No kidding. I agree. Heiwa: Still waiting to be dazzled. Hint: BS isn't dazzling.
'Nother hint: Any analysis that continues to treat the resistance of the lower segments of the towers monolithically, instead of floor by floor with increasing acceleration and accreting mass is automatically a failure. At some point you have to deal with this. It's been pointed out too many times, so many times that even a complete layman like me understands the necessity for such a treatment.
Any new new forum readers or lurkers seeing this: What I mean by that is when Heiwa does not do a floor-by-floor, segment-by-segment analysis, he intentionally leaves out energy. The correct collapse model is that the sections above where the jets impacted and fires burned fell as a unit onto the first floor below that. That first impact did not slow the collapse enough - indeed, it's impossible to see it with the frame rates internet videos run at - so it kept on accelerating, just not at a rate it would have had it been unimpeded. This is obvious from the fact that it took longer for the entire collapse to finish than what would have happened had there been no resistence from the floors below. Anyway, because it's still accelerating, and because it now has a whole additional floor's mass, when it hits the next floor below, it hits that even stronger. And it is similarly slowed (i.e. not enough to keep it from accelerating even more) but it similarly picks up more mass, so it continues as an even stronger force to the next floor below. And so on, and so forth, this continues until it finally makes an impact with a structure strong enough to stop it: The ground.
Heiwa does not even try to model this. He does not provide any sane rationalization for why the first impact should slow the collapse down enough to negate gravitational acceleration, let alone "bounce" the upper segments. Notice how in all his rationalizations here in this forum and on his site he keeps treating the lower parts of the towers as a whole unit, most likely so he can keep the accelerating and continually growing mass out of the argument. Tricky... and I would have never understood this deception had it not been for posters here in this forum. Anyway, that's a good deal of the reason that our dismissal of Heiwa's work is so summary in the paragraphs above: It's because he's not treating the collapse system correctly. For further insights into the correct collapse model - the one Heiwa refuses to deal with - Dr. Frank Greening has done a treatment,
here (and has a followup addendum
here). If you want a more basic breakdown, a "just the numbers" summation, former poster Newton's Bit (where
has he been lately, BTW? I haven't seen him post in a long time) started a thread on that
here, and it contains an extended discussion on the issue by engineering and physicist types in this forum. It summarizes this way:
That whole thread started by Newton's Bit is recommended reading for people interested in the question of potential energy available in the towers
Bottom line: Heiwa's rationalizations are simply not that impressive.
Anyway, we're done here. Until he can
properly answer
Bazant and Zhou - who's work has been peer reviewed and accepted as valid, BTW -
Greening, Newton's Bit, and others regarding energetics, as well as
MIT, Weidlinger Associates, Exponent Failure Analysis Associates, and Purdue regarding the collapse model, there's simply nothing more to discuss.
Again, I submit myself to corrections by Architect, Dave Rogers, Grizzly Bear, and others active in this thread that I'm not thinking of immediately. Those guys are either architecturally trained or familiar with engineering. I also submit the above to any engineers, physicists, or whomever who's just lurking here and has any expertise they can bring to bear.
). But so that you all understand: (Insert calculations here)".
