WTC 1 & 2. What happened after collapse initiation?

[GlennB]

I already have very good understanding of structural design and analysis incl. damaged structures.

You have avoided this question several times, but let me repeat it -

Have you ever performed your "steel water tank" experiment yourself? You know, the one with the plywood sides and the diesel fire.

If so, please provide documentary evidence. Photos would be good.

 

[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.

I also would like to know whether you have performed this experiment whose "findings" and "results" you have reported on.

While like GlennB I'd like to see photographs, I can understand how you might have overlooked taking any photographs in all the excitement. (After all, taking photographs was not mentioned in your published protocol). I'd settle for a fully detailed description of the instrumentation you used to measure and record the temperatures of the initiation zone and the metal legs. (By "fully detailed" I mean inclusive of all components including e.g. power supplies and cabling, with sufficient specificity to reproduce your experiment.) Please also show the time-temperature data you recorded (since such temperature observations are part of your protocol). If you actually performed the experiment, it should be a trivial matter for you to provide this information.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[WildCat]

I already have very good understanding of structural design and analysis incl. damaged structures.

No, you don't. That's why you don't dare submit your ridiculous paper to an engineering journal.

 

[Heiwa]

I also would like to know whether you have performed this experiment whose "findings" and "results" you have reported on.

While like GlennB I'd like to see photographs, I can understand how you might have overlooked taking any photographs in all the excitement. (After all, taking photographs was not mentioned in your published protocol). I'd settle for a fully detailed description of the instrumentation you used to measure and record the temperatures of the initiation zone and the metal legs. (By "fully detailed" I mean inclusive of all components including e.g. power supplies and cabling, with sufficient specificity to reproduce your experiment.) Please also show the time-temperature data you recorded (since such temperature observations are part of your protocol). If you actually performed the experiment, it should be a trivial matter for you to provide this information.

Respectfully,
Myriad

It is not much to report. Nothing really happens. A normal steel (yield 23 kgs/mm²) column with slenderness ratio <35 and compressed to 0.3 yield (thus 7 kgs/mm² compressive stress) and heated to 500°C will not fail! It will compress/bulge a little but it is hardly noticeable.

On the Internet you find a lot of pictures of steel buildings on fire with vertical columns compressed/heated under similar conditions ... and nothing happens.

My experience is from a cargo ship that caught fire 1988 in the lower hold with pillars in it under compression from load on the deck above - apparently abt. 0.3 yield. The temperature in the hold on fire must have been >500°C as the deck above and the space there were extremely hot and deformed. Inspection afterwards showed a lot of heat deformations of various structural parts but the pillars were virtually intact.

American Bureau of Shipping and various US marine underwriters' surveying agencies can provide similar info.

 

[~enigma~]

It is not much to report. Nothing really happens. A normal steel (yield 23 kgs/mm²) column with slenderness ratio <35 and compressed to 0.3 yield (thus 7 kgs/mm² compressive stress) and heated to 500°C will not fail! It will compress/bulge a little but it is hardly noticeable.

So your experiment shows steel is stronger than what this shows...



Sorry Heiwa but either your experiment is a poorly thought out psychological ploy or you are lying.

 

[Heiwa]

No, you don't. That's why you don't dare submit your ridiculous paper to an engineering journal.

?? So I publish it on my web site and allow 10 000+ people to download it and have a look. With good results! Some minor errors have been corrected and many improvements have been proposed and incorporated.

You see, I have nothing to hide. The articles are actually quite good PR for me and Heiwa Co.

 

[~enigma~]

The articles are actually quite good PR for me and Heiwa Co.

If by PR you mean poorly researched.

 

[DavidJames]

?? So I publish it on my web site and allow 10 000+ people to download it and have a look. With good results! Some minor errors have been corrected and many improvements have been proposed and incorporated.

You see, I have nothing to hide. The articles are actually quite good PR for me and Heiwa Co.

Whereas having the paper ripped apart by professionals who aren't mentally ill would not be so good PR.

 

[Heiwa]

So your experiment shows steel is stronger than what this shows...



Sorry Heiwa but either your experiment is a poorly thought out psychological ploy or you are lying.

The link video shows something completely different. A very long, slender section that is locally heated in the middle and then subject to bending. I have done that many times shaping steel. Actually, if the guys were a little stronger, they could do the same thing without heating.

Grow up! And leave the sect.

 

[~enigma~]

The link video shows something completely different. A very long, slender section that is locally heated in the middle and then subject to bending. I have done that many times shaping steel. Actually, if the guys were a little stronger, they could do the same thing without heating.

Grow up! And leave the sect.

And the fires at the WTC didn't heat any columns locally while the 15 story chunk of office building was not "stringer" than the men? I'll tell you what, I'll grow up when you start posting normal and not any more stupidity. You just earned yourself a spot on ignore for being an ignorant piece of trash.

 

[Heiwa]

Whereas having the paper ripped apart by professionals who aren't mentally ill would not be so good PR.

?? The improvements to the articles have been done by real professional engineers. And none has found any faults in them. At least not in correspondence with me duly signed by a real person. Only criticism of little value is on JREF Forum and similar by anonymous people. Doesn't impress me at all.

BTW - what sect do you belong to?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I already have very good understanding of structural design and analysis incl. damaged structures.

Then instead of refusing to post it on a structural engineering site where it can be peer reviewed and read by other structural engineers, demonstrate your ability by doing it. The excuse you made earlier hardly cuts it.

I wonder why Newman suggests that a floor was so strong that it could resist the weight of 25+ floors or the impact of 11+ floors. It is irrelevant.

This is a red herring. Reread the excerpt Pomeroo posted:

Yes, there was more than enough gravitational load to cause the collapse of the floors below the level of collapse initiation in both WTC Towers. The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 11 additional floors if the load was applied gradually and 6 additional floors if the load was applied suddenly (as was the case). Since the number of floors above the approximate floor of collapse initiation exceeded six in each WTC Tower (12 and 29 floors, respectively), the floors below the level of collapse initiation were unable to resist the suddenly applied gravitational load from the upper floors of the buildings. Details of this finding are provided below:.

<snip>

This simplified and conservative analysis indicates that the floor connections could have carried only a maximum of about 11 additional floors if the load from these floors were applied statically. Even this number is (conservatively) high, since the load from above the collapsing floor is being applied suddenly. Since the dynamic amplification factor for a suddenly applied load is 2, an intact floor below the level of collapse initiation could not have supported more than six floors. Since the number of floors above the level where the collapse initiated, exceeded 6 for both towers (12 for WTC 1 and 29 for WTC 2), neither tower could have arrested the progression of collapse once collapse initiated. In reality, the highest intact floor was about three (WTC 2) to six (WTC 1) floors below the level of collapse initiation. Thus, more than the 12 to 29 floors reported above actually loaded the intact floor suddenly.

The floors did not support the weight of the upper sections, for you to assume so is utterly laughable. NIST was talking in reference to floor connections which had a maximum capacity of carrying 11 additional floors applied statically and 6 applied dynamically. Amazing that you still couldn't pick that up...

 

[phunk]

The horizontal beams in the core will similarily assist the columns in shearing off the floor connections there.

Not just the floor connections, ALL of the horizontal members of the core section that they are falling into.

If the upper section of core falls into the lower section, offset by just the width of a single column, then the collision between the upper and lower section will be almost entirely on the horizontal members, and will strip them away very quickly (they aren't designed to bear load vertically). The core simply cannot entangle and arrest the collapse the way you describe, putting the load anywhere other than perfectly vertical on top of the columns will break apart the core and destroy its load bearing capacity.

 

[Myriad]

It is not much to report. Nothing really happens. A normal steel (yield 23 kgs/mm²) column with slenderness ratio <35 and compressed to 0.3 yield (thus 7 kgs/mm² compressive stress) and heated to 500°C will not fail! It will compress/bulge a little but it is hardly noticeable.

You will not (and likely cannot) provide any information about how you determined when the posts were heated to 500°C because you have not performed the experiment from which you have claimed findings. This makes you a fraud.

Also, you have contradicted yourself about the results. You have stated that the posts only compressed/bulged to a hardly noticeable degree -- but you have also stated that "the support structure starts to deform, bend, buckle and fail and the 3900 lbs upper block moves down," which is not possible without much more significant distortion of the support posts. This confirms that you are a fraud.

If I ever discovered or even strongly suspected that any of the scientists for whom I have worked on their data acquisition systems had fraudulently reported results from experiments they had not conducted, I would not hesitate to inform the sponsoring institution, the grant funding organizations, and law enforcement authorities. Proof of such fraud would result in revocation of their funding, expulsion from the sponsoring institution, retraction of their previous papers, and likely criminal charges in addition to the complete destruction of their good reputation. I would blow the whistle on such fraud even though this would have immediately resulted in losing my job (since my salary is paid from the grants that would be revoked) and smearing my own name by mere association. Such is my level of contempt for scientific fraud.

If you feel I am wrongly accusing you, you can present technical specifications for your temperature measurement apparatus including cabling, and photographs of your experiment. If you didn't photograph the experiment, then a photograph of the model and other apparatus in its present state (which you claim survived intact, except presumably for the combustible components) would suffice. A photograph of the slightly compressed/bulged steel tubes created by your experiment (photographing them nearly end-on should make any subtle bulge apparent) would be particularly useful in evaluating the results you have claimed.

Sincerely,
Myriad

 

[Panoply_Prefect]

?? The improvements to the articles have been done by real professional engineers. And none has found any faults in them.

Name them.


Respectfully,
PP

 

[Newtons Bit]

It is not much to report. Nothing really happens. A normal steel (yield 23 kgs/mm²) column with slenderness ratio <35 and compressed to 0.3 yield (thus 7 kgs/mm² compressive stress) and heated to 500°C will not fail! It will compress/bulge a little but it is hardly noticeable.

Could you re-run your analysis and include a lateral load of 4 kips per column and include P-Delta? (That'd be P little delta btw, we'll neglect big delta).

 

[HawksFan]

Newman suggests that you take an elementary physics course. You understand nothing and are incapable of learning.

Would that be Newman from Seinfeld? Because I believe even he has a better grasp of what happened and why than Heiwa does.

 

[Heiwa]

Not just the floor connections, ALL of the horizontal members of the core section that they are falling into.

If the upper section of core falls into the lower section, offset by just the width of a single column, then the collision between the upper and lower section will be almost entirely on the horizontal members, and will strip them away very quickly (they aren't designed to bear load vertically). The core simply cannot entangle and arrest the collapse the way you describe, putting the load anywhere other than perfectly vertical on top of the columns will break apart the core and destroy its load bearing capacity.

According NIST (no evidence presented) it was the core (of the upper block) that displaced downwards first at initiation, i.e. all core columns must have failed/sheared off one way or another and had been also displaced sideways to punch holes in the floors below ... and above ... to enable downward movement. The core was, according NIST, completely cut, which means that the intact core of the lower structure would slice the upper block floors apart when (if?) they displaced downwards. The lower structure core was very strong and the upper block floors could never destroy it. On the contrary, the lower structure core would slice the upper block floors apart, the latter hinging down in all directions rubbing against the lower structure floors and FRICTION would arrest further destruction.
Pls note that only the floors get entangled. The lower structure core columns cannot fail as no load from above is acting on them. All explained in my articles. Note the figures - the lower structure columns always remain vertical = no failures.
Only LCD at say every 3rd or 6th floor level of structure below would shear off the columns sideways as seen in the rubble. The air jets out of the windows preceeding the destruction also indicate that LCD was used.

 

[Heiwa]

The floors did not support the weight of the upper sections, for you to assume so is utterly laughable. NIST was talking in reference to floor connections which had a maximum capacity of carrying 11 additional floors applied statically and 6 applied dynamically. Amazing that you still couldn't pick that up...

?? Evidently all the primary loads are only carried by the columns (as explained in my articles). The strong columns make up 0.13% of the total cross area of the towers but are only stressed 0.3 yield. And according NIST all columns fail ... and I assume are not aligned anymore after that strange initiation. So the only thing the columns can do after that is to damage the floors or the air - 50% of the wall columns are displaced into the air and some core columns into lift or service shafts = hitting air. And the locally damaged floors hinge down on and rub against one another and FRICTION stops further destruction. The global collapse should have been arrested very quickly according my observations that NIST ignores and censures 100%. Friction? Not mentioned in the NIST report. Reason is that NIST does not know anything about damage structure analysis. NIST only knows a little about how to design and build structures. Not how to destroy them.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Only LCD at say every 3rd or 6th floor level of structure below would shear off the columns sideways as seen in the rubble. The air jets out of the windows preceeding the destruction also indicate that LCD was used.

Heiwa, I am going to spell this out in giant bold letters.

Large sections of the core; 40 stories of WTC 2 (south tower), and 60 stories of WTC 1 (north tower) initially survived the collapse. Your local controlled demolition theory is debunked by that alone

But by all means... if you have an explanation for the cores still standing despite the interior blasts you claim are proven by the so called 'squibs' fire away...