the cost of a 2 hour consultation with a qualified and experienced structural engineer. Then you will be able to speak on the subject with a solid understanding of the principles involved.

But you won't, because you don't want to.
Click to expand...
But he does Dave, he know full well that the floors had no load bearing capacity,other than what was actually on the floors themselves, he as said so. He knows full well.

Heiwa said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, only 0.13% of the footprint of the building is load bearing = columns. The rest is floor! You know - to walk on!
Click to expand...
Well, Heiwa, explain how the rest of the building, some 99.83% that was none load bearing could possibly arrest the collapse of the building.

How could the floors that were there, just to be “walked on” , stop the massive dynamic weight?
 
Last edited:
stateofgrace said:
But he does Dave, he know full well that the floors had no load bearing capacity,other than what was actually on the floors themselves, he as said so. He knows full well.
Click to expand...

Heiwa has stated that the floors had no function other than to provide a surface for people to walk on. So in his mind we can lose all the floors and the structure remains standing.

He sincerely believes this or he wouldn't consider the simplified Bazant model (with the column to column impact) to be just a ruse to explain the collapse (in other words Heiwa accepts that the columns wouldn't have impacted directly on those below and that, in the 'Heiwa' world, the columns impacting the floors have no effect on the structural integrity of the building except that the floors magically stop the collapse or force the upper section to topple off, whereas Bazant cunningly uses the column on column scenario in order to calculate that the impacted columns would fail, which Heiwa thinks he's managed to disprove....or something).

Basically, Heiwa cannot admit to any of the real world facts about the design and performance of the towers because then he'd have nothing left to talk about.....and his ego can't allow that!!

Whether it's pure delusion or wilful deception is hard to say at this point, though his assertion that his paper has been peer reviewed and passed by qualified people seems to indicate the latter (as being delusional about what qualified people think about your paper is a mental illness of a whole other order)
 
fullflavormenthol said:
you should. Even a fantasy can have relevent knowledge.

"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." -Matthew 7:15-

This is a verse that inspired centuries of writtings. Remember even if you don't believe in the Bible that is not an excuse never to read it. Given that it is the basis for much of our most famous literature. Feel stupid yet?
Click to expand...

oh i did read parts of the bible, i had to in school. and inded alot of the storys are very good. and i lked them alot.

but i dont know what it means when someone just hives me things like Matthew 7:15

here on JREF i dont feel stupid no, really not.
 
Architect said:
In much the same way as you don't feel the need to study structures before pronouncing here, I should imagine.....
Click to expand...

so do you also claim that only the most upper floor will be affected by the impacting upper part?or will parts of that energy be "transmited" to the floors beneath it?

i would be supriced when you as an architect would claim such nonsence.
 
the floortrusses had also the function of a connection of the outer "tube" with the inner core, also referd to as the innner "tube".

the floors are important for the intergral stability of the building.

but still noone was able to answer my question.

why was the lowest floor and the lowest columns of the upper, falling part of the tower, able to destroy ALL the floors and columns of the lower tower part, without beeing broken in the crush-down phase?

ETA : the floortrusses gave the stability to the outer tube, while i belive the inner tube, or core, was able to stand on its own. what i doubt about the outer tube.
 
Last edited:
Dictator Cheney said:
why was the lowest floor and the lowest columns of the upper, falling part of the tower, able to destroy ALL the floors and columns of the lower tower part, without beeing broken in the crush-down phase?
Click to expand...

It wasn't and as far as I am aware no one has claimed that it was.

There would be an obvious amount of destruction to the leading edge of the collapsing column but, since the falling mass is only effected by the amount which overflows the collapse zone, that damaged leading edge is still part of the calculation regarding the mass which is overloading the lower structure.

If it is simplified it's merely because the destruction of this leading edge is irrelevant in the context of the overloading of the structure. Destruction does not mean loss of mass so much as loss of cohesion.

But then, you knew that already.
 
stateofgrace said:
It did not fall on the columns it fell onto the floors, the non load bearing floors, so what happens when the non loading bearing floors that brace the external columns to the inner cores is subject to massive violent damage?
Click to expand...

Re floors bracing the walls/columns it is all described in the article (as usual); they are bolted to the columns and the bolts can transmit some load. No big deal.

Now - assuming the upper block has dropped down a little misaligned and sliced through three red floors in the lower structure as shown in the article. The lower structure has fought back and sliced through three green floors of the upper block. OK - you follow.

Evidently the red sliced floors are then no longer connected/braced to the wall columns. This evidently has no effect on the wall!!

I repeat - this evidently has no effect on the outer wall!

Reason is that there is no vertical load acting on the wall, i.w.o. the sliced red floors! The wall is held together by the spandrels (like a belt around the complete tower (no spandrel is damaged) and the wall is now only pushed outside by the tilting, jammed upper block (collapse has arrested) and the spandrels will assist to keep the outer wall intact.

Evidenty a sliced floor is no longer bracing anything and cannot transmit a horizontal load from outer wall to core, etc.
 
uk_dave said:
It wasn't and as far as I am aware no one has claimed that it was.

There would be an obvious amount of destruction to the leading edge of the collapsing column but, since the falling mass is only effected by the amount which overflows the collapse zone, that damaged leading edge is still part of the calculation regarding the mass which is overloading the lower structure.

If it is simplified it's merely because the destruction of this leading edge is irrelevant in the context of the overloading of the structure. Destruction does not mean loss of mass so much as loss of cohesion.

But then, you knew that already.
Click to expand...

it is NOT irrelevant, it is a simplification far beyond realitiy and in favor of global collapse.

why do you ppl defend Bazants fantasy when you disagree with his paper in so many points?
 
stateofgrace said:
Well, Heiwa, explain how the rest of the building, some 99.83% that was none load bearing could possibly arrest the collapse of the building.

How could the floors that were there, just to be “walked on” , stop the massive dynamic weight?
Click to expand...

This is clearly described in the article - read it. 99.87% of the footprint has plenty of floors to stop the lightweight upper loose structure - abt 30% of its mass being outside the lower structure. And the lower structure fights back slicing up the upper block, etc. Pls read the article - don't ask questions about matters that are already described. Ask questions about what you do not understand in the article - copy paste - and I will clarify.

PS I note that some particpants of the discussion have become religious by referring to various texts of such kind. Suggest it is done in another thread, e.g. the new NWO physics thread which seems to be based on such principles. We should not mix real physics with religion of any kind in this thread.
 
uk_dave said:
Did you arrive at that conclusion after your 2 hour consultation with a qualified and experienced structural engineer?
Click to expand...

maybe one of you oh so qualified super engineers can show me wrong.
why do you ppl always need some experts? are you not able to think yourself?
 
Heiwa said:
Re floors bracing the walls/columns it is all described in the article (as usual); they are bolted to the columns and the bolts can transmit some load. No big deal.

Now - assuming the upper block has dropped down a little misaligned and sliced through three red floors in the lower structure as shown in the article. The lower structure has fought back and sliced through three green floors of the upper block. OK - you follow.

Evidently the red sliced floors are then no longer connected/braced to the wall columns. This evidently has no effect on the wall!!

I repeat - this evidently has no effect on the outer wall!

Reason is that there is no vertical load acting on the wall, i.w.o. the sliced red floors! The wall is held together by the spandrels (like a belt around the complete tower (no spandrel is damaged) and the wall is now only pushed outside by the tilting, jammed upper block (collapse has arrested) and the spandrels will assist to keep the outer wall intact.

Evidenty a sliced floor is no longer bracing anything and cannot transmit a horizontal load from outer wall to core, etc.
Click to expand...
How has the collapse arrested? Are you saying the floors are strong enough to do this? Please show the calculations of this resisting force and how it counters the gravitational acceleration of the top.
 
Last edited:
why was the lowest floor and the lowest columns of the upper, falling part of the tower, able to destroy ALL the floors and columns of the lower tower part, without beeing broken in the crush-down phase?

maybe i get an anwer till im back from work.
 
Heiwa said:
Evidently the red sliced floors are then no longer connected/braced to the wall columns. This evidently has no effect on the wall!!

I repeat - this evidently has no effect on the outer wall!
Click to expand...
And the falling mass of material is not only overloading the lower floors but is also pushing out against the columns which are no longer restrained by the floor trusses and those columns are failing, which is also making them pull away from the floor trusses ahead of the collapse zone.

Very simple really. Even a child could understand it.
 
uk_dave said:
Heiwa has stated that the floors had no function other than to provide a surface for people to walk on. So in his mind we can lose all the floors and the structure remains standing.

He sincerely believes this or he wouldn't consider the simplified Bazant model (with the column to column impact) to be just a ruse to explain the collapse (in other words Heiwa accepts that the columns wouldn't have impacted directly on those below and that, in the 'Heiwa' world, the columns impacting the floors have no effect on the structural integrity of the building except that the floors magically stop the collapse or force the upper section to topple off, whereas Bazant cunningly uses the column on column scenario in order to calculate that the impacted columns would fail, which Heiwa thinks he's managed to disprove....or something).

Basically, Heiwa cannot admit to any of the real world facts about the design and performance of the towers because then he'd have nothing left to talk about.....and his ego can't allow that!!

Whether it's pure delusion or wilful deception is hard to say at this point, though his assertion that his paper has been peer reviewed and passed by qualified people seems to indicate the latter (as being delusional about what qualified people think about your paper is a mental illness of a whole other order)
Click to expand...

Yes - your are right that the secondary members floors only transmit vertical weight loads to the primary load carrying columns (and some wind horizontal wind loads from side to side). You can remove all the floors and the building becomes like a cage with no load at all in the columns. Clearly described in the article. And the cage will not collapse! It is, e.g. held together by the spandrels.

And when you add the floors to transmit loads to the columns you reinforce the columns (add cross area) to carry those loads and keep the stresses <30% yield. Quite basic.

Bazant on the other hand assumes - to simplify - that the upper block has no floors at all (it is uniform density and is very solid - like a hammer head) that hits the lower structure which has floors. The upper block hammer head then (no floors) apparently hits the top floor of the lower structure that does not break. Instead the load on this floor is tranmitted via very light bolts to the very solid columns ... and the columns buckle and rip apart like spaghetti. Very strange, to say the least. But this is clearly what Bazant suggests! I describe the madness in my article.

Why don't the bolts shear off? They have simply been forgotten by Bazant.
 
Dictator Cheney said:
maybe one of you oh so qualified super engineers can show me wrong.
why do you ppl always need some experts? are you not able to think yourself?
Click to expand...

Why should we? You're not paying.

You want someone to take the time and trouble to give you a lesson in the structural design and performance of the wtc towers in terms which you are able to understand, then you'll need to go and pay a suitable qualified and experienced structural engineer for 2 hours of his/her time and have a sit down, face to face meeting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom