WTC 1 & 2. What happened after collapse initiation?

[beachnut]

...
the upper blocks are destroyed prior initiation and that free falls of them would not impact the structure below.

You do not know how much weight floor can take, do you?

Oh, and what destroyed the upper blocks?
Where did the top structure go?
OMG, you can not be this dense, can you?

Your entire paper is garbage.

 

[GlennB]

Here's a snip from Heiwa's "test", apparently designed for children to have a crack at modelling the WTC collapses ...

"Cost of model is not too much: 7 m² of 5 mm steel plate (280 kgs) - say $400:- Pipes $20:-, Skirt $80:- welding rods, paint and misc. $100:- . Labour $ 0:-, if you ask daddy to assemble it.
Now the fun starts! We are going to put this model of WTC1 on fire! Or at least the initiation zone.
Put a tray of one gallon diesel oil on the cement floor between the legs of the model and fill the rest of the initiation zone with paper, rugs and similar.
Now put the diesel oil on fire! See how the initiation zone heats up, air is drawn in and smoke escapes through the holes. Very soon the temperature is 500°C uniformly inside the initiation zone and the table legs are heated up to same temperature. The plywood will burn very slowly...."

Oh dear oh dear, Heiwa. Make sure those kiddies get a proper risk assessment from their local fire dept. before trying this, eh? Oh, and help with the 60kg steel plates. Even "daddy" will need proper workshop lifting gear here.

Extensive research rolleyes shows Heiwa is most likely a ships welder by trade. Nothing wrong with that, but being wildly delusional plus being way out of your depth is a sad combination.

 

[Heiwa]

You do not know how much weight floor can take, do you?

Oh, and what destroyed the upper blocks?
Where did the top structure go?
OMG, you can not be this dense, can you?

Your entire paper is garbage.

?? The floors could carry office furniture and office staff at say 250 kgs/m² and the bending stress in the floors trusses were very low (actually an axial tensile stress in a rod of the truss. The compression in cement/steel plate floor was even lower). But you could probably locally load the floor at 750 kgs/m². And then the floors transmitted lateral/horizontal wind loads on the walls.
If you shift a cut off column above the floor and let it drop, it just punches a hole in the floor. But how do you cut/shift a solid column? If you shift the complete upper block sideways, two walls will be shifted outside the structure below ... and be hanging in the air! These two walls cannot destroy anything!
Where did the upper blocks go? Good question!
The upper blocks were >95% air volume wise. Then there were the floors - say 2-3% of total volume. And the columns - <0.2% volume. Looking at the videos it seems some type of LCD destroyed the upper blocks before the destruction of the lower structure was initiated. Clearly described in my paper. Many people like my paper a lot.
With due respect to your opinion about my paper, I believe you are a sect member or are trying to become one. Beware! You have to give up your freedom and accept lies as a governing force for the rest of your life, when joining that sect. But many do it to make a career.
I wonder what Shyman Saunder thinks about this sect.

 

[Myriad]

Sounds like my model test at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist1.htm#6 . Very popular. I use a weight of 1 750 kgs or almost 3 900 lb. The force on the lower structure is about 17 185 Newton, but the stresses in the structure below before heating up is just 0.3 of yield. Exactly as in WTC1/2.

But nothing is pushed to an edge and nothing is free falling and and nothing is impacting something below. The support structure of the upper block is heated, so it slowly loses strength and then the support structure starts to deform, bend, buckle and fail and the 3900 lbs upper block moves down ... but there is no free fall and no impact.

Heiwa, have you performed this test yourself, or not?

And since it's "very popular," who else has perfomed it?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Lennart Hyland]

Heiwa, why dont you email a link to your website, to Bazant and ask for his opinion of your article?

 

[GlennB]

Heiwa gives the business address of his "Heiwaco" outfit on his webpage.

A quick search on this address leads us leads us to a routine apartment block.

The same address is the home of the "Estonia litigation society" (the Estonia referring to a ferry disaster)

Heiwa's revolutionary oil-tanker design was supposedly scuppered by a conspiracy involving the US Govt and oil interests.

etc etc etc

He's quite potty.

 

[~enigma~]

The bolded part is what got Heiwa laughed off the forum. Now this ridiculous impostor has returned to make the same insane claims.

My question to him would be if the collapse broke the laws of physics, then ANYTHING causing the collapse we saw broke the laws of physics. So how did the building fall down as we saw it fall? Roll that around in your hollow head Heiwa but be careful cause it might implode.

 

[Mancman]

Looking at the videos it seems some type of LCD destroyed the upper blocks before the destruction of the lower structure was initiated.

There's a bit of problem with this claim though. It's wrong. Flat out wrong.

 

[SDC]

Sect? Which sect? Heiwa, you understand that in English that has a religious meaning, don't you? Not just a "group" or somesuch.

Or do you mean to imply that a particular religious group (the Rosicrucians? Swedenborgians?) were behind 9/11.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

when it is clearly seen on all videos that the upper blocks are destroyed by LCD prior to any damages take place in the structure below. All described in my paper.

In the event you miss Mancmans post, I'll quote it... It is clear that the upper section was not immediately destroyed before the initiation of the lower block's destruction. most of the debris we see falling outward after initiation is the perimeter structure, there is still considerable mass acting on the floors below.

There's a bit of problem with this claim though. It's wrong. Flat out wrong.

[qimg]http://i35.tinypic.com/153652h.jpg[/qimg]

Sudden free fall of structural parts or components is only possible if a part is actually physically removed, e.g. by LCD.

This assumes that the core columns and perimeter columns alike are uniformly solid in cross section when they're not. You may not intend to come across that way, but that's essentially what the behavior you're predicting suggests. The columns were hollow, with the steel thickness at around 1/4" in the impact areas. Essentially each column is constructed of four faces each welded together. Creep stresses would result in the welds eventually coming apart causing the columns to fail... Once the loads reach their maximum capacities they fail and can do so catastrophically. The structure does not need to be physically removed (Though several core columns were severed in the plane impacts).

It's not just a matter of whether the columns themselves failed, most of the failures observed were bolt failures at the connections. If the connections fail then the column is rather useless. Assuming that a 'local controlled demolition' is the only possible explanation, I can tell you didn't look up the 1960's incident I pointed out to you... Smaller scale collapse, same basic effect.


In hindsight I think the word you're looking for is 'sudden failure', though the failure was far from it...

A fire cannot remove a structural part! The heat will just deform it and any energy released is absorbed when gravity displaces the structural components concerned.

Have you forgotten it's not just a matter concerned with the structural columns, it's both the columns and the connections which transmit loads to other load bearing members. Connections were as vulnerable to thermal stresses as the columns. The same type of structural failure was observed in the interior collapse of WTC 5.

NIST carefully avoids to mention the FACT that the upper blocks are destroyed prior initiation

Because this is a red herring argument... they were never immediately destroyed as you'd like to have us believe.

 

[pomeroo]

We are continuing to debate with someone who believes that if you drop the top third of a building onto the bottom two-thirds from a height of two miles, the bottom is undamaged and a "new equilibrium" is reached. There is no possibility that this clown is capable of processing anything anyone tells him.

 

[Heiwa]

Heiwa gives the business address of his "Heiwaco" outfit on his webpage.

A quick search on this address leads us leads us to a routine apartment block.

The same address is the home of the "Estonia litigation society" (the Estonia referring to a ferry disaster)

Heiwa's revolutionary oil-tanker design was supposedly scuppered by a conspiracy involving the US Govt and oil interests.

etc etc etc

He's quite potty.

??

Routine apartment block? According to the rules of the copropriété my agency office is permitted. And there is no Estonia Litigation Association, ELA, here! It is based in Estonia 3000 kms north of here. But Heiwac Co a consultant to ELA - pro bono.

The revolutionary oil-tanker design, the Coulombi Egg, won several first prizes in an Intertanko investigation 1992 (best safety, least oil spills, best economy/easiest maintenance) of available concepts and was approved by the United Nations International Martitime Organziation, IMO, in 1997 according to its Maritime Protection (Marpol) Rules (Marpol I/13F(5)) as equivalent (actually better) than double hull. The only alternative design to double hull that has been approved by IMO according its Rules.

The US could not scupper (?) that! The US had to denounce the whole Marpol Rule concept and create its own 'rules' - OPA90. Thus, ships going to US must comply with the US national rules and not the internationally adopted Marpol rules, as the US is not party to IMO Marpol! This cost extra for US tax payers (and make US waters more likely to suffer oil spills).

I have not heard about any conspiracy by US Govt and the oil industry to scupper the Coulombi Egg design. Why would that be? Only reason why US did not accept the UN/IMO decision was that US (Coast Guard - now a part of Homeland Security) thought that the Coulombi Egg tanker would spill MORE (?) oil than double hull in US waters even if the logic was not clear to anybody! The matter has actually been discussed in the US Congress but the participants apparently did not understand the technicalities involved. Quite embarrassing and sad. The US denouncing international maritime law conventions (Marpol) because of me!

However, the US provided an exeption! The Coulombi Egg tankers can actually off-load at four US offshore locations (bouys) (but not enter any US ports).

I think you are just a jealous potty sect member! I, myself, has a very good reputation regarding steel structures, etc. A Coulombi Egg ULCC has as much steel as a WTC1/2 tower in its primary structure and is of same size!! But of course the CE ULCC is 400 metres long horizontally and floating in water and subject to bigger loads than the WTCs. But the principals of structural analysis is the same for a tower skyscraper and a tanker floating in water. And none collapses in 100 000's of pieces due to local failures. It is as simple as that.

 

[X]

If you shift a cut off column above the floor and let it drop, it just punches a hole in the floor. But how do you cut/shift a solid column? If you shift the complete upper block sideways, two walls will be shifted outside the structure below ... and be hanging in the air! These two walls cannot destroy anything!

What about when the floor above comes crashing down onto the floor below?
Does that destroy anything in your little fantasy?

Where did the upper blocks go? Good question!
The upper blocks were >95% air volume wise. Then there were the floors - say 2-3% of total volume. And the columns - <0.2% volume. Looking at the videos it seems some type of LCD destroyed the upper blocks before the destruction of the lower structure was initiated. Clearly described in my paper.

Volume does not matter.
Mass matters.

Many people like my paper a lot.

Many people like FSTDT.com
This certainly doesn't mean the quotes therein are true.

With due respect to your opinion about my paper, I believe you are a sect member or are trying to become one. Beware! You have to give up your freedom and accept lies as a governing force for the rest of your life, when joining that sect. But many do it to make a career.
I wonder what Shyman Saunder thinks about this sect.

 

[Heiwa]

The columns were hollow, with the steel thickness at around 1/4" in the impact areas. Essentially each column is constructed of four faces each welded together. Creep stresses would result in the welds eventually coming apart causing the columns to fail... Once the loads reach their maximum capacities they fail and can do so catastrophically. The structure does not need to be physically removed.

Hm, the columns and their welded connections were under compression all the time. When heated (to 500°C) (and compressed) the columns cross area would expand and the compressive stress be reduced. But also the material properties change so some plastic deformation (bulging) may take place where the heat is really high - in compression. No creep stresses occur causing failures ... in the welded connections! The welded connections are actually much stronger than the columns themselves (as the welded material has better properties). Do my model test and convince yourself. The columns just deform - no catastrophic failures.

I conclude that you do not know what you are talking about. Are you a sect member? Pls, describe this sect and its physics.

 

[X]

Hm, the columns and their welded connections were under compression all the time. When heated (to 500°C) (and compressed) the columns cross area would expand and the compressive stress be reduced. But also the material properties change so some plastic deformation (bulging) may take place where the heat is really high - in compression. No creep stresses occur causing failures ... in the welded connections! The welded connections are actually much stronger than the columns themselves (as the welded material has better properties). Do my model test and convince yourself. The columns just deform - no catastrophic failures.

I conclude that you do not know what you are talking about. Are you a sect member? Pls, describe this sect and its physics.

Thou knowest nothing of material behaviour, then.

 

[Dr Adequate]

The method is described in my paper. To bend a steel column requires energy that can be calculated. Same for ripping a column apart or punching a hole in a floor. It is standard procedure when analysing structural damages of any kind. You are evidently interested in the forces and displacements (i.e. energies) causing or initiating the damage or contributing to it to explain the incident,i.e. to find out why the design parameters were exceeded.

But you have to get your assumptions right. You cannot just assume that, e.g. free fall a certain height of an upper block occured and that the upper block impacted the lower structure as these two events are not seen on any videos, etc.

Sudden free fall of structural parts or components is only possible if a part is actually physically removed, e.g. by LCD. A fire cannot remove a structural part! The heat will just deform it and any energy released is absorbed when gravity displaces the structural components concerned.

When gravity displaces a structural component, its available potential energy is evidently reduced as demonstrated in my model test, i.e. the 1 750 kgs of components above the fire and the cement floor are just gradually lowering itself to the intact structure (the cement floor) below. Etc, etc. Any further damages or collapse is arrested.

Basic physics! The sect is very upset about that and must thus invent events that did not occur, e.g. free fall or impact and that is where Bazant, Greeing and Seffen assist. All three assume that the upper block is solid and intact during the complete destruction, when it is clearly seen on all videos that the upper blocks are destroyed by LCD prior to any damages take place in the structure below. All described in my paper.

NIST carefully avoids to mention the FACT that the upper blocks are destroyed prior initiation and that free falls of them would not impact the structure below.

Perhaps you misunderstood me. I wished to see these "simple calculations" that, as you claim, prove you right. What you have written does not contain any calculations.

 

[Heiwa]

What about when the floor above comes crashing down onto the floor below?
Does that destroy anything in your little fantasy?

Volume does not matter.
Mass matters.

The only thing that matters is the strength of the parts and the forces applied.

There are only two types of parts! Vertical columns and horizontal floors. The columns are horizontally interconnected by spandrels and horizontal beams/brackets. The floors are simply bolted to the columns.

We are told that all the columns fail locally and displaces sideways and that the upper block structure displaces downwards.

OK - if that actually happened, 50% of all upper block wall columns would displace downwards in open air ... and hit nothing! The other upper block wall columns would punch holes in the uppermost floor of the lower structure and shear off the bolted floor connection to the column.

Why is that? Obviously because the gravity forces are applied there!

On the other hand 50% of the lower structure columns would punch holes in the upper block lowest floor and shear off their bolted connections to the columns! The other 50% lower structure would be outside the upper block ... and would not cause any damage.

Evidently no upper block column crashes down on any lower structure column.

So far no floor has come in contact with any other floor. No intact upper block floor has come crushing down on any lower structure intact floor.

Actually, when the floors come in contact, they are already locally damaged by the columns and their bolted connections on one side have sheared off.

The floors are no longer horizontal! They have just fell down on one side - still hanging on the columns on the opposite side. No floor is really crushing down horizontally on any other floor.

What happens next? Read http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm . The local failures are soon arrested when the parts (intact columns, partly damaged floors) get entangled into one another. There is plenty of friction involved then, you know, that absorbs energy. Happens all the time. Except twice on 9/11.

NIST does not mention FRICTION arresting structural failures in their report. Bazant, Greening and Seffen have never heard of friction either. Maybe that would cause friction within their sect?

 

[WildCat]

I am working on it. To start with I asked NIST to provide the evidence for their famous suggestion that the potential energy released exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by intact structure below ... and I assume NIST is working on that. Hopefully NIST will correct their report when they have done the calculations so there is no need to pursue the matter in an engineering journal.

NIST has nothing to do with whether or not you can get a paper published.

Stop making childish excuses and get to work on your paper!

But we all know you won't be doing anything except whine on the internet.

 

[GlennB]

??

The revolutionary oil-tanker design, the Coulombi Egg, won several first prizes in an Intertanko investigation 1992 (best safety, least oil spills, best economy/easiest maintenance) of available concepts and was approved by the United Nations International Martitime Organziation, IMO, in 1997 according to its Maritime Protection (Marpol) Rules (Marpol I/13F(5)) ....

Strange, then, that in Google the keywords

"United Nations International Maritime Organization" +coulombi

only return results from Heiwa Co ??

On the other hand ....

Heiwa Co will compute the tanker environmental index E for shipyards designing and building Coulombi Egg oil tankers.
[SIZE=-1]Heiwa Co has designed, got Class approval, and manufactured and fitted a large number of life boat davits to extremely competetive costs.[/SIZE]

Heiwa - you are a ships welder, right?

 

[Newtons Bit]

Hm, the columns and their welded connections were under compression all the time. When heated (to 500°C) (and compressed) the columns cross area would expand and the compressive stress be reduced. But also the material properties change so some plastic deformation (bulging) may take place where the heat is really high - in compression. No creep stresses occur causing failures ... in the welded connections! The welded connections are actually much stronger than the columns themselves (as the welded material has better properties). Do my model test and convince yourself. The columns just deform - no catastrophic failures.

I conclude that you do not know what you are talking about. Are you a sect member? Pls, describe this sect and its physics.

Heiwa, you claim to have an engineering background from school, but this statement just proved that statement a lie. You see, there's a difference between engineering stress-strain behavior and true stress-strain behavior.

Engineering stress-strain behavior normalizes the stress-strain curve based on the original cross-sectional area of steel. This allows engineers to accurately asses the behavior of the element based on the original constructed dimensions of the shape.

True stress-strain behavior, what pure scientists and most of the writers of articles on wikipedia use, are only interested in the actual material itself, not engineering properties.

By using the latter, you've more than proven you don't use engineering on a daily basis and either forgot or never learned the engineering principles in the first place

Furthermore, heat is detrimental to full perimeter welds. This is because the perimeter of the steel increases and since steel and the weld material have different coefficients of thermal expansion it induces shear into the weld plane. It's not that hard to figure out. Do the math. Oh wait, you CANT.