WTC 1 & 2. What happened after collapse initiation?

Heiwa said:
... 7. It is like a child jumping on a mattress. You bounce and if the springs fail you get entangled in the damaged mattress = no collapse.
Click to expand...
As one engineer to another, on a purely personal level, you spew more BS than most.

Your ideas prove your lack of knowledge in physics. You also ignore gravity. The WTC is not like a child jumping on a mattress, your ideas are like a child jumping on a mattress, you just keep popping up with your failed ideas.

The child jumping on a mattress is a dead giveaway, you are full of junk.
 
Did he really just compare the collapse of two 110-story steel and concrete buildings, causing the deaths of 3,000 people and millions of dollars in damages, to a child jumping on a mattress?!?! And he claims to be an engineer?!


And here I thought the cheese theory was weird.....holy cow.....


:jaw-dropp
 
Last edited:
[X] said:
Heiwa:

I would like to see that calculations showing that your "exepriment" represents a valid scal model for the escenario being addressed.

Surely as a ship designer you have vast experience with the intricacies of scaling, and are well aware of the care needed to be taken when designing scale models for testing.

Please provide calculations validating the scaling used in your "experiment" design.
Click to expand...

You mean my model test? It is a model, so it is smaller. And the columns are just 1 mm thick and not 12 or 40/60 mm as the wall and core columns in question. And I just use four columns, not 260+.
So when you heat the four model columns, 1 mm thick, it goes faster to heat them to 500°C than the real thing. In reality it would of course take much longer to heat a 12 mm or 40/60 mm column. Actually it is very strange that it takes as long to heat a 12 mm wall column and a 40/60 mm core column so that they fail simultaneously, but that apparently happened on 9/11. One of these strange things prior initiation.
But what happens when you have heated the 1 mm thick model column (actually a dia 20 mm pipe with wall thickness 1 mm under compression at 0.3 yield stree to get similar slenderness ratio as reality - no scaling there) to 500°C?
Actually nothing! And that was the whole purpose of the experiment.

Thanks for you interest!
 
Heiwa, how did you measure the temperature of the columns in your model test?

Did you perform the model test?

You didn't perform the model test, right? So how do you know what happens?

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Heiwa.... you are contradicting truth movement claims again!

Your model contradicts the same principal however by ignoring that the perimeter columns would as well fail from lateral forces imparted by the dynamic loads in the collapse. The south tower collapse initiation and events leading up to to initiation for both towers demonstrated this quite nicely, as exterior columns were bowing inwards under simply the weight of the sagging floors...
Click to expand...

In my articles I concentrate on the North Tower, WTC1, after initiation. When the 230-240+ columns finally fail in the initiation zone due to fire/heat, the columns below are evidently unloaded! The mass above does not act on them any longer. Same for the South Tower, WTC2.

What happens then is that the lowest floor of the upper block contacts 50% of the wall columns and the core columns below initiation. As the floor in question is very weak, the columns just pierce through the floor. No lateral forces develop in the columns below. The other 50% wall columns below are assumed not being contacted by anything from above, i.e. their strength remains intact.

After that only partially damaged floors above are in contact with partially damaged floors below that rub against each other and arrest further destruction. The friction cannot transmit any big forces to the columns as the friction forces must pass the bolted connection that will shear off - and the floor will just drop vertically down. In principle no lateral forces can be applied to the columns below due to gravity.

But the columns below shear off at 10/12 metres interval like spaghetti. It seems LCD is at work then. Hopefully NIST will confirm this in due course, when they abandon their lack of strain energy and no friction theory.
 
NobbyNobbs said:
A. I have a better example. Balance a brick on your head. No problem, right? No damage to you, none to the brick.

Now hold that brick two feet above your head and drop it.

Report back on your results.

Heiwa--

B. I decided to try your experiment. I spent the money, followed your instructions to the letter, and guess what? Catastrophic collapse.


Um...I don't actually have to prove I did the experiment, do I? :blush:
Click to expand...

A. Nothing really happened. My helmet got a scratch and the brick slipped off.

B. Sorry to hear that. Nothing should really happen. A very safe experiment.
 
Heiwa said:
In my articles I concentrate on the North Tower, WTC1, after initiation. When the 230-240+ columns finally fail in the initiation zone due to fire/heat, the columns below are evidently unloaded! The mass above does not act on them any longer. Same for the South Tower, WTC2.

What happens then is that the lowest floor of the upper block contacts 50% of the wall columns and the core columns below initiation. As the floor in question is very weak, the columns just pierce through the floor. No lateral forces develop in the columns below. The other 50% wall columns below are assumed not being contacted by anything from above, i.e. their strength remains intact.

After that only partially damaged floors above are in contact with partially damaged floors below that rub against each other and arrest further destruction. The friction cannot transmit any big forces to the columns as the friction forces must pass the bolted connection that will shear off - and the floor will just drop vertically down. In principle no lateral forces can be applied to the columns below due to gravity.

But the columns below shear off at 10/12 metres interval like spaghetti. It seems LCD is at work then. Hopefully NIST will confirm this in due course, when they abandon their lack of strain energy and no friction theory.
Click to expand...

What's the shear strength of two 5/8"Ø A307 bolts again?
 
pomeroo said:
Enough deranged babble about sects. You claimed, insanely, that dropping the upper third of a building from a height of two miles onto the bottom two-thirds does no damage to the bottom part. You are fantastically, absurdly, ridiculously, spectacularly WRONG.

No engineer could possibly make such a preposterous claim. When will you acknoweldge your egregious error?

YOU CAN RUN, BUT YOU CAN'T HIDE.
Click to expand...

???? Two miles drop? How do you accomplish that? Already at a two metres drop the upper block columns miss the lower columns.
 
pomeroo said:
NIST believes that you demonstrate no understanding of basic physics. The agency recommends reading an introductory text.
Click to expand...

They didn't tell me that! They referrered me to some FAQs and their NVIAs so I had to ask again. No response so far.
 
Heiwa said:
One bolt has a cross area of abt 200 mm² and start to yield at abt 60 kN tension. It will probably shear off earlier, at 40-50 kN shear.
Click to expand...

Sorry, that's wrong. Can you actually do a real analysis instead of just pulling stuff out of your rear end?
 
Heiwa said:
But the columns below shear off at 10/12 metres interval like spaghetti. It seems LCD is at work then.
Click to expand...
It's as if the columns were built in 36 ft (~12 meter) sections that separated from the structure at the connections! Sorry, but that has a very mundane explanation other than your presupposed LCD sequence. Many of the connections in the perimeter columns failed at least in part because of lateral shear stresses exceeding the capacity of the connections to hold.


Heiwa said:
In my articles I concentrate on the North Tower, WTC1, after initiation. When the 230-240+ columns finally fail in the initiation zone due to fire/heat, the columns below are evidently unloaded!
Click to expand...

Evidently whether the core columns were unloaded or not is not the issue, or at least not the crux of it. The core structure was, by enlarge, the last part of the building to fail as far as everything below the impact zone is concerned (and even at that significant portions of the core closer to the impact levels were subjected to immense lateral shear failure from the collapse initiation whilst the upper block began to come down). The floors however would have been faced with the weight of 15 to 30 floors all at once, loading which those components were not designed for.


The structure is not going to simply telescope into itself and be contained inside the lower structure as your model hypothesizes. That would almost inevitably require that the perimeter columns have such redundancy that they can resist concentrated lateral shearing forces enacted by 150,000 tons of structure getting compacted in the space of a few floors. And that stretches reality to assume any portion of that model would be correct.
 
Last edited:
Dictator Cheney said:
well im not used to the ASTM standard but afaik doe A and B differ pretty much or i understand you wrong.

http://www.astm.org/Standards/A307.htm
Click to expand...

You don't understand the material. The design strength doesn't change. This is based upon the minimum rupture strength of the material (which is basically the same for each of the grades).

I know you truthers like thinking you already know everything about engineering, but this is a good example where just doing a quick google search misleads the uninformed.
 
Newtons Bit said:
You don't understand the material. The design strength doesn't change. This is based upon the minimum rupture strength of the material (which is basically the same for each of the grades).

I know you truthers like thinking you already know everything about engineering, but this is a good example where just doing a quick google search misleads the uninformed.
Click to expand...

yeah would like you to see do it in another language and standards you are not used to :)

when 60 and 100 KSI is the same for you its fine for me :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom