WTC 1 & 2. What happened after collapse initiation?

[PhantomWolf]

Heiwa and DC,

Since from you postings you obvious believe that you have damming evidence that the Towers were destroyed with explosives, I have to ask you why you have failed to take this evidence to KSM's defence team and give it to them to use in his up coming trial? Should not your priority be getting this obvbiously innocent patsy off of the charges that the Tyranical Dictatorship of Bush and Cheney has laid? Surely presenting your work to the Court will clear him of all charges and have Bush and Cheney clapped into irons immediately after you finish testifying. Why haven't you done it yet? Why are you wasting time arguing on an irrelevant website when you have this grand opportunity to save a man's life and show the world who the real culprits are?

 

[pomeroo]

Heiwa, you may have noticed that some heavy hitters--Mackey, Newton's Bit, RWGuinn--won't even comment on your lunatic answer to my question about dropping the top third of a building two miles onto the bottom part. They refuse to dignify it. You, of course, interpret their disgusted silence as agreement with you, but you, of course, are wrong as usual.

 

[Heiwa]

Friction generates heat. If you take all the energy from the falling stories and convert it to heat via friction the heat will flash-melt the columns.

No, say that the energy wasted in friction between rubbing floors is 1.2 GJ it will hardly warm up the floors 1° C. But you can be sure that there will be sparks at contact points steel to steel. Rubbing two dry wooden sticks against each other will produce fire.

If you take all the energy released by the complete tower destruction, it will raise the temperature of all material involved say 3-4° C maximum but most heat will be lost in the air so the temperature rise will be less.

 

[Heiwa]

The columns in the collapse initiation floors (236 perimeter columns, 59 on each face) do not fail "simultaneously". Nor do they all fail due to heat. See, for instance, the video frame grabs of the South Tower collapse I posted a few months ago. You can clearly see an asymmetric, non-simultaneous failure of the perimeter columns, starting on the East Face and then as the top block begins the lean, the columns start to buckle on the North Face westward -- reaching the West Face about 1-2 seconds into the collapse and several floors higher than the collapse initiation floors. The failure of these columns is also visibly due to the fact that the kinetic tipping of the top block involved the West Face columns as a "hinge" that finally snapped (at which point these were the only perimeter columns supporting the weight of the upper block, assuming that the progression of failure on the South Face was comparable to that seen on the North Face). In some frames you can see columns along the North Face twisting under stress before they snapped. Their failure was not accompanied with explosive or incendiary events.

So what caused the supporting structure in the fire zone up top below the upper block to fail and to initiate the destruction?

PS - I agree 100% with you that heat could not have caused the first failures; the assumption is made to see what would happen then (some further local failures that would soon be arrested).

 

[tsig]

Actually, it won't. The gravitational energy contained in a Tower is equal to about 100 tons of TNT. I worked out once that the energy to actually melt the iron structure is in the tens of kilotons range. You might see some local melting, especially of bolts, but not the whole thing.

However, the "friction" that Heiwa is relying upon would also manifest as a downward force on the lower structure. And it is this force that is irresistible, as proven repeatedly by Dr. Bazant and others. There has never been a challenge to these papers excluding only Cherepanov, who is wrong, and whose calculation says the collapse was even easier to induce.

By separating "friction" from the impact, Heiwa is double-counting. Or he would be if he was counting at all. No numbers.

Out of his thousands of posts, there has never been a single one with any value. He needs help. This is why I don't pay him any attention at all.

You're no fun at all.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Any engineering journal is free to publish my articles. They are available on the Internet with a much wider audience and are more powerful there.

And it is nothing new in my articles. Just simple basic structural analysis explained in laymen's terms pointing out the errors in the NIST, Bazant and Seffen reports.

Nothing to be afraid of, if you are honest.

They are free to publish them. Yet they DON'T. There's a pretty darned good reason for that.

 

[Heiwa]

I'm sorry, but I'm a bit late in noticing this stupidity.

From Heiwa's website
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist1.htm#6



Snipped to avoid Rule 4 violation.
(and to avoid giving details of an experiment it would be dangerous to perform without proper precautions)

This sort of experiment is what I used to do before I retired. I worked as an experimental technician for the Fire Research Station of the Building Research Establishment in the UK.

Before being permitted to carry out an experiment like this I would first have had to prepare, and get authorised, an Experiment Risk Assessment, and Method Statement. These ducuments would detail among other things the safety provisions in the experiment. This would include, but not be limited to, such things as bunding around the fuel tray to contain spillage or overflow from boiling fuel*, and explicitly state the dimensions of safety zones around the experiment. These are not covered in your "method statement" on your website.

(*When you make no provision for keeping the fuel tray cool it is likely to boil the fuel at some stage.)

Additionally, it would include protection of the concrete floor that the fuel tray was standing on. I note that your instruction is


Do you have any idea what a tray of burning diesel fuel can do to a concrete surface?

I also note you say


You are advocating CHILDREN do this experiment.

You have NO concept of safety in fire experiments.

YOU ARE INSANE.

ETA I am interested in how you would ignite the diesel fuel, please enlighten me.

That should be easy information to provide, you have done this experiment, haven't you?

Thanks for the advice. Actually, if the tray is 1 m² with an edge say 10 cms we only fill it 4 mm, so the risk of spillages is small. Evidently a portable fire extinguisher should be available. You could alternatively put a gas burner inside; objective is to heat up the initiation zone and the four columns to 500°C to see that nothing serious really happens. I will update the model test description accordingly.
I would ignite the diesel using a little more flammable liquid, e.g. petrol.

 

[Heiwa]

Heiwa, you may have noticed that some heavy hitters--Mackey, Newton's Bit, RWGuinn--won't even comment on your lunatic answer to my question about dropping the top third of a building two miles onto the bottom part. They refuse to dignify it. You, of course, interpret their disgusted silence as agreement with you, but you, of course, are wrong as usual.

Well, Newtons Bit has been silent since he first suggested that a tilted square would drop freely between two parallell lines separated by the length of the square's side and then that it would work using wedges on another thread. Heavy hitter?

 

[TheRedWorm]

Heiwa and DC,

Since from you postings you obvious believe that you have damming evidence that the Towers were destroyed with explosives, I have to ask you why you have failed to take this evidence to KSM's defence team and give it to them to use in his up coming trial? Should not your priority be getting this obvbiously innocent patsy off of the charges that the Tyranical Dictatorship of Bush and Cheney has laid? Surely presenting your work to the Court will clear him of all charges and have Bush and Cheney clapped into irons immediately after you finish testifying. Why haven't you done it yet? Why are you wasting time arguing on an irrelevant website when you have this grand opportunity to save a man's life and show the world who the real culprits are?

Answer?

 

[Heiwa]

Heiwa and DC,

Since from you postings you obvious believe that you have damming evidence that the Towers were destroyed with explosives, I have to ask you why you have failed to take this evidence to KSM's defence team and give it to them to use in his up coming trial? Should not your priority be getting this obvbiously innocent patsy off of the charges that the Tyranical Dictatorship of Bush and Cheney has laid? Surely presenting your work to the Court will clear him of all charges and have Bush and Cheney clapped into irons immediately after you finish testifying. Why haven't you done it yet? Why are you wasting time arguing on an irrelevant website when you have this grand opportunity to save a man's life and show the world who the real culprits are?

It is OT but this KSM clown actually boasts that he planned everything according media and an Egyptian journalist Fouda, but I think it is just to get attention. Topic is purely engineering or structural damage analysis - What happened after collapse initiation?

We know that the complete structures were destroyed very quickly and try to find out why. Gravity only is unlikely as it releases so little energy that would be wasted by local deformations and friction between rubbing parts, so the destruction would stop very early up top is my conclusion. Many people seem extremely upset about that, but they are just ignorant of basic physics. Have never heard of friction. Etc, etc. But sometimes I get some useful input on this irrelevant web site, as you call it, so that's why I participate. The discussion is supposed to be lively and friendly.

 

[TheRedWorm]

It is OT but this KSM clown actually boasts that he planned everything according media and an Egyptian journalist Fouda, but I think it is just to get attention. Topic is purely engineering or structural damage analysis - What happened after collapse initiation?

We know that the complete structures were destroyed very quickly and try to find out why. Gravity only is unlikely as it releases so little energy that would be wasted by local deformations and friction between rubbing parts, so the destruction would stop very early up top is my conclusion. Many people seem extremely upset about that, but they are just ignorant of basic physics. Have never heard of friction. Etc, etc. But sometimes I get some useful input on this irrelevant web site, as you call it, so that's why I participate. The discussion is supposed to be lively and friendly.

Ok, so if the collapse should have arrested, then explosives should have been needed, hence, KSM is innocent. What do you plan to with this evidence? Confession or not, and innocent man is going to be put to death, doesn't this bother you?

 

[Heiwa]

However, the "friction" that Heiwa is relying upon would also manifest as a downward force on the lower structure. And it is this force that is irresistible, as proven repeatedly by Dr. Bazant and others. There has never been a challenge to these papers excluding only Cherepanov, who is wrong, and whose calculation says the collapse was even easier to induce.

By separating "friction" from the impact, Heiwa is double-counting. Or he would be if he was counting at all. No numbers.

Hm, are you really suggesting that the friction is a downward force assisting the destruction by gravity only???? In the real world it is usually the other way around.

Pls read my papers (where I also point out some basic errors by Dr. Bazant & Co).

 

[Heiwa]

Ok, so if the collapse should have arrested, then explosives should have been needed, hence, KSM is innocent. What do you plan to with this evidence? Confession or not, and innocent man is going to be put to death, doesn't this bother you?

Yes, the collapse should have been arrested and it bothers me that it has not been investigated..
If explosives were needed is outside my expertize. Extra energy seems to have been used, though.
I am evidently against the death penalty in civil cases and work for peace (heiwa) and justice. All OT. We discuss what happened after initiation.

 

[TheRedWorm]

So you think that an outside energy (which you don't bother to calculate) brought the twin towers down (which, again, no calculations are shown) and that an innocent man is going to die (which you are against, even if he were guilty), and you are concerned about being OT? Seriously? Just to make a point, it is not OT. If you really believed that some type of alternative energy source is needed to collapse the towers, and you can prove it with calculations, and you are not providing said evidence to KSM defense team, then you could be held accountable for his (eventual) death.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Well, Newtons Bit has been silent since he first suggested that a tilted square would drop freely between two parallell lines separated by the length of the square's side and then that it would work using wedges on another thread. Heavy hitter?

The picture speaks for itself Heiwa.



The right side is inside the building, the left side is on top of the left side. It couldn't be anymore clear. And no, I didn't say it would "drop freely". Do not put your bs into my mouth. The upper block falls down and impacts the columns. That's the entire point in case you didn't notice.

 

[X]

Hm, are you really suggesting that the friction is a downward force assisting the destruction by gravity only???? In the real world it is usually the other way around.

Pls read my papers (where I also point out some basic errors by Dr. Bazant & Co).

Mackey is talking about the equal and opposite reactions you are so fond of.

Force of friction upward on the upper section will also result in a force of friction downward) on the lower section.

And he is not likely to respond to you.



By the way: I still haven't seen your calculations justifying your scaling geometry.

 

[GlennB]

Thanks for the advice. Actually, if the tray is 1 m² with an edge say 10 cms we only fill it 4 mm, so the risk of spillages is small. Evidently a portable fire extinguisher should be available. You could alternatively put a gas burner inside; objective is to heat up the initiation zone and the four columns to 500°C to see that nothing serious really happens. I will update the model test description accordingly.
I would ignite the diesel using a little more flammable liquid, e.g. petrol.

Have you ever tried this experiment yourself?

If so please provide your protocol and photos/witness statements.

 

[Heiwa]

The picture speaks for itself Heiwa.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1632947dbe85f60a84.jpg[/qimg]

The right side is inside the building, the left side is on top of the left side. It couldn't be anymore clear. And no, I didn't say it would "drop freely". Do not put your bs into my mouth. The upper block falls down and impacts the columns. That's the entire point in case you didn't notice.

Hm, if the right side of the tilting upper block is inside the building, the left side must be outside the building (as already explained in another thread).
If (sic) the upper block then falls down, it evidently misses the right side columns that remain intact. On the left side, the upper block lowest floor contact the columns but as the columns are much stronger than the lowest floor, the floor is damaged and the columns are intact.
NIST assumes on the other hand that the lowest floor has infinite capability to absorb strain energy (it is indestructible), so that the left columns fail. This is just one error by NIST.

This is an n-th time repeat of an important observation in my articles that nobody so far has managed to debunk.

 

[Heiwa]

So you think that an outside energy (which you don't bother to calculate) brought the twin towers down (which, again, no calculations are shown) and that an innocent man is going to die (which you are against, even if he were guilty), and you are concerned about being OT? Seriously? Just to make a point, it is not OT. If you really believed that some type of alternative energy source is needed to collapse the towers, and you can prove it with calculations, and you are not providing said evidence to KSM defense team, then you could be held accountable for his (eventual) death.

Yes, the energy released by the upper block corresponding to 41 kgs of diesel oil for WTC1 is too little the destroy the structure below. All of it is wasted due to local failures up top and friction and no global collapse should ensue as postulated by NIST without any evidence, calculations and ignoring friction. The method to calculate this is given in my article. I am awaiting the NIST response to the matter.
Pls start another thread about KSM and who can be held accountable for what happens to him.

 

[Heiwa]

Mackey is talking about the equal and opposite reactions you are so fond of.

Force of friction upward on the upper section will also result in a force of friction downward) on the lower section.

And he is not likely to respond to you.



By the way: I still haven't seen your calculations justifying your scaling geometry.

Mackey suggests that "the "friction" that Heiwa is relying upon would also manifest as a downward force on the lower structure. And it is this force that is irresistible, as proven repeatedly by Dr. Bazant and others."

Actually, the friction is an upward force that absorbs the kinetic energy of the upper block and brakes the upper block that would come to rest = a new equilibrium is established.
Evidently friction is an important factor also after re-establishing equilibrium as it transmits the forces of the upper block on locally damaged parts to the intact structure below.
Friction is not irresistible. It depends on the contact surfaces represented by a frictional coefficient. But as all lower contact surfaces are rough concrete deformed floors you can be certain it is very high.
Try to push a heavy object on a rough concrete floor and you will understand what I mean.