• 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.

What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York

Wow. Misplaced arrogance ROCKS! Keep being true to yourself Heiwa. Don't let these shills bring you down. LOL
 
Last edited:
Heiwa said:
My Discussion of Paper has got G, co-author of the paper in question, to ask:

So, Heiwa, tell me what you see after a 35 m drop!
Again, Heiwa, tell us what you see when there are 36 storeys still to crush.

Thanks for asking. There is plenty to see on the videos of the WTC1 destruction apart from a 'jolt' that nobody sees. Lately I have concentrated on those features that you postulate in your paper What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York that I found in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, Vol. 134 (2008). And there are plenty features I do not see.

Of course, the title of your paper is misleading. WTC1 never collapsed! It was crushed down from the top according to you. It - part A/lower structure below floor 97 - was crushed by a layer of rubble - part B - that was created when part C - the upper part floor 98 and above - dropped down. Part A never collapsed - each and anyone of its 97 storeys were crushed, one after the other.

According your paper - as I understand it - part C suddenly dropped (its support were weakened by fire/heat an buckled) and impacted on floor 97 of part A. This impact allegedly destroyed the columns between floor 97/96 and floor 97 dropped down on floor 96. I do not see that on any video.

It is now the crush down of part A starts. When floor 97 drops down it becomes a 0.896 m thick layer of rubble - that you call part B - that contacts floor 96 of part A. This rubble is volume vise about 3 600 m3! The uniform (sic) density of structure floors 97/96 was originally 0.255 according you (plenty of air). The density of the rubble is 1.025 according you so compression takes place. It is part C that compresses structure floors 97/96 75.1%.

I do not see that on any video.

To compress rubble requires energy applied by part C and it seems you do not consider that in your differential equations. To compress rubble you must overcome friction in the rubble. As the solid parts of the rubble have density 7.8 (columns) and 2.5-3.0 (concrete) there must still be plenty of air in part B - the rubble layer.

I do not see this rubble layer on any video. To compress 14 400 m3 of structure with density 0.255 to 3 600 m3 of rubble with density 1.025 requires plenty of energy! I would expect the destruction to stop then. But I do not see that! Instead upper part C soon after accelerates constantly a 0.7g due gravity. Not possible if part C shall compress rubble at the same time.

Anyway, next crush is floors 96/95. Now it is a layer of rubble - part B - with part C on top that damages part A. An impact between parts C and A is impossible with so much rubble in between. You suggest that parts B and C now overloads floor 96 (pancake theory?) so floor 96 drops down.
Fair enough! I don't agree and I do not see it, but this is what you suggest. According videos (and your own paper) acceleration of part C is now 0.65-0.7g.

Part B - the rubble layer doubles in thickness - and the crushing continues another 11 floors of part A at constant acceleration 0.7g.

So after a 35 m drop of part C - it takes 3.17-3.3 seconds according your differential equations and acceleration given above - total 13 floors of part A have been crushed (should be floors 97-84), 46.6 m of perimeter walls have failed in pieces and part B has become 11.56 m thick and part C should remain intact on top of the rubble!

Frankly speaking nobody can see that on any video.

What I see is that part C - the upper part - explodes in its lower part - floors 98-105. Controlled demolition no doubt ! That's why the roof line has dropped 35 m. I do not see an 11.56 m thick layer of debris on top of floor 84! Actually I can clearly see that floors 84-96 are undamaged!

So much for your model and theory, Dr. G.

So what do I see, when there is 36 floors to crush (61 floors of part A have been crushed)?

Well. part A is about 130 m tall at this stage. 61 floors have been crushed so part B should be abt 55 m thick and on top of that we should see part C, which is 53 m tall to roof line, and then the 40+ m mast.

Thus, when floor 36 is being crushed - and air/smoke is ejected there and only there - at 130 m above ground we should see, according your theory, a 53 m thick layer of rubble - part B - top of which is 183 m above ground. On top of that we should see part C undamaged according your theory, roof line of which is 236 m above ground, and then we should see the mast. There should be no free rubble anywhere ... and no smoke!

But sorry, I do not see all that. What I see is a fountain of debris and rubble thrown sideways in all directions - apparently caused by multiple controlled demolitions fired from top down and plenty of smoke, probably caused by the controlled demolition charges.

So, sorry! I cannot see anything that confirms your model and theory, Dr. G. But I wonder! Why do you invent such a stupid model and theory and publish it in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics? Are you working for the perpetrators of the controlled demolitions of WTC1,2,7 or some agents of those? Do you think you can convince anyone with your unscientific nonsense? Why do you do it? Why not simply shut up like most other poor bastards and don't say anything. I don't expect you to be like me that can do real structural damage analysis and quickly see that WTC1 destruction is not caused by crush down or PE>SE that NIST suggests.

Anyway - I have just updated http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist7.htm . It seems NIST have destroyed all records how they analysed and simulated the WTC7 structural failures as presented in its November 20, 2008, report. There is no calculations, etc, of any kind left by NIST to support the WTC7 final report! All destroyed ... if it ever existed. The NIST WTC7 report was laughable! A big section above floor 16 was dropping at free fall ... and deformed itself.
Click to expand...

Delusions from Heiwa for his kids’ kids to see he is an apologist for terrorists
 
I love how he's still quoting the latest Jones' journal paper although he got his arse handed to him for defending it all over the forums. Now that's true dedication to your fantasy.
 
GlennB said:
Heiwa - America's enemies, believe it or not, have many excellent engineers, architects and physicists. I'm thinking of Iran, N Korea, Cuba and so on. This doesn't even mention scientists in the rest of the world who are just plain interested in the subject.

Why do you think they have not performed and published the damning structural analysis to expose the "demon" USA? The way you have?

Why do you think only a few fringe characters have come up with the same kind of calculations and conclusions that you have? Do you believe you are blessed with a God-given genius?
Click to expand...

You are off topic. We discuss my Comments on a Paper (by BLGB). B and G have already commented (or asked questions). They seem to be confused. Their differential equations do not seem to copy what is seen on videos!

Their main error is evidently that they forget the energy required to compress the first layer of rubble - part B. Actually part B is not a layer of rubble at all but all local failures and friction involved when loose parts (rubble?) rub against each other at first 'crush' between parts C and A. B and G + Bazant suggest that energy is negligible, while it is exactly what part C applies when contacting part A and that produces these failures.

Thus - the WTC1 'collapse' due gravity should have been arrested during 'crush' no. 1. All energy available is consumed at first crush!

NIST didn't even calculate this energy!

It gets worse when you ask NIST for the calculations of the WTC7 structural damage analysis and simulations. All destroyed! Does not exist any longer!

Talk about fringe characters!
 
Heiwa does not think planes impacted the WTC. His starts his fantasy with a lie.

That my friend ends the discussion; you believe in fantasys and have no rational conclusions and mess up engineering so bad, you have made it impossible to reply to your poppycock.

You got no planes, no gravity, and no clue.

Your work is proved to be wrong by all who see it, and you can’t submit it to any journal because they will not publish fantasy. You have not peer support, in fact your only peers are Jones, Gage, Wood, and Fetzer. You will not be getting Pulitzer Prize for this tripe.

What is his problem? Not understanding Physics?
 
Heiwa does not think planes impacted the WTC. His starts his fantasy with a lie.

That my friend ends the discussion; you believe in fantasys and have no rational conclusions and mess up engineering so bad, you have made it impossible to reply to your poppycock.

You got no planes, no gravity, and no clue.

Your work is proved to be wrong by all who see it, and you can’t submit it to any journal because they will not publish fantasy. You have not peer support, in fact your only peers are Jones, Gage, Wood, and Fetzer. You will not be getting Pulitzer Prize for this tripe.

What is his problem? Not understanding Physics?
 
I tried sticking demolitions explosives in a stack of pizza boxes, and I didn't get progressive collapse--all I got was shredded cardboard flying all over the room, and court summons.

Does this prove that WTC could not have been a demolition?
 
Heiwa said:
What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York

I have read subject article by Bazant, Le, Greening and Benson (BLGB below) in Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, Vol. 134 (2008), with great interest and would like to make the following observations:
There is no need to describe the destruction of WTC1 using differential equations. Simple math + observations of videos prove the BLGB model and paper wrong.
BLGB suggests that upper part C drops on the lower structure of WTC1 – part A – that collapses. During collapse a layer of debris is formed – part B. What happens using the BLGB model is easily calculated by simple calculations


5. The Displacement of the Roof Line of Part C during Destruction

Every time a storey is crushed, part C drops 2.704 m and an 0.896 m layer of debris is formed according BLGB, and the part C columns also destroy the columns below - how is not clear as there is a thick layer of rubble – part B in between!

Thus, when the roof line has dropped 35 m, 12.94 storeys, total height 46.6 m (!) of part A have been crushed and have been replaced by an 11.56 m thick layer of debris – part B. 46.6 m of columns of part A have been crushed at perimeter and core, the latter being mixed in the debris. I assume the wall columns are dropping down to ground outside the building.

MacQueen/Szamboti believe that only 9 (or 9.72) storeys have been crushed after 3.17 seconds, but according BLGB it should be 12.94 storeys! MacQueen/Szamboti forget that there should be an 11.56 m thick layer of debris below the upper part C, when its roof line has dropped 35 m!

Conclusion

Simple observations of any video of the WTC1 destruction prove the BLGB model wrong.
Click to expand...

Doesn't Bazant assume a mass shedding fraction(Kout) of 0.2 in his equations? If 0.896 meters is added to Zone B after each floor is destroyed, after 97 floors(crush-down) with a mass shedding fraction of 0.2, this "compacted layer of debris"(Zone B) should be 69 meters(226 feet)!!!! As well, there should be an intact upper block standing at 53 meters(173 feet).

No evidence for this intact upper block or this compacted layer of debris has been forthcoming.
 
Heiwa is spewing a few nut case ideas on 911, at least he has not started an enemies list. Which may be sign he is too busy with his delusion to worry about people warning him about his dirt dumb ideas on 911, such as no planes, and more.

Since his delusion has no planes, he does not understand what caused the collapse of the WTC. For him there is no impact, no fires, no gravity.

Impact, fire, and gravity collapse lack enough conspiracy to satisfy Heiwa delusion seeking mind. Does he wants to blame the USA since a fat marine took his girl, or some strange problem he has with America?

The plot is too simple for Heiwa the physics flawed terrorist apologist:
kill 8 pilots, (5 dollars per box cutter)
take 4 planes, (airline ticket)
crash into buildings. (free)
Three step terrorist, simple and unique. I can’t think of a cheaper, low profile plot.

Much too simple for pizza box, kids jumping on bed, ignoring gravity, fire super delusion sleuth Heiwa who publishes web pages with dirt dumb 911 delusions.

911 was too simple: Two three step events.
Event 1 – a. kill pilots b. take planes c. fly into buildings
Event 2 – a. impact WTC b. out of control fires c. building fails

But Heiwa plot is too stupid:
1. no planes
2. fake video of planes
3. holographic display over NYC to fake planes
4. plant explosives in the most explosives sensitve building in the USA
5. thermite, bet he uses thermite when you tell him noise was not heard
6. put explosives, silent explosives in WTC7 just for effect
7. kill passengers at random in the planes that did not impact the WTC
8. kill more passengers on 175, another plane missing but that did not impact the WTC
9. return DNA remains to loved ones on planes that did not hit the Pentagon
10. plant explosives in Pentagon
11. fake DNA in WTC, Pentagon, and PA
12. fake FDRs just incase x 4
13. fake RADAR data on hundreds of RADAR sites
14. fake ATC transmissions from hundreds of ATC personnel
15. fake telephone calls from many passengers
16. destroy 4 planes and plant DNA and bodies, and parts
17. fake witnesses at Pentagon
18. since gravity does not work in Heiwa’s world of woo, make building come down with GIANT SPACE BEAM VACUUM CLEANER, I also have Beam vacuum system in my house full of army soldiers, toy army soldiers guarding the elbows in the line!!! Darn Grandkids.
19. more junk ideas@!
20. more dirt dumb claims
21. more failed physics
22. ignore gravity
23. add pizza boxes
24. add kids on bed
25. add lots of drinks
26. skip rehab
27. whatever

How many steps does the conclusion delusion of Heiwa have? Undefined


As for those who believe Heiwa, Gage, or Jones, they could have take an engineer course and earned a PhD, or a Masters, or if they had even a C average a degree in engineering giving them the tools to see the delusion of 911Truth. As usual, don’t worry, all lay people armed with an understanding of cause and effect, a first grade concept, can see the idiotic ideas of 911Truth and pronounce them delusions inspired by other nut case ideas.

There is no reason to attack other models of how the WTC can fail and fall when you have no skill, no degree, no real training to accomplish the task. Heiwa does not believe planes hit the WTC towers; his initial condition is therefore a delusion, a lie, false. Heiwa’s work fails before it starts.

Without the two initial kinetic energy impacts of 1300 and 2093 pounds of TNT from Flight 11 and Flight 175 Heiwa fails before he begins.


The WTC was like 95 percent air, the concrete floors are 4 inches thick, 3 or 4 floors are less than a meter when crushed by a lot of WTC rubble. Why are Heiwa's numbers flawed? Why does he use a delusional paper of JOLT to make delusional claims about a real paper done by real engineers?
 
Last edited:
tanabear said:
Doesn't Bazant assume a mass shedding fraction(Kout) of 0.2 in his equations? If 0.896 meters is added to Zone B after each floor is destroyed, after 97 floors(crush-down) with a mass shedding fraction of 0.2, this "compacted layer of debris"(Zone B) should be 69 meters(226 feet)!!!! As well, there should be an intact upper block standing at 53 meters(173 feet).

No evidence for this intact upper block or this compacted layer of debris has been forthcoming.
Click to expand...

Something like that. Bazant, Le, Greening and Benson suggest that the upper part above floor 97 -part C - drops and crushes floor 97 that becomes a 0.8 m thick layer of rubble - part B - with density 1.025. Part C has mass 54 000 tons.

Then part C + part B crush floor 96 that becomes a 0.8 m thick layer of rubble that is added to part B. Part B is now 1.6 m thick.

And so on. Part B increases in thickness 0.8 m every time a floor is crushed.

You can try to see these crushes here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtx_GcFCs6c&feature=related

When all 97 floors have been crushed, the layer of rubble - part B - is 77.6 m thick (density 1.025) - see fig. 3 b) in the BLGB paper - on top of which part C - 53 m high - remains. OK, BLGB suggests that part B is 92 m thick (!) because they include also the crushed basement in their calculations.

Thus - after abt. 13 seconds of crush-down 368 000 m3 of rubble - 92 m thick - has been produced - density 1.025 - i.e. the rubble mass is 377 200 tons.

Then a very strange thing happens; part C is crushed-up! It is finally destroyed! The result is then only a 20 m thick layer of rubble on the ground according model of Bazant & Co. Parts C and B have disappeared.

Looking back to the first crush part C can theoretically only apply 2 GJ of energy on floor 97. As you need at least 20 GJ of energy in my opinion to crush floor 97 into a 0.8 m thick layer of rubble, the crush-down should have stopped then. According Bazant you only need 0.2 GJ (or so) to crush floor 97 then crush down is possible ... and goes extremely quick. Part C and the rubble accelerates down at 0.7 g during crush-down. Almost free fall.

The only difference between Bazant and me is that I think you need 100 times more energy to crush one floor.

It is very easy to decide who is right. Just calculate how much energy is required to crush one floor, height 3.6 m, of WTC1 into a 0.8 m layer of rubble.
 
Last edited:
beachnut;4403877[COLOR=black said:
25. [/COLOR]add lots of drinks
26. skip rehab
Click to expand...

Uhhh, anyone know how to rebuild a laptop after spewing steaming hot coffee out of one's nostrils and onto the keyboard?
 
heiwa-
i was wondering where ya got this info:
"It seems NIST have destroyed all records how they analysed and simulated the WTC7 structural failures as presented in its November 20, 2008, report. There is no calculations, etc, of any kind left by NIST to support the WTC7 final report! All destroyed ... if it ever existed."
 
Seymour Butz said:
Uhhh, anyone know how to rebuild a laptop after spewing steaming hot coffee out of one's nostrils and onto the keyboard?
Click to expand...

I'll be glad to help anyone from either side with computer problems...if you have one just PM me. There's a reason they call me MacGyver. :)

I am hoping to evoke the same response from you with one of my one liners...so for future reference...

Use denatured alcohol in liberal amounts on the keyboard. Turn the laptop upside down and used canned air to blow out the coffee/spent spluge/ alcohol mixture. Repeat as necessary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom