The Heiwa Challenge

[tfk]

You perpetuate your nonsense by being intentionally sloppy in your language. Precise use of language is your enemy. You know it.

"Lower Part A" did NOT carry upper Part C. Your sloppiness.

The SUPPORT BEAMS of Lower Part A carried the weight of Upper Part C.

The FLOORS of Lower Part A never carried upper Part C. They never could carry Upper Part C, even statically. The FLOORS of Part A could NEVER carry even the RUBBLE of upper Part C. They could not carry it statically with zero drop. Clearly they could not carry it dynamically after ANY drop.

LOL. You don't know much about structural analysis, don't you! ...
Lower part A didn't carry upper part C!!!??? Sorry! It did, for 30+ years.

Do you think that you fool anyone, Heiwa.

Do you think that even a CHILD cannot see where you are playing word games?

You just started getting a little bit of fame & notoriety, Anders, with your PR from ae911t.

Stop.
Take a deep breath.
Look yourself in the mirror.
Your words here are PUBLIC.
They will follow you around for the rest of your career.
The internet never forgets.

You KNOW, as well as I know, that nobody is going to allow you to get away with referring to simply "Part A" & "Part C" anymore.

People will FORCE you into talking about the weaker components. You cannot stop them. And you will only end up looking the evasive fool for constantly avoiding the discussion of those components.

Ask yourself whether your very public, professional reputation will be better served by cutting your losses & facing the truth now. Or by hanging onto this nonsense & arriving at a far, far worse point of zero credibility, the disdain of 99.999% of mechanical engineers, and the pity of the general public. Because, even they will see where you've screwed up.

What is FAR worse than being an unknown, incompetent engineer, Anders??

Being a FAMOUS incompetent engineer.

Think about it.

tom

 

[MIKILLINI]

Are you saying it was never envisioned prior to 911?

If so, why would it have been done after 911?

Here's the point Tony; Controlled demolition needs a virtually straight path down to ensure minimal damage and it's an easier method of destroying a building and removing the rubble.

The key physics is gravity: that it is gravity which brings the building down. More than that, it is gravity that smashes concrete walls and floors into rubble, and it is gravity that is responsible for the sometimes vast clouds of dust and debris that billow out from the site. The explosives used have a marginal additional effect in converting the structure into rubble and dust: their job is to cut supports, often in a carefully timed sequence.

It is also only a few dozen companies who do this type of business and they use the same principal: Take out the lower floors first to initiate descent and gravity does the rest.

Nobody has ever done demolition on buildings even close to the height or design as the twin towers were; So if demolition had been planned for these structures, they had no model of how it would collapse or even how a top down implosion would perform.

ETA; It is this principal that debunks Heiwa's challenge: Upper part "C"
falls upon lower part "A". The beginning of lower part "A" is one story
and this single story has to bear the now moving brunt of upper part "C"; It can't withstand the increased energy brought down upon it, nor can each subsequent floor as more mass is added.
The challenge is flawed.

 

[Typicallucas]

...
Your words here are PUBLIC.
They will follow you around for the rest of your career.
The internet never forgets.
...

I have personally witnessed someone get denied by a hiring committee because of the unprofessional things he posted on the internet...

I realized the "internet is anonymous" was a myth when I was 14.

Standing on a street corner and shouting through a loudspeaker is more anonymous than publishing on the internet.

 

[sylvan8798]

Loose relatively slow moving separate pieces of rubble would be more analogous to many separate two x fours hitting a house, in the sense that each individual item is not capable of destroying or doing significant damage to the structure below in it's impact. The structure is capable of absorbing a huge number of these relatively benign impacts. The overall weight does not matter for a building as the lower structure is designed to handle several times the weight of the material above it, so it can never overload statically like the snow load example you used.

This doesn't even make sense. Nonetheless, what you are describing is not what was happening. The rubble zone became more and more compressed and compacted together as it descended, and was ADDED to with each floor, rather like a snow avalanche. And it picked up speed, so if it was capable of breaking the columns and the floor connections for the 94th floor, then it would be even more lethal to the structure on the 93rd floor.

 

[FineWine]

This doesn't even make sense. Nonetheless, what you are describing is not what was happening. The rubble zone became more and more compressed and compacted together as it descended, and was ADDED to with each floor, rather like a snow avalanche. And it picked up speed, so if it was capable of breaking the columns and the floor connections for the 94th floor, then it would be even more lethal to the structure on the 93rd floor.

I'm not an engineer, but I'm learning a lot from the engineers here. What you write is so clear that it defies belief that anyone could close his mind to such an obvious truth.

 

[Audible Click]

I have personally witnessed someone get denied by a hiring committee because of the unprofessional things he posted on the internet...

I realized the "internet is anonymous" was a myth when I was 14.

Standing on a street corner and shouting through a loudspeaker is more anonymous than publishing on the internet.

I think many people don't know that even defunct websites and their contents may be archived in places such as the Internet Archive Wayback Machine.

 

[Typicallucas]

Exactly, archive.org. The internet never forgets, even if you take down your crackpot websites.

 

[tsig]

That will have no effect on him.He is convinced that his harebrained theory is true and that far more qualified people than he do not know what they are talking about.He would be pleased if you posted his drivellings on other forums.

If any truth can be gained from his drivelings he makes some income from official testimony.

 

[Typicallucas]

If any truth can be gained from his drivelings he makes some income from official testimony.

I would love to see the Royal [Rule10]-Slap he would get from a judge when he avoids and ignores questions.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Whereas falling columns, beams and concrete-lined floors don't have great momentum by virtue of their very high mass ?

Agreed, but not necessarily in relation to what they were hitting and the energy needed to penetrate and/or demolish it.

It is relative with the shotgun pellets and grenade shrapnel also, and it is also a function of the stress required. Since shrapnel and pellets impact a small area with a high momentum there will be high stress and more likely failure at that individual point depending upon the strength of the item being struck.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

This doesn't even make sense. Nonetheless, what you are describing is not what was happening. The rubble zone became more and more compressed and compacted together as it descended, and was ADDED to with each floor, rather like a snow avalanche. And it picked up speed, so if it was capable of breaking the columns and the floor connections for the 94th floor, then it would be even more lethal to the structure on the 93rd floor.

Snow avalanches usually overwhelm whatever is in their path more due to gross yielding from the weight of the snow, than dynamic forces from impact.

I doubt that you can show that a few stories of rubble would have been capable of breaking the columns at the 94th floor and there is no evidence of an impulse involving the upper block there.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Here's the point Tony; Controlled demolition needs a virtually straight path down to ensure minimal damage and it's an easier method of destroying a building and removing the rubble.

The key physics is gravity: that it is gravity which brings the building down. More than that, it is gravity that smashes concrete walls and floors into rubble, and it is gravity that is responsible for the sometimes vast clouds of dust and debris that billow out from the site. The explosives used have a marginal additional effect in converting the structure into rubble and dust: their job is to cut supports, often in a carefully timed sequence.

I agree that the explosives are marginal in creating rubble and that it is gravity which is depended on to do the work once the potential energy is released by the explosives.

It is also only a few dozen companies who do this type of business and they use the same principal: Take out the lower floors first to initiate descent and gravity does the rest.

Nobody has ever done demolition on buildings even close to the height or design as the twin towers were; So if demolition had been planned for these structures, they had no model of how it would collapse or even how a top down implosion would perform.

ETA; It is this principal that debunks Heiwa's challenge: Upper part "C"
falls upon lower part "A". The beginning of lower part "A" is one story
and this single story has to bear the now moving brunt of upper part "C"; It can't withstand the increased energy brought down upon it, nor can each subsequent floor as more mass is added.
The challenge is flawed.

In reality no demolition company would have attempted a demolition using one upper block to demolish the much larger portion of the building below as there is a good chance it will lose effectiveness. This is the point Heiwa is making. In an ironic way you agree with him.

However, none of what you say here rules out the fact that a series of controlled demolitions could have been used from the top down. It is fully viable to do that regardless of whether or not it had been done prior to 911.

The fact that there is no evidence of a deceleration of the upper block in WTC 1 seems to indicate that demolition devices were depended on rather heavily more so than just gravity to ensure the collapse kept moving downward.

 

[tfk]

Snow avalanches usually overwhelm whatever is in their path more due to gross yielding from the weight of the snow, than dynamic forces from impact.

I doubt that you can show that a few stories of rubble would have been capable of breaking the columns at the 94th floor and there is no evidence of an impulse involving the upper block there.

Sorry Tony,

I assume that, by impulse, you mean "time derivative of acceleration". What my generation called "jerk".

The papers that I've seen seem to be arguing that there was not a sufficient change in acceleration at each floor. Is this your contention?

tom

 

[Minadin]

Snow avalanches usually overwhelm whatever is in their path more due to gross yielding from the weight of the snow, than dynamic forces from impact.

I doubt that you can show that a few stories of rubble would have been capable of breaking the columns at the 94th floor and there is no evidence of an impulse involving the upper block there.

Well, that's simply not correct. An avalanche will obliterate a house that might have survived the same amount of snow in a heavy snowfall.

Mudslides destroy buildings from the impact of the water, dirt, and debris. If you piled that debris gently along the same face of the building, it wouldn't have the same effect.

Waterfalls erode rock faces. Niagra Falls has moved 7 miles upstream in the past 10,000 years. and it's carved a 200-ft deep basin at its base. Grand Canyon, anyone? Hey, check out the damage from the reservoir breach at Taum Sauk.

And, what do you mean by 'breaking the columns'? Only the connections need to be broken. Lots of structural members in the rubble pile at Ground Zero were largely intact in and of themselves, but had become dissasociated from each other.

 

[tfk]

Tony,

What do you figure the pressure increase in the collapsing floors were, as a volume of air about .9 x 200 x 200 x 12 = 430,000 cubic feet was forced out in about 0.1 seconds.

You've got a piston evacuating at about 4.3 million cubic feet per second. When the South Tower fell, it apparently set up gale force winds all the way over in the North Tower stairwell.



Do you think that it got up to, say, a 1/2 atmosphere overpressure? 7.5 psi?? My guess would be "hell yeah". But that's just a SWAG. I'd love to see some numbers.

At 3 psi overpressure, you've generated about 430 lbs/sq foot load on the concrete floors. I think that they were only rated to about 300 psf, isn't that right?

BTW, the one thing that gets rid of "jerk" REALLY well in cars is shock absorbers. The towers were giant shock absorbers. There is no surprise to me that there was no measurable changes to the acceleration.

Even if your recording equipment had been fast enough to record it.

tom

PS. Do you know if the person who did that analysis looked at every frame?

 

[MIKILLINI]

I agree that the explosives are marginal in creating rubble and that it is gravity which is depended on to do the work once the potential energy is released by the explosives.




In reality no demolition company would have attempted a demolition using one upper block to demolish the much larger portion of the building below as there is a good chance it will lose effectiveness. This is the point Heiwa is making. In an ironic way you agree with him.

There is no proof of any demolition used in the twin towers, and your still missing my point on the flaw of Heiwa's challenge. In fact I'll make it easier for you to understand:

As the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the other 12 floors above it (Upper part "C") dropped down to floor 97, floor 97 (Lower part "A") was not going to withstand the weight of 13 floors dropping upon it (There, now you have the effect of gravity at work). Just like WTC 2 having 29 floors dropping onto floor 81.
The floors were designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum

However, none of what you say here rules out the fact that a series of controlled demolitions could have been used from the top down. It is fully viable to do that regardless of whether or not it had been done prior to 911.

However, none of what you say here proves that any demolition was used. Seismic readings during collapse did not pick up any ground vibration until sections of the towers had struck nearby buildings. These seismic instruments did not pick up any vibration that explosions would have caused.

T

he fact that there is no evidence of a deceleration of the upper block in WTC 1 seems to indicate that demolition devices were depended on rather heavily more so than just gravity to ensure the collapse kept moving downward.

Once again it is gravity that brings the building down and smashes concrete walls and floors into rubble.

 

[Heiwa]

Do you think that you fool anyone, Heiwa.

Your words here are PUBLIC.
They will follow you around for the rest of your career.
The internet never forgets.


Think about it.

tom

Thanks for reminding me. My papers are on the Internet (http://heiwaco.tripod.com ) since many years and I will ensure that continues. Very popular papers, to say the least.

Just copy/paste anything you disagree with and we'll talk.

 

[FineWine]

Thanks for reminding me. My papers are on the Internet (http://heiwaco.tripod.com ) since many years and I will ensure that continues. Very popular papers, to say the least.

Just copy/paste anything you disagree with and we'll talk.

The real engineers have shown you the absurd errors you make and your reposnse is to babble mindlessly. You have never demonstrated that you can even understand what they are trying to tell you, much less articulate a coherent reponse. You can't produce a single calculation.

No, you won't talk. You will repeat, like a person whose brain has been numbed by powerful drugs, empty mantras. Your papers are rubbish. No serious journal will publish them.

 

[tfk]

Thanks for reminding me.

You're welcome.

My papers are on the Internet (http://heiwaco.tripod.com ) since many years and I will ensure that continues. Very popular papers, to say the least.

Ahhh, so THAT's what this is all about...

Just copy/paste anything you disagree with and we'll talk.

"... we'll talk"??

Is something going to magically change?

You've adamantly refused to talk to me for about 20 posts now. Instead of talking (i.e., open, back & forth dialog), you keep putting up advertisements for your papers. That is not talking.

It is also not polite.

Tell me, Anders, "How do you do it with the bluffing?" Or in original, "er weiB, dass es ein Fehler ist, aber er kann nichts dagegen machen."

tom

 

[Heiwa]

Message from ASCE

Just got following from ASCE

Ref.: Ms. No. EMENG-296
What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York
Anders Björkman, M.Sc.

Dear Mr Björkman,

Your Discussion, listed above, has been accepted for publication in ASCE's Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

...

You will be notified of a publication date once your paper has been schedule for an issue.

Thank you for submitting your work to ASCE's Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

Sincerely,

Jennifer Parresol
Editorial Coordinator


---

So let's continue the discussion there! This thread is just about The Heiwa Challenge! Pls submit you structures!