• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Moderated Steel structures cannot globally collapse due to gravity alone

At least Heiwa, unlike some people, actually read and reply to posts. I salute you for that.

Heiwa said:
???? No, what makes you think that? First failure may cause some deformations and a second failure. Second failure may cause some deformations and a third failure, etc. But, deformations and failures require/absorb energy so after a while failures and deformations are arrested. Lack of energy. Unless you add energy - see Controlled Demolitions.
Click to expand...

You are right. Add energy, like demolition. Or fire. Back to WTC:

Initial damage: Loads shift to remaining supports.
Added damage due to fire: Loads keep adding up on remaining supports.
Avalance point: Added load exceeds capability of remaining supports = global collapse.

Hans
 
At least Heiwa, unlike some people, actually read and reply to posts. I salute you for that.
Click to expand...

He may read them but doesn't show any indication of understanding what's being said. And as for replying to posts, well that's fine, except he repeats the same flawed reasoning again and again even after having it explained to him where he's going wrong.

What's to applaud in a person who keeps being shown 2+2=4 over and over again but comes back with, no, it's 5.

Bananaman.


(edit for typo)
 
Last edited:
Heiwa said:
Better read the full paper at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm .
Click to expand...

Better read the critiques the engineers and our poster Architect have brought up. You don't seem to care that your thesis is flawed at a fundamental level, and such obstinance in the face of factual criticism casts doubt on your seriousness in this matter.
 
MRC_Hans said:
At least Heiwa, unlike some people, actually read and reply to posts. I salute you for that.



You are right. Add energy, like demolition. Or fire. Back to WTC:

Initial damage: Loads shift to remaining supports.
Added damage due to fire: Loads keep adding up on remaining supports.
Avalance point: Added load exceeds capability of remaining supports = global collapse.

Hans
Click to expand...

Er no. I did a fair amount of research to find the numerous steel structures that have collapsed over the last century and got zero response. Big list, some pictures even, talk of progressive collapse, all that in there. None related to BUSHCO though, so it seems to be irrelevant.
For Heiwa a non response is the equivalent to "shutting him up".
No that such a strong will could ever be silenced.
 
3bodyproblem said:
Er no. I did a fair amount of research to find the numerous steel structures that have collapsed over the last century and got zero response. Big list, some pictures even, talk of progressive collapse, all that in there.
Click to expand...

Is it reasonable to assume that a progressive collaps with greater collapsing energy results in a global collapse, because the loss of energy during the collaps is small in comparison?

SYL :)
 
Last edited:
MRC_Hans said:
At least Heiwa, unlike some people, actually read and reply to posts. I salute you for that.



You are right. Add energy, like demolition. Or fire. Back to WTC:

Initial damage: Loads shift to remaining supports.
Added damage due to fire: Loads keep adding up on remaining supports.
Avalance point: Added load exceeds capability of remaining supports = global collapse.

Hans
Click to expand...

Avalanche point! Well, an avalanche is not really a global collapse. Just a local mass of uniform density sliding down a slope, leaving the masses beside in peace and quiet. I have described it at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist1.htm#72 .

WTC1 upper part has no uniform density! It consists of very strong vertical columns carrying all loads and very weak, thin horizontal floors providing the load to the columns. If a floor fails its load will only drop on another floor - the columns will not be affected - and after a while damaged floors and loose loads will get entangled and further failures are arrested.

The avalanche stops.
 
If a floor fails the columns will not be affected???

That statement is absolute proof you have no idea what you're on about. Yes the floors are thin and are a weak point in an event like this but they served as an essential structural element under normal conditions and weren't just something put there for the occupants to walk on.
 
Heiwa has failed to post full structural caluclations, either here or in his "paper". He has ignored technical criticism and questioning. He once thought that steel was inherrently fire proof (aye, right!) and believes that the cardboard box analogies are relevant to the issues at hand.

[sigh]
 
alexi_drago said:
If a floor fails the columns will not be affected???

That statement is absolute proof you have no idea what you're on about. Yes the floors are thin and are a weak point in an event like this but they served as an essential structural element under normal conditions and weren't just something put there for the occupants to walk on.
Click to expand...

Not affected critically! Actually the column is un-loaded! First a load is carried to the column via the floor. When the floor is disconnected from the column (floor drops off), no load is longer transmitted to the column.

Where does the floor load go when not into the column? Well, if the floor is still connected somewhere else, some load is still transmitted there. Imagine the loose end of the floor contacts another floor, then load is transmitted there, too. And some load may simply slide off the floor.

A new structural arrangement has developed due to the local failure and you have to analyse that.

But let's face it. No bolt floor connections failed due to gravity or heat, for that matter. Just watch the videos, e.g. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=dtx_GcFCs6c&feature=related .
 
Lets see your full structural calculations, then. And I mean proper ones, not the half-arsed generalisations you've made so far.
 
Heiwa said:
Not affected critically! Actually the column is un-loaded! First a load is carried to the column via the floor. When the floor is disconnected from the column (floor drops off), no load is longer transmitted to the column.

Where does the floor load go when not into the column? Well, if the floor is still connected somewhere else, some load is still transmitted there. Imagine the loose end of the floor contacts another floor, then load is transmitted there, too. And some load may simply slide off the floor.

A new structural arrangement has developed due to the local failure and you have to analyse that.

But let's face it. No bolt floor connections failed due to gravity or heat, for that matter. Just watch the videos, e.g. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=dtx_GcFCs6c&feature=related .
Click to expand...

The floor dissociating from the column does affect the performance of the column though. An engineer should be aware of this

What does the floor do to aid the column in staying up? It's some kind of restraint, stops it bending like a ruler when you push down on it. Seven letters, starts with 'L'

L------ restraint

See if you can get it. Though judging from your posts in this thread, you are on some other planet. Help me to help you :)
 
Are you saying the load bearing columns of the upper and lower blocks were out of alignment and didn't take any of the dynamic loading and that the thin and weak (Heiwas own words to describe them) floors (which according to Heiwas last post became disconnected from the load bearing columns) somehow should have halted the collapse?

I think the floors are not the only thing to become disconnected here.
 
Heiwa said:
Just watch the videos, e.g. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=dtx_GcFCs6c&feature=related .
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

I can't believe that Chandler is a real engineer. How convenient of him to not include the beginning of the collapse, but show it from the moment the top of the tower is covered by the dustclouds.

Also, steel girders hurled out of the building? :boggled:

It can't possible be the side of the building standing up, unsupported now by the floors, bending over and starting to fall down.
 
Troy wins said:
The floor dissociating from the column does affect the performance of the column though. An engineer should be aware of this

What does the floor do to aid the column in staying up? It's some kind of restraint, stops it bending like a ruler when you push down on it. Seven letters, starts with 'L'

L------ restraint

See if you can get it. Though judging from your posts in this thread, you are on some other planet. Help me to help you :)
Click to expand...

Lateral support? A flag pole, a common column, does not need any. No real load acting on it except its own weight + some wind forces.

Actually, when all WTC1 floors would have dropped down according NIST, the steel columns should have remained ... like flag poles. All described in my paper.

If you forgot to install all the floors in WTC1 at construction and only fitted the columns, the columns would of course stand by themselves 400 meters high (assisted by spandrels and core beams, etc). It would have been a funny building - no floors - but birds could fly around inside. It would be like a cage.

All described in my paper of course. Children love it. And nobody at JREF has found any errors in it! OK, most JREF members have an attention span of an amoeba and associated IQ but ... nobody is perfect. Except ... guess who?
 
alexi_drago said:
Are you saying the load bearing columns of the upper and lower blocks were out of alignment and didn't take any of the dynamic loading and that the thin and weak (Heiwas own words to describe them) floors (which according to Heiwas last post became disconnected from the load bearing columns) somehow should have halted the collapse?

I think the floors are not the only thing to become disconnected here.
Click to expand...

No - if something, e.g. a floor, drops off something, e.g. a column, the dropped off object, i.e. the floor, does not apply any static or dynamic loading on something, i.e. the column. The floor is disconnected!

Take a flag pole! The wind blows away the flag on its top! The flag will then not apply a load on the flag pole any longer. The flag is disconnected.
 
Architect said:
Lets see your full structural calculations, then. And I mean proper ones, not the half-arsed generalisations you've made so far.
Click to expand...

OK, imagine a vertical pole height 10 m, cross area 1 m² and connect it to a fixed support. Apply a vertical force of F = 1 N on the top of the pole. What happens?

Answer: First the fixed support applies a force F = -1 N to the pole. It can do that because it is fixed. Result? The pole does not fly away! And then an axial stress of 1 Pa develops everywhere in the 10 m long pole.

Remove the force F (i.e. disconnect a floor from a column). What happens? Stress 1 Pa becomes 0 Pa.

Magic? Not really. Basic physics, that NIST, Sunder & Co do not understand.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom