Moderated Steel structures cannot globally collapse due to gravity alone

[doobiedoright]

All described in my paper of course. Children love it. And nobody at JREF has found anything correct in it! OK, most JREF members have an attention span of an amoeba and associated IQ but ... nobody is perfect. Except ... guess who?

Fixed it for you!

Steel has to be stronger than ice right?
So ice can never sink a ship right?
somebody better call the Titanic!

 

[Ratas]

Some structural calculations were asked, and you, Heiwa, produce a totally irrelevant example. I'm pretty sure we are not talking about what you just described. Someone might even say that you just produced a new pile of half-arsed generalisation.

 

[Bell]

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.

Let me repeat that...

 

[Bell]

Heiwa you are constantly ignoring this. Answer please!

Yes please, Heiwa. I'm not an engineer, therefor I would like you to explain it to me. I can't figure it out by myself.

How can this floor...



... stop this ...

 

[DavidJames]

I would love to talk to one person who both read Heiwa's CT crap and hired him for engineering work.

 

[beachnut]

the steel columns should have remained ...

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).

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?

The steel was all there. Sorry, it fell apart. You always make stupid statements like this. Why?

If you did not install the floors, the core would not stand without the shell being connected to the core. You are wrong, the core has to be connected to the shell to survive, the building is a system, not just steel beams you saw are invincible due to your failure at understanding structures. No way to build the WTC without the floors. Sorry, you can't build buildings, or understand them. You are a big failure at explaining 911.

Your paper is wrong, there is no way to save it. To prove your paper is trash, please submit your paper to a journal on structures. Your paper will be laughed at and rejected. Better yet show us your Pulitzer Prize for exposing the 911 plot you have to make 911 happen. Do you have a plot to go with your failed physics? Do you have any rational work on 911?

Oh, so we are all amoeba brains compared to your paranoid mentality that ignores gravity and spews ridiculous junk ideas on 911.

So what is the attention span of an amoeba? Do you know? Most JREF are amoeba attention span and what IQ is that? What IQ is associated with that? Got a number to go with your pathetic attempt at an insult.

Your paper is self critiquing, no insult is needed.

 

[Bell]

I would love to talk to one person who both read Heiwa's CT crap and hired him for engineering work.

I'd rather know what buildings Heiwa worked on, so I can stay the hell away from those.

 

[beachnut]

A photo of Professor Heiwa from archives:

"Back to the Future" is the same as Heiwa's paper. Fiction. This has to be a joke by Heiwa, he is in a bar right now with computers, and they are laughing at their own joke. No one can be this stupid in structures and physics. Simple research into the WTC would be all you need to see Heiwa joke is just that.

 

[Furcifer]

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

I couldn't find one on that website that didn't globally collapse due to a progressive collapse.

Nice to see you.

 

[Heiwa]

Some structural calculations were asked, and you, Heiwa, produce a totally irrelevant example. I'm pretty sure we are not talking about what you just described. Someone might even say that you just produced a new pile of half-arsed generalisation.

And you got it. Anything wrong? Impossible. Very relevant! More advanced analysises in 3D with bending and torsion are just variations of the same thing.
Judging by your language you haven't got a clue what you try to say. Try again!

 

[CORed]

whoa whoa WHOA, hold up! Heiwa's an engineer?!?! Holy monkey!


Judy Wood?

Hey, driving a train isn't as easy as it looks, even though you don't have to steer.

 

[Ratas]

And you got it. Anything wrong? Impossible. Very relevant! More advanced analysises in 3D with bending and torsion are just variations of the same thing.
Judging by your language you haven't got a clue what you try to say. Try again!

First, please be more elaborate about my language problems, I'm always eager to improve my output.

You also bring up flag pole as an example of structure without lateral support? A FLAG POLE? Doesn't seem to be relevant either.

You call analyses with bending and torsion advanced, I think they are basic, and pretty important when analysing a structure, even if it is a simple mast sticking from the ground.

You'd know this if you'd understand _anything_ about this subject.

 

[Lennart Hyland]

Heiwa:

You ever tried to get your papers and "findings" reviewed by a structural-engineer in your city? I mean talk to him and see if he agree with you. There must be a University in your city or near your city where you can discuss this with qualificated persons?

 

[beachnut]

First, please be more elaborate about my language problems, I'm always eager to improve my output.

You also bring up flag pole as an example of structure without lateral support? A FLAG POLE? Doesn't seem to be relevant either.

You call analyses with bending and torsion advanced, I think they are basic, and pretty important when analysing a structure, even if it is a simple mast sticking from the ground.

You'd know this if you'd understand _anything_ about this subject.

Heiwa does not understand gravity, says the WTC falling is like ships hitting, how can he understand rational thought from you? He can’t.

Heiwa is a 911Truth terrorist apologist who is leaving a legacy of delusion for his kids and grandkids.

 

[Heiwa]

I copy/paste a post on another forum about what happens if you drop something on the WTC1 structure:

Quote

Let's make a simple experiment; you need a hammer with a 1 kg solid head and a 0.1 m steel bolt with cross area 0.0001 m² (it weighs 0.078 kgs). Thus the hammer is 12.73 times heavier than the bolt.

You put the bolt upright against a solid support and then you drop the hammer head against the bolt from various heights h = 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0,4 m, etc.

What happens? Well, for certain the bolt never collapses at impact. The bolt deforms elastically and the hammer bounces.

Try to drop the hammer from h = 1, 2, 3, 4 m, etc. Same result! Ok, maybe some plastic deformation at the top drops + deflection of the hammer head.

****ing strong bolt! OK, the uniform density of the bolt is 7.8 (like the hammer's density) and it is 43 times more than the uniform density of WTC1.

Let's replace the bolt with something more fluffy - lighter. What do we have? A roll of toilet paper with diameter 0.1 m and height 0.1 m. Same uniform density as WTC1.

OK, I put this roll of toilet paper on my solid support and repeat the experiment using the hammer as drop weight. What happens? My children audience was very excited.

Well - dropping the solid steel hammer head on the little paper roll from 0.1-0.4 m just produced bounces! No collapses of the paper roll.

Let's drop it from 4 meter the audience yelled. Guess what the result was?

Quite difficult to collapse a toilet paper roll with a hammer, though.

But to be fair! Whatever is alleged to impact WTC1 lower structure after dropping from above has the same density (and built in associated strength). The upper part of WTC1 has the uniform density (and the built in strength - uniformly distributed though) of a roll of toilet paper.

It will not cause any global collapse, ever.

Reason is that the available strain energy, SE, of the bolt or the paper roll to absorb kinetic or potential energy, PE, applied/released from above is too big. SE>PE.

NIST, in its infamous WTC1/2 report suggested SE<PE, maybe a typing error (?), but hopefully Obama will fix it. It changes everything, of course, but maybe "we can" accept that?

Un-quote.

I can assure you that it is difficult to destroy a structure by dropping something on it.

 

[DGM]

Yes please, Heiwa. I'm not an engineer, therefor I would like you to explain it to me. I can't figure it out by myself.

How can this floor...

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_11696474df7b2e709f.jpg[/qimg]

... stop this ...

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_11696474df7bfd686f.jpg[/qimg]

I wouldn't expect an answer. Doing so would make him have to admit that the failure of the floor system would leave an un-braced frame. Collapse is certain. His whole argument is based on the misrepresentation of NIST and Bazant. He knows he's full of BS but he hopes to convince children and "truthers". It's an attention thing for him.

 

[Furcifer]

I can assure you that it is difficult to destroy a structure by dropping something on it.

lol. You make it, I'll break it.

You're just full of the oddest analogies that never come close. I can only imagine that if Homer Simpson was a building inspector, he'd be you.

 

[Bell]

I wouldn't expect an answer. Doing so would make him have to admit that the failure of the floor system would leave an un-braced frame. Collapse is certain. His whole argument is based on the misrepresentation of NIST and Bazant. He knows he's full of BS but he hopes to convince children and "truthers". It's an attention thing for him.

Yes. The fact the Heiwa doesn't address that posts proves he's wrong. Discussion over, thread closed. Can I nominate that post?


(Heiwa addresses THIS post in 5... 4... 3... 2... 1...)

 

[Bell]

lol. You make it, I'll break it.

You're just full of the oddest analogies that never come close. I can only imagine that if Homer Simpson was a building inspector, he'd be you.

To represent the WTC here I have a stack of pizza boxes... Mmm... pizza...

 

[beachnut]

...
I can assure you that it is difficult to destroy a structure by dropping something on it.

Why is Heiwa so crazy about 911, and wrong? What makes him so bad at this?

Heiwa delusions 1-5 that aided his quest to be the worse structural engineer in the history of the universe - 1. There should be considerable amount of airplane wreckage found at the crash sites but there was very little.

2. No damaged parts of the alleged four airplanes involved in 911 have been found anywhere at or in vicinity of the crashe sites. The authorities have not presented any such identified parts as evidence of an airplane crash at the various sites.

3. Some alleged airplane parts were actually found in vicinity of crash sites but apparently do not belong to the airplanes suggested to have been involved in the events.

4. The proposal by the authorities that most wreckage parts were destroyed due to fire and explosion is incorrect as there was not enough energy (J) involved in alleged crashes to 'evaporate' complete airplanes and wreckage parts. No airplane in history has ever 'evaporated' at a crash.

5. There have been 10 000's of airplane crashes in the world since aviation took off around 1910 and at every crash there was plenty of wreckage. 911 is the first and only time when four airplanes have crashed on the same day without leaving any wreckage ... at all! What a coincidence!

Conclusions (based on negative evidence):

A. The alleged hijacked planes did not crash at the various sites.

B. Whatever caused damage at the various crash sites was not a hijacked airplane.

No evidence, but Heiwa says so! His lies are his foundation for his delusions.

1 - Wrong, at each crash site, WTC, Pentagon and Pennsylvania the entire planes were there. The Al parts may melt, and the plane is in pieces from large engine parts, landing gears to small fragments. This is a lie Heiwa, a big fat lie, like the marine who you can’t beat up.

2 – Do you make up lies for yourself? Why do you lie. Here are parts.

One engine from flight 93. This photo makes you a liar. One piece of evidence makes you a liar. And you used your failed statements to lead your failed physics.

Thousands of piece of flight 93 after impact with the ground in Pennsylvania, part of the free United States; the land of the fat marine who you can’t beat. These thousands of pieces of Flight 93 make you a liar, and the heroes who stopped these terrorists who you apologize for figured out 911 in minutes, you have failed to figure out 911 after 7 years! LOL

Flight 77’s FDR found in the Pentagon. Another piece of evidence proving you are a liar and a fraud on 911 issues.

3 – All the parts belong to the planes taken by the terrorists you apologize for! You based this the parts are not from the planes from hearsay, lies and delusions of other idiots who you repeat the lie for. BUSTED

4 – No experts in the subject said the planes evaporated. The plane crashed and you are a liar on this issue too.


5 – You say 911 is the only time planes have crashed without leaving wreckage. Once again one photo of parts from flight 93; parts! Prove you wrong.

A - The alleged hijacked planes did crash at the various sites and it is proven by RADAR data, FDRs, DNA, and all the parts found (plus thousands of pieces of evidence) and you can’t refute on piece of evidence.

B – The four flights commandeered on 911 caused damage at the various crash sites! You are wrong and have based you failed papers on your delusion based on hearsay, lies and fantasy.

You have based your failed paper on the WTC structures on your belief in pure delusions you have on 9/11. All proven to be big fat dirt dumb delusions.