WTC 1 & 2. What happened after collapse initiation?

[stateofgrace]

FYI - I just try to assist NIST to get its report right! Hopefully Shyman Saunder, PhD at NIST, is working on that right now.

He is actually one of my peer reviewers!

Really?

The last time you were asked about your "peer" reviewed paper you said this...................

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?

Then in response to this post.

What I claim is that Anders Bjorkman lied. It wasn't just a little lie, either. Oh, no, no. It was a big big lie.

He wants people to read his article and take his gibberish seriously. To that end, he told the world, via this forum, that his paper was peer-reviewed. He did that to deceive us. If his paper had actually been peer-reviewed and published in some obscure "HC journal" somewhere, I would have been very interested to read it and examine the evidence contained in it. Knowing it was peer-reviewed would have led me to believe it had been fully vented through a rigorous scientific process and worthy of professional review. That's what Mr. Bjorkman wanted us to believe, so he lied.

And he keeps asserting this lie. He has not once retracted his assertion.

If he is willing to lie about this, who's to say his paper isn't stuffed full of crapiola?

It is time to wind this thread down. Heiwa's paper is a reject. Thank you for playing our little game. Maybe we can play again sometime.

You said.....................

Actually I have never said that the 'paper' has been peer reviewed. Check back what I actually wrote. I never use words like scientific paper about an article for children.

All from this train wreck of a thread.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=111454

Once you tell one lie it is so dificult to stop isn't it?

Please provide proof that Shyman Saunder, PhD at NIST, whom requested not to named,has peer reviewed your "paper"

 

[Newtons Bit]

I am always suspicious about an engineer producing 430 articles about various matters and doesn't know about collapse arrest of steel structures.
And to produce the WTC article only two days after the destructions is too quick. I doubt Bazant has ever worked in industry or insurance and analysed failed structures. Seems he spent most time in the ivory tower. Does any of the 430 articles and six books mention collapse arrest or analyse any other structural failures of steel structures/buildings?

Hey genius, read what I freaking wrote. He has an SE liscense. That requires 8 years of practical work expierence in industry. Stop acting like you know something about engineering, you don't.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Why doesn't Heiwa just have his articles published in a reputable engineering journal and peer reviewed?

 

[Heiwa]

Hey genius, read what I freaking wrote. He has an SE liscense. That requires 8 years of practical work expierence in industry. Stop acting like you know something about engineering, you don't.

And what practical work was it?

 

[applecorped]

Jealous?

 

[Heiwa]

Please provide proof that Shyman Saunder, PhD at NIST, whom requested not to named,has peer reviewed your "paper"

Has? I await Shyam Sunder's thoughts about my latest observations. See below (BTW Rich Kayser is Shyam's boss):


----- Original Message -----
From: "Anders Björkman" <anders.bjorkman@wanadoo.fr>
To: <sunder@nist.gov>; "Richard Kayser" <richard.kayser@nist.gov>
Cc: <HardEvidence@gmail.com>; <kncryan@msn.com>; <stj911@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 1:44 PM
Subject: WTC1 destruction 911


> Hallo Shyam and Rich.
>
> I have updated my analysis about subject at
> http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm and would be much obliged to receive
> conclusions and comments and corrections from NIST. Thanks.
>
> Best regards
>
> Anders Björkman

----- Original Message -----
From: Shyam Sunder
To: Anders Björkman
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 2:04 PM
Subject: Read: WTC1 destruction 911


Your message was read on Tuesday, July 01, 2008 8:04:16 AM (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).

---

We will probably get a NIST/Sunder up-date sooner or later.

It is quite serious that NIST forgot to mention that collapses/destructions can be arrested.

 

[Heiwa]

What?
In other words you're stating that the only parts that should have collapsed in the worst case is the perimeter columns? The planes punched right through them. The interior of the towers was essentially open space between the perimeter columns and the core columns. Lots of room for plane debris to cause damage, let's not forget the fires that ensued... That's certainly no smoking gun

On the contrary. No columns of the structure below can collapse because of failures above. No plane punched through any columns below.

Pls, read my article again! http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm . The strong primary, intact structure below cannot be seriously damaged by by local failures above.

BTW - intelligent comments are always welcome. Make an effort.

 

[~enigma~]

On the contrary. No columns of the structure below can collapse because of failures above. No plane punched through any columns below.

Pls, read my article again! http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm . The strong primary, intact structure below cannot be seriously damaged by by local failures above.

BTW - intelligent comments are always welcome. Make an effort.

They can't? You mean if a few weight bearing structures (that have alot of load on them) fails then nothing below them could fail? And you expect anyone from NIST to take you seriously when it is obvious to a baby that you know nothing of engineering, physics or reality.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Wow, just wow...

 

[stateofgrace]

Has? I await Shyam Sunder's thoughts about my latest observations. See below (BTW Rich Kayser is Shyam's boss):


----- Original Message -----
From: "Anders Björkman" <anders.bjorkman@wanadoo.fr>
To: <sunder@nist.gov>; "Richard Kayser" <richard.kayser@nist.gov>
Cc: <HardEvidence@gmail.com>; <kncryan@msn.com>; <stj911@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 1:44 PM
Subject: WTC1 destruction 911


> Hallo Shyam and Rich.
>
> I have updated my analysis about subject at
> http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm and would be much obliged to receive
> conclusions and comments and corrections from NIST. Thanks.
>
> Best regards
>
> Anders Björkman

----- Original Message -----
From: Shyam Sunder
To: Anders Björkman
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 2:04 PM
Subject: Read: WTC1 destruction 911


Your message was read on Tuesday, July 01, 2008 8:04:16 AM (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).

---

We will probably get a NIST/Sunder up-date sooner or later.

It is quite serious that NIST forgot to mention that collapses/destructions can be arrested.

So you lied when you said..............

He is actually one of my peer reviewers!

Your paper is NOT being peer reviewed by Sunder. You emailed him a link to your website ,got an automated reply and then lied when you said he was one of your peer reviewers? Or have they already given you some form of feedback?

You have had zero peer review of your "analysis”, correct?

Equally so you also claimed that your "peer reviewers" did not wish to be named, so has Sunder given you his permission to publish his name on a public forum and then claim.........

He is actually one of my peer reviewers!

Please show proof you have this permission and put forward proof that your "peer reviewers” had requested anonymity. They did request anonymity didn't they?

You said they did...............

The peer reviewers of my article for children have requested to not to be named.

So why are you breaking this request?

And why are you naming people who you can't even be sure have even read your paper as peer reviewers?

What about the rest of your "peer reviewers", care to name them also?

The lies just keep coming don't they?

 

[pomeroo]

Really? (Have you read my article?).

My first premise is that the potential energy released at initiation is absorbed 50/50 by lower structure and upper block structure as both parts have equal capabilty to absorb energy. No domino effect! Just a collision of structures.
NIST & Co assume wrongly that all energy is only transmitted into the lower structure - crush down - and that upper block acts as a hammer head (where the energy is stored)!

My second premise is that the potential energy released is absorbed by local failures (overload) in secondary structure (floors) only and by friction between displaced parts in contact and shifting load patterns. The floors are located both in the upper block and lower structures. The first floors to start absorbing energy are evidently the nearest ones above and below the initiation zone.

My third premise is that primary structure (columns) below are not affected at all by the release of potential energy (as described in my articles). Reason is of course that the energy released is not applied to this primary structure below! How can you write that the columns are overloaded one by one? Look at the figure in my article. Evidently the primary structure (columns) below will be loaded more or less as before after collapse arrest! The load of what remains of the upper block is transmitted to the columns below via the damaged floors jammed there.

My fourth premise is that the upper block structure is severly damaged by the absorbtion of energy. In the worst case two outer walls would have sheared off completely and dropped down on the outside in one big piece as débris. As this didn't happen the destruction was not caused by release of potential energy. Another smoking gun?

My fifth premise is that the release of potential energy and absorbtion of this energy as described above will not produce any big amounts of rubble (pieces of cement of the floors, etc). Reason is that the floors that lose their connections at one edge will only hinge down and jam on other floors inside the structure below. The floors will not pulverize, etc. The big amount of rubble produced cannot have been caused by release of potential energy.

How could you misunderstand me so completely?

FYI - I just try to assist NIST to get its report right! Hopefully Shyman Saunder, PhD at NIST, is working on that right now.

He is actually one of my peer reviewers!

Do you ever wonder why the real engineers regard you as an ineducable incompetent?

 

[pomeroo]

On the contrary. No columns of the structure below can collapse because of failures above. No plane punched through any columns below.

Pls, read my article again! http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm . The strong primary, intact structure below cannot be seriously damaged by by local failures above.

BTW - intelligent comments are always welcome. Make an effort.

You ignore all intelligent comments. Your whole concept of the Towers is wrong. People vastly more intelligent and knowledgeable than yourself have painstakingly explained why you are wrong. Nothing registers. Your article is worthless rubbish.

 

[pomeroo]

Why doesn't Heiwa just have his articles published in a reputable engineering journal and peer reviewed?

Might his being an incompetent fool have something to do with it?

 

[tanabear]

Watch a few videos of controlled demolitions using explosives.
I suggest you turn off the sound, if you only wish to focus on appearance.

The first thing you'll notice is that the building is gutted...Next, before the collapse, you will see a series of flashes. These will travel throughout the area to be demolished. To my understanding, they destroy secondary supports and structures that might interfere with a nice, neat implosion.
Immediately after the first flashes, you will see more flashes. Lots of flashes. These cut the main supports.
From there, gravity takes over...In a real controlled demolition, all the supports will be severed, withing a very short time frame. This prevents any one support throwing the collapse off-kilter before it gives way.

How does this differ from what you would expect to see in WTC 1 & 2?
For one thing, there are no flashes.
For another, only a few floors failed initially. The rest came tumbling down because the structure could not handle that kind of strain. As an engineering student, I apologizze on behalf of the whole profession if you don't like the idea that engineers didn't have the forsight to factor having the top part of a skyscraper fall on the bottom section into their designs.

It has been explained eloquently in other threads why the upper section would not tip or slide over the side like a tree being felled.

And I hope you can understand that the collapse can only progress in one direction: downwards, into the bosom of that temptress gravity.

However: note all the the debris being jetisoned out to the side. The main mass of the building went the only direction it could go: down.
But on it's way, it displaced some other parts, and sent large chunks of debris flying a considerable distance. Debris which caused considerable damage to, among other things, nearby buildings.

That is why real controlled demolitions use so many explosives in so many places. To cut the supports so that pieces don't fly everywhere.

So, if you can do all that (and probably a few more things I forgot), then you might have a controlled demolition that would resemble what was witnessed.

Assuming nothing else went wrong.

I will have you note that the situation I put forward is what you and all other "towers were controlled demolition" proponents are claimig happened. It is not a straw man.

Unless, of course, you are either a no-planer, no-claimer, space-beamer, or mini-nuker. Or any combination thereof.
In which case, get help.

Maybe you should actually reply to my question. I didn't ask how WTC1 and 2 differed from a conventional implosion. I'm aware there are differences. The purpose of a standard demolition, or an implosion, is to bring a building down in such a way as to minimize damage to adjacent structures. This was not the case with WTC1 and 2.

I asked how would the destruction of each tower have looked different, if WTC 1 and 2 were blown up from the top-down? You are saying that WTC 1 and 2 were not destroyed by explosive charges. Okay, but if explosive charges were used what would it look like?

I find it ironic how in one breath you slam 'consensus science' as problematic, but in the next breath hope that the opinions of 9/11 truthers on such issues as CD will become a new scientific...consensus.

You are being self-contradictory. As is Crichton when he writes (as I wrote in an earlier post) that one strives for reproducible results, not consensus. Well who is doing the reproducing? And how do we know when that replication has been 'done right?' Consensus. Again. It cannot be escaped.

How do we know when the replication has been done right? Well, when things work. If someone from an impoverished third world country, like Malawi, does not believe in electric lighting, what is the best way to persuade him that it is possible? Tell him that there is a scientific consensus on the issue or flip on a light switch and have him watch the room get brighter? I would say the latter. Do people in the industrial world believe that electric lighting is possible because of a scientific consensus or because they see it on a daily basis? You see telephones don't really work, Alexander Graham Bell was just a good snake-oil salesman and convinced people they were hearing something they weren't. Smallpox is today just as common as it was in the time before Edward Jenner. He just fooled people into thinking they weren't dying from smallpox.

As well, when one is arguing a point, why does one need to appeal to the consensus opinion, why not the evidence?

 

[pomeroo]

Has? I await Shyam Sunder's thoughts about my latest observations. See below (BTW Rich Kayser is Shyam's boss):


----- Original Message -----
From: "Anders Björkman" <anders.bjorkman@wanadoo.fr>
To: <sunder@nist.gov>; "Richard Kayser" <richard.kayser@nist.gov>
Cc: <HardEvidence@gmail.com>; <kncryan@msn.com>; <stj911@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 1:44 PM
Subject: WTC1 destruction 911


> Hallo Shyam and Rich.
>
> I have updated my analysis about subject at
> http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm and would be much obliged to receive
> conclusions and comments and corrections from NIST. Thanks.
>
> Best regards
>
> Anders Björkman

----- Original Message -----
From: Shyam Sunder
To: Anders Björkman
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 2:04 PM
Subject: Read: WTC1 destruction 911


Your message was read on Tuesday, July 01, 2008 8:04:16 AM (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).

---

We will probably get a NIST/Sunder up-date sooner or later.

It is quite serious that NIST forgot to mention that collapses/destructions can be arrested.

It is far more serious that you masquerade as an engineer but are incapable of understanding why these collapses could not have been arrested.

You received an automated reply.

 

[Newtons Bit]

And what practical work was it?

Earth to Heiwa: it is a requirement by law to have four years of practical experience (though one year can be waived by having a masters) to get a Professional Engineering Liscense (except in the State of California which only requires 2 years) and another 4 years of experience on top of a PE License to have an SE license.

This is verified by various state agencies. Stop playing dumb. If he has an SE license, he has real world experience.

 

[John Blonn]

How do we know when the replication has been done right? Well, when things work. If someone from an impoverished third world country, like Malawi, does not believe in electric lighting, what is the best way to persuade him that it is possible? Tell him that there is a scientific consensus on the issue or flip on a light switch and have him watch the room get brighter? I would say the latter. Do people in the industrial world believe that electric lighting is possible because of a scientific consensus or because they see it on a daily basis? You see telephones don't really work, Alexander Graham Bell was just a good snake-oil salesman and convinced people they were hearing something they weren't. Smallpox is today just as common as it was in the time before Edward Jenner. He just fooled people into thinking they weren't dying from smallpox.

We're not quite talking about technology here though (even though testing technology is even not as straightforward as one may think).

We are talking about scientific replication, replication in the realm of experimental practice, not electrical technologies in different places.

We have the 'unanswered' question of collapse progression. NIST and most engineers agree that it progression was inevitable after initiation. This is the consensus we are talking about.

As well, when one is arguing a point, why does one need to appeal to the consensus opinion, why not the evidence?

I don't think I said this, and no, one doesn't need to appeal to consensus opinion, precisely because it is in the process of being formed, or changed, or modified.

You are fighting a windmill here of 'consensus science,' as if scientists, when asked about the evidence for electromagnetism, only say "Oh, well we know EM is real because scientists say it is." You've set up a strawman here.

--------------------------
Here is an example of the problematic process of replication:

Imagine we are exploring the existence of particle X - our question is: Does particle X exist?

Imagine John Blonn claims to have found that, indeed, particle X exists. He claims that he detected it using a very precise piece of equipment, a piece of apparatus he has used in his laboratory for 10 years and has gotten very proficient at using. In fact, John Blonn is known as one of the world authorities with this piece of equipment.

Now all that's left is to replicate my experiments, right? OK, so now tanabear replicates my experiment using the very precise apparatus. After 10 trials, he announces that he was unable to replicate the experiment, and therefore particle X DOES NOT exist.

John Blonn is obviously not pleased. He says, "Tanabear was unable to replicate my experiment becuase he is not skilled enough with my apparatus. If he had worked 10 years on this project, he would havfe replicated it. Thus Particle X does exist, tanabear just doesn't have the requisite scientific skill to find it."

How do we decide if Particle X exists?

 

[pomeroo]

Earth to Heiwa: it is a requirement by law to have four years of practical experience (though one year can be waived by having a masters) to get a Professional Engineering Liscense (except in the State of California which only requires 2 years) and another 4 years of experience on top of a PE License to have an SE license.

This is verified by various state agencies. Stop playing dumb. If he has an SE license, he has real world experience.

He isn't playing.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Has? I await Shyam Sunder's thoughts about my latest observations. See below (BTW Rich Kayser is Shyam's boss):


----- Original Message -----
From: "Anders Björkman" <anders.bjorkman@wanadoo.fr>
To: <sunder@nist.gov>; "Richard Kayser" <richard.kayser@nist.gov>
Cc: <HardEvidence@gmail.com>; <kncryan@msn.com>; <stj911@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 1:44 PM
Subject: WTC1 destruction 911


> Hallo Shyam and Rich.
>
> I have updated my analysis about subject at
> http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm and would be much obliged to receive
> conclusions and comments and corrections from NIST. Thanks.
>
> Best regards
>
> Anders Björkman

----- Original Message -----
From: Shyam Sunder
To: Anders Björkman
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 2:04 PM
Subject: Read: WTC1 destruction 911


Your message was read on Tuesday, July 01, 2008 8:04:16 AM (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).

---

We will probably get a NIST/Sunder up-date sooner or later.

It is quite serious that NIST forgot to mention that collapses/destructions can be arrested.

What world do you live on? For crying out loud, you get an AUTOMATED REPLY from his email client and you automatically believe that he "peer reviewed" your paper?

Heiwa, please, get help. You have serious issues.

 

[pomeroo]

Really? (Have you read my article?).

My first premise is that the potential energy released at initiation is absorbed 50/50 by lower structure and upper block structure as both parts have equal capabilty to absorb energy. No domino effect! Just a collision of structures.
NIST & Co assume wrongly that all energy is only transmitted into the lower structure - crush down - and that upper block acts as a hammer head (where the energy is stored)!

My second premise is that the potential energy released is absorbed by local failures (overload) in secondary structure (floors) only and by friction between displaced parts in contact and shifting load patterns. The floors are located both in the upper block and lower structures. The first floors to start absorbing energy are evidently the nearest ones above and below the initiation zone.

My third premise is that primary structure (columns) below are not affected at all by the release of potential energy (as described in my articles). Reason is of course that the energy released is not applied to this primary structure below! How can you write that the columns are overloaded one by one? Look at the figure in my article. Evidently the primary structure (columns) below will be loaded more or less as before after collapse arrest! The load of what remains of the upper block is transmitted to the columns below via the damaged floors jammed there.

My fourth premise is that the upper block structure is severly damaged by the absorbtion of energy. In the worst case two outer walls would have sheared off completely and dropped down on the outside in one big piece as débris. As this didn't happen the destruction was not caused by release of potential energy. Another smoking gun?

My fifth premise is that the release of potential energy and absorbtion of this energy as described above will not produce any big amounts of rubble (pieces of cement of the floors, etc). Reason is that the floors that lose their connections at one edge will only hinge down and jam on other floors inside the structure below. The floors will not pulverize, etc. The big amount of rubble produced cannot have been caused by release of potential energy.

How could you misunderstand me so completely?

FYI - I just try to assist NIST to get its report right! Hopefully Shyman Saunder, PhD at NIST, is working on that right now.

He is actually one of my peer reviewers!

We'll continue our "Physics for Psychotics" dialogue. If I remove the 109th floor, the 110th floor drops neatly and quietly on the 108th, causing no strain on the load-bearing capacity. If I drop the 81st through the 110th floors on the 80th, it is EXACTLY THE SAME THING--RIGHT????
The crush-up completely balances the crush-down? Really?

If I magically lift the 110th floor two miles above the 109th and drop it, a "new equilibrium" is quickly reached and no damage is done, right? Crush-up equals crush-down, RIGHT? If I drop the top thirty floors on the bottom eighty from a height of two miles, THEY ESTABLISH A "NEW EQUILIBRIUM," RIGHT??????