A Question for Heiwa - WTC Safety Factors

[GlennB]

Momentum, you know, if you treat it as a solid mechanics problem.

You learnt that from Mackey about 3 days ago, didn't you.

Anyway .. my $1M please. The House of Cards meets all your conditions.

 

[Heiwa]

You learnt that from Mackey about 3 days ago, didn't you.

Anyway .. my $1M please. The House of Cards meets all your conditions.

Or Mackey learnt from me? I mention momentum in the introduction of my article. In ship collisions it can be 10 times bigger than on 9/11.

Re you House of Cards it doesn't really meet the requirements of one structure/two parts C/A/drop C on A, &c, and when I tested part C actually bounced on part A. I wonder why? Maybe the structural connections were a little more solid? Glue? You have to try harder!

 

[GlennB]

.... and when I tested part C actually bounced on part A. I wonder why?

What did you test?

 

[Heiwa]

What did you test?

Part C

I had great difficulties to lift it (part C) and then drop it (part C) without it (part C) collapsing on itself (part C), so I glued it together. As part C should be similar to part A, I glued it (part A) also.

Try it! Glue is quite useful to get a structure together.

 

[GlennB]

Part C

WIth glue involved, naturally.

I suggest you start a new thread announcing your "million dollar challenge" but with precise conditions, rather than making up new ones as you go along. See you there.

 

[Heiwa]

WIth glue involved, naturally.

I suggest you start a new thread announcing your "million dollar challenge" but with precise conditions, rather than making up new ones as you go along. See you there.

So you admit defeat. Good. Join AE911truth.org .

 

[Dave Rogers]

So you admit defeat. Good. Join AE911truth.org .

Because that's where the defeated people like to hang out.

Dave

 

[Gravy]

What did you test?

Did you mean to say, "What toppings did you get?"

 

[Dave Rogers]

I had great difficulties to lift it (part C) and then drop it (part C) without it (part C) collapsing on itself (part C), so I glued it together. As part C should be similar to part A, I glued it (part A) also.

So, as I pointed out earlier, Heiwa's challenge actually was, "I am prepared to offer $1M to anybody that can produce a structure with two parts C and A of similar/identical structural composition, where, initially part A, fixed to ground, carries part C on top, and later by dropping part C on part A, gravity will then assist part C to crush down part A completely. However, I can reinforce this structure as much as I like, and it still has to collapse." He's generally just stuck to lying in the past; it's interesting to see him branch out into cheating.

Dave

 

[GlennB]

He's generally just stuck to lying in the past; it's interesting to see him branch out into cheating.

Dave

Yeah, with my meagre pension fund in tatters I was banking on my half of that $1m (you did agree to a split, didn't you?).

I wonder if he's actually capable of thinking straight enough and long enough to work out precise conditions for this test? I have a garden full of old bricks, tiles, timber, angle iron etc. Plus time on my hands, and my wife is pretty tolerant. Can you get thermite on Ebay?

 

[Heiwa]

So, as I pointed out earlier, Heiwa's challenge actually was, "I am prepared to offer $1M to anybody that can produce a structure with two parts C and A of similar/identical structural composition, where, initially part A, fixed to ground, carries part C on top, and later by dropping part C on part A, gravity will then assist part C to crush down part A completely. However, I can reinforce this structure as much as I like, and it still has to collapse." He's generally just stuck to lying in the past; it's interesting to see him branch out into cheating.

Dave

Well, your House of Cards was not really fixed to the ground, was it? You missed that, among many other things. But just soldier on. Get your structure together, drop C on A, etc. and you'll get your $1M.

 

[Architect]

Stop derailing the thread, Heiwa. Prove you FoS>3 figures. Properly - not the half-baked yield calculation we saw before.

 

[Heiwa]

Stop derailing the thread, Heiwa. Prove you FoS>3 figures. Properly - not the half-baked yield calculation we saw before.

I thought we had sorted it out. If the mass is 16 500 000 kgs and it is carried by 2.1 m² of steel (core) and we set g = 10 m/s², the stress is is 78.57 MPa to compare with a yield stress of 248 MPa (mild steel). 248/78.57 = 3.15. Urich using a 18% bigger mass and various crititical stresses gets 2.29. If Urich uses my mass he should get 2.7, etc, etc. No big difference.
Bazant may use a mass of 27 000 000 kgs and then we get stress 128.57 MPa and 248/128.57 = 1.92!

In the perimeter there is more steel - say 3.54 m² - but same mass, so the static stress is only 46.61 MPa! 248/46.61 = 5.32 in my article! Reason is the that perimeter must also resist wind loads.

I only use my example to show that WTC 1 was quite a strong structure.

Regardless - an upper part C cannot crush down a similar structure part A (A = 10 x C) due to gravity alone after having dropped on it from a realistic height. Try to debunk that.

 

[alienentity]

Well, your House of Cards was not really fixed to the ground, was it? You missed that, among many other things. But just soldier on. Get your structure together, drop C on A, etc. and you'll get your $1M.

Excuse me sir. You are in no position to offer $1M to anybody without first having that money in place.

If you do not, as of this date, have that money available, then you are making openly fraudulent statements.

I suggest to others on this thread that a much more meaningful challenge to the leaders of 9-11 truth would be to carry out a real-world demolition of a steel-structure high rise without conventional explosive cutting charges - ie with some form of thermite or thermate, as proposed and endorsed by Dr. Steven Jones and Richard Gage.
The building would have to be demolished in a way consistent with the WTC buildings, and would have to meet other criteria - such as large pools of molten steel under the rubble, with debris fires lasting weeks at temps of over 1500 celsius.
Those are the main truther claims, so they need to be demonstrated scientifically or be discarded into the dustbin of history.

(note: Richard Gage actually can't decide whether it was powerful explosives and/or thermite, so he offers both as part of his conjecture. Steven Jones (aka Dr. Thermite) is a thermite/thermate purist)

Perhaps we can raise $1M in trust for that demonstration.

btw, Heiwa, did you really seriously mean this: 'my hero Richard Gage'?

Sorry for the OT. I'm outta here.

My new video: Controlled Demolition and Freefall: WTC7

I'm a happy violinist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtG_0B4ypkg

 

[alienentity]

I've started a new thread based on the $1M challenge idea:

$1M Controlled Demolition Challenge?

Not for Heiwa; for us. Please take a look.

 

[Gravy]

I thought we had sorted it out. If the mass is 16 500 000 kgs and it is carried by 2.1 m² of steel (core) and we set g = 10 m/s², the stress is is 78.57 MPa to compare with a yield stress of 248 MPa (mild steel). 248/78.57 = 3.15. Urich using a 18% bigger mass and various crititical stresses gets 2.29. If Urich uses my mass he should get 2.7, etc, etc. No big difference.
Bazant may use a mass of 27 000 000 kgs and then we get stress 128.57 MPa and 248/128.57 = 1.92!

In the perimeter there is more steel - say 3.54 m² - but same mass, so the static stress is only 46.61 MPa! 248/46.61 = 5.32 in my article! Reason is the that perimeter must also resist wind loads.

I only use my example to show that WTC 1 was quite a strong structure.

Regardless - an upper part C cannot crush down a similar structure part A (A = 10 x C) due to gravity alone after having dropped on it from a realistic height. Try to debunk that.

Let's say that the engineers are wrong and your Factor of Safety calculations are correct. You believe that stacks of match boxes or lemons are valid analogs to the structures of the Twin Towers, and you propose experiments with these objects to prove that the towers could not have collapsed.

Other truthers have attempted to demonstrate the same concept by using, for example, empty aluminum soda cans to model the towers, neglecting to consider the fact that a soda can, unlike the towers, will support several thousand times its own weight. These amateur modelers do not understand scaling of materials and structures.

So, Heiwa, what are the factors of safety for your match box and lemon models?

 

[nicepants]

Well, your House of Cards was not really fixed to the ground, was it? You missed that, among many other things. But just soldier on. Get your structure together, drop C on A, etc. and you'll get your $1M.

If you actually are serious about this, start a new thread detailing the exact requirements that must be met in order to receive the $1M. Additionally, as the JREF does, you should provide documentation proving that you actually have the $1M to award (I suspect you don't).

 

[bill smith]

Oh-oh.....it looks like Bazant may be vindicated after all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NaAcAgQgoY&eurl=http://www.911blogger.com/

 

[jaydeehess]

,,,,,,,, and still we wait for confirmation that this $million challenge actually is more than huffing and puffing,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

I get plenty of good ideas from the discussions.

Originally Posted By Arquitect:

Now, Heiwa, can you produce similar calcs and figures to back up the "FoS>3" position you've adopted, or is it as substantial as your structural calculations?

I bet!

Of course, there is plenty of crap in most threads. Use the ignore option and it appears friendlier ... and less lively? Kodomo demo shitte imasu.

Vaya vaya, so you're telling me you ignore people who you could embarrass so easilly with your CALCS and FIGURES?