The Heiwa Challenge

[tfk]

But beware, maybe the 90% below destroys or stops the top 10% before!

1. It turns out that it does not matter if the top is crushed. The mass and kinetic energy of the upper part - even as rubble - is fully capable of crush the lower part completely. As is TRIVIALLY easy to prove.

2. But the destruction does NOT progress more that a couple of stories upward.

And the exact purpose of the analysis that I provided here [ http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4743226#post4743226 ] was to explain - IN DETAIL - why the destruction is not symmetrical. Why not more than a couple of floors of the upper part are destroyed during the crush down.

And that explanation is PRECISELY why you adamantly REFUSED to discuss the issue with me. And are now back to simply making unsupportable assertions.

Coward.

tom

 

[BigAl]

can you give any example in the world history of steel framed buildings over 15 floors collapsing from thermal expansion ? 9/11 excluded.

Can you name another building that had a cantilever beam at a critical point in the structure?

No?

I didn't think so.

 

[bill smith]

1. It turns out that it does not matter if the top is crushed. The mass and kinetic energy of the upper part - even as rubble - is fully capable of crush the lower part completely. As is TRIVIALLY easy to prove.

2. But the destruction does NOT progress more that a couple of stories upward.

And the exact purpose of the analysis that I provided here [ http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4743226#post4743226 ] was to explain - IN DETAIL - why the destruction is not symmetrical. Why not more than a couple of floors of the upper part are destroyed during the crush down.

And that explanation is PRECISELY why you adamantly REFUSED to discuss the issue with me. And are now back to simply making unsupportable assertions.

Coward.

tom

Hi there T.

It might be a small thing but something about your drawing here does not seem accurate. To wit;-
In he cartoonlike cutout of the plane on the face of the building I can accept that the perimeter columns are missing as depicted but what about the 45 massive core columns that were still intact ? Not to mention the intact opposite perimeter columns ? There were 47 core columns to start with of which I believe two were severed. The core was around 96% intact then.



Is this a significant and important omission ?

 

[Newtons Bit]

Can you give any example in the world history of steel framed buildings over 15 floors collapsing from thermal expansion ? 9/11 excluded.

WTC7 was a VERY irregular building. You might even say that it was unique. Can YOU provide a example of a similar building in the world history of steel framed buildings... at all?

The thing that non-engineers don't get, is that different construction and different framing techniques fail in different ways.

I imagine Bill Smith would have reacted to the first block shear failure by saying, "omg it's never happened before, it can't be true!"

 

[Minadin]

Well you don't have to be en engineer, but I am sure it helps. There are a lot of engineering principles that are counter-intuitive. When I was young, and before I had taken any engineering classes, I actually thought, for instance, that fireproofing on steel was silly, because it didn't burn.

 

[tfk]

bill smith,

I may not be an engineer but I am not stupid either.

Sorry, the vote on that proposition has been tallied for quite some time. It was a landslide. The news is not good for you.

I don't believe what Heiwa says because it goes against the OCT but because it makes sense to me.

Considering the vote above, "what makes sense to you" is singularly irrelevant to the real world.

I will be happy to hear what these other engineers ... have to say.

You have already heard what many other engineers (Including me) have said.

Heiwa says: Sum of all forces = zero
Engineers say: Sum of all forces = mass * acceleration

Heiwa says: "Equal & opposite forces at contact means [variable at different times] 1. no destruction, 2. destruction of bigger component, 3. destruction of globally stronger component, 4. instantaneous deceleration to zero velocity or 5. bounce.
Engineers say: "Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. And nope."

Heiwa says: "Average stresses in a structure determines what will fail."
Engineers say: "Nope. LOCAL stresses determine what will fail."

Heiwa says: "Dynamic loads = static loads"
Engineers say: "WTF?? Dynamic loads are MUCH higher than static loads."

Heiwa says: "If you drop a bowling ball onto a piece of thin glass, the glass will stop the bowling ball."
Engineers say: "Get the broom & dust pan."

Heiwa says: "Engineers don't know what they are talking about."
Engineers say: "Yeah. Sure kid. Say, did you see that the Sox took another one from the Yankees?"

I will be happy to hear what ... Bazant [has] to say.

Here is a VERY good idea of what Bazant will say.

"The interdisciplinary interests of Bjorkmann, a naval architect with a background in ... , ahh ... , well, a background, are appreciated. Although none of the discusser’s criticisms is scientifically correct, his discussion provides a welcome opportunity to dispel doubts recently voiced by some in the community outside structural mechanics and engineering."

Or:

"The interest of Bjorkmann, a naval insurance claims adjuster, is appreciated. After close scrutiny, however, his calculations are found to be incorrect, for reasons explained in the following."

Or, more parsimoniously:

"Who farted?"

I don't for a minute believe that they will be able to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear but I am open to persuasion.

No, you are not.

You are "open to persuasion" that:

"the plane could not have penetrated the outer wall of the towers under any circumstances"
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post36343

"Robertson, Skilling & Di Martini believed the plane should have bounced off of the side of the building"
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post36040
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post36182

"since the plane did not bounce off, molecular disruption was used to get the 767 thru the outer wall of the tower"
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post36042
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post36076

"ae911t completely debunked the WTC7 report within an hour of its release."
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post35812

"silent explosives could explain the lack of explosions"
[bill has stated that the demolition shown starting at 0:38 of this video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3ePuE0tvp4 - proves the existence silent explosives. Rather than a closed window.]
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post21800

THAT's the sort of nonsense that you are "open to".

tk

 

[bill smith]

The forging of a Truther. Thx T.

 

[tfk]

Remember when Sunder explained it first though? He introduced it as if it was a new physical law. It's actually quite funny now when I look back. When he said 'thermal expansion' I had to do a double-take. I thought 'isn't that just the normal expansion under heat' ? Even at the end of his lecture I was still wondering if I hadn't misheard him somehow. I wonder will Bazant be as amusing ?

No, Sunder did NOT introduce it as "a new physical law".

You have a absurdly torqued, agenda-driven ability to misunderstand simple statements.

As you have proven here repeatedly.

With several episodes like:
Bill Smith: [... generic idiotic statement ...]
Poster X: "Bill, that statement was idiotic."
Bill Smith: "I see that you agree with my statement."

Sunder said that there was a well-known phenomenon (thermal expansion from fire alone) that has, for the first time, been identified as responsible for bringing down a building.

And then he gave about 5 unique characteristics of WTC7 that contributed to this rare, possibly unique, event.

He did not even say that it is the first time that it has happened. He said it is the first time that it has been recognized as happening.

 

[bill smith]

I think you are in a bad mood tonight T.

 

[GlennB]

bill smith,

Sorry, the vote on that proposition has been tallied for quite some time. It was a landslide. The news is not good for you.

Here is a VERY good idea of what Bazant will say.

"The interdisciplinary interests of Bjorkmann, a naval architect with a background in ... , ahh ... , well, a background, are appreciated. Although none of the discusser’s criticisms is scientifically correct, his discussion provides a welcome opportunity to dispel doubts recently voiced by some in the community outside structural mechanics and engineering."

Or:

"The interest of Bjorkmann, a naval insurance claims adjuster, is appreciated. After close scrutiny, however, his calculations are found to be incorrect, for reasons explained in the following."

Or, more parsimoniously:

"Who farted?"

tk

Snipped and nominated Haven't laughed so much in a long time. It's 00:15 here, and my wife is asking, from the bedroom some way distant, "why are you cackling so much". The funniest bit is bolded. Maybe. Could be the "Who farted?" part. tfk .. quit while you're ahead! Retire!

 

[sylvan8798]

My office has designed a number of structures for thermal expansion. If you don't do very special detailing, the thermal expansion can bring the whole structure down.

Typical office buildings don't have this sort of detailing.

Thermal expansion is often an issue even in building. The sun beating on one side of a brick faced building all afternoon can cause enough expansion in the brick to cause cracking problems if there isn't some play in the supports.

If a building is long enough, and the potential seasonal temperature differences are large enough, expansion joints may have to be added to allow for variations in the dimensions over the seasons.

Every civil or mechanical engineer learns about thermal expansion in Strengths of Materials class, which is usually sophomore year.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Thermal expansion is often an issue even in building. The sun beating on one side of a brick faced building all afternoon can cause enough expansion in the brick to cause cracking problems if there isn't some play in the supports.

If a building is long enough, and the potential seasonal temperature differences are large enough, expansion joints may have to be added to allow for variations in the dimensions over the seasons.

Every civil or mechanical engineer learns about thermal expansion in Strengths of Materials class, which is usually sophomore year.

That's a service condition, not a strength condition. We're talking building failure. And yes, sophomore level undergrads should already be proficient in analyzing it in simple situations.

 

[bill smith]

Snipped and nominated Haven't laughed so much in a long time. It's 00:15 here, and my wife is asking, from the bedroom some way distant, "why are you cackling so much". The funniest bit is bolded. Maybe. Could be the "Who farted?" part. tfk .. quit while you're ahead! Retire!

England was 22;15 at the time you posted. Are you in Poland or somewhere like that ?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I think you are in a bad mood tonight T.

Bill...

You are "open to persuasion" that:

"the plane could not have penetrated the outer wall of the towers under any circumstances"
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post36343

"Robertson, Skilling & Di Martini believed the plane should have bounced off of the side of the building"
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post36040
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post36182

"since the plane did not bounce off, molecular disruption was used to get the 767 thru the outer wall of the tower"
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post36042
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post36076

"ae911t completely debunked the WTC7 report within an hour of its release."
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post35812

"silent explosives could explain the lack of explosions"
[bill has stated that the demolition shown starting at 0:38 of this video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3ePuE0tvp4 - proves the existence silent explosives. Rather than a closed window.]
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post21800

THAT's the sort of nonsense that you are "open to".

tk

the posts pointed out by him reveal to me a lot about your knowledge of these topics. And you still haven't learned, and I doubt you will at this point. It really takes a special kind of -- I'll say "incompetence" in place of more insulting terms. The material being discussed in this thread is not something you're prepared to discuss, and Heiwa isn't qualified to discussed upon.... sorry

Thermal expansion is often an issue even in building. The sun beating on one side of a brick faced building all afternoon can cause enough expansion in the brick to cause cracking problems if there isn't some play in the supports.
<snip>
Every civil or mechanical engineer learns about thermal expansion in Strengths of Materials class, which is usually sophomore year.

They had to take it into consideration when they were building the beijing tower (this one). Particularly when the two separate towers were to meet at one point joining them. IIRC they waited for the coldest months of the year in that region to avoid problems due to the temperature differentials, or something to that effect. I forget where it was posted... and unfortunately good case studies on this building and it's sister which got torched a few months ago aren't widely available online

 

[tfk]

Hi there T.

It might be a small thing but something about your drawing here does not seem accurate. To wit;-
In he cartoonlike cutout of the plane on the face of the building I can accept that the perimeter columns are missing as depicted but what about the 45 massive core columns that were still intact ? Not to mention the intact opposite perimeter columns ? There were 47 core columns to start with of which I believe two were severed. The core was around 96% intact then.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16704http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_303614a37f8ba7835c.jpg

Is this a significant and important omission ?

No, it is completely irrelevant. Nice to see the degree to which you pay attention.

It's irrelevant because NONE of this discussion was related to collapse initiation. The instant that collapse had begun, the core columns buckled and their connections failed, as did the peripheral columns. This is proven beyond doubt by the very fact that there were no core columns projecting out of the roof during the first several seconds of collapse.

ALL of my discussion was related to collapse progression. And specifically why it did NOT result in symmetrical destruction upwards & downwards as your befuddled mentor believes.

Or, far more likely, does NOT still believe. But has gone so far down this path that he recognized there is no graceful retreat.

The reason that this is more likely is precisely the fact that he refuses to discuss the issue. If he was still simply bewildered, he WOULD discuss it. The fact that he refuses is a VERY STRONG indicator that he already realizes that he's screwed the pooch. But is too arrogant to admit it.

BTW, just before collapse, the core was NOT "96% intact". It wasn't anywhere CLOSE to 96% intact.

It was bent. It's loads were massively offset, resulting in huge bending moments. It was being heated at it's critical locations. it was creeping. Several of its intact columns were no longer carrying their rated loads, meaning that other columns were carrying far greater loads than they would if the loads had been shared, as in the intact structure.

You don't understand this, bill. I have no idea whether or not you COULD understand it. Because you've completely hidden what intelligence you MIGHT possess behind a curtain of agenda-driven stooopid that you DO possess.

So, I'll make a deal with you. You stop pretending to ask me questions as though you cared about the answer. And I'll stop pointing out that you don't care about the answers in the first place.

Deal?

tk

 

[GlennB]

England was 22;15 at the time you posted. Are you in Poland or somewhere like that ?

Arkadia ... Greece. What makes you think I'm in England?

 

[bill smith]

No, it is completely irrelevant. Nice to see the degree to which you pay attention.

It's irrelevant because NONE of this discussion was related to collapse initiation. The instant that collapse had begun, the core columns buckled and their connections failed, as did the peripheral columns. This is proven beyond doubt by the very fact that there were no core columns projecting out of the roof during the first several seconds of collapse.

ALL of my discussion was related to collapse progression. And specifically why it did NOT result in symmetrical destruction upwards & downwards as your befuddled mentor believes.

Or, far more likely, does NOT still believe. But has gone so far down this path that he recognized there is no graceful retreat.

The reason that this is more likely is precisely the fact that he refuses to discuss the issue. If he was still simply bewildered, he WOULD discuss it. The fact that he refuses is a VERY STRONG indicator that he already realizes that he's screwed the pooch. But is too arrogant to admit it.

BTW, just before collapse, the core was NOT "96% intact". It wasn't anywhere CLOSE to 96% intact.

It was bent. It's loads were massively offset, resulting in huge bending moments. It was being heated at it's critical locations. it was creeping. Several of its intact columns were no longer carrying their rated loads, meaning that other columns were carrying far greater loads than they would if the loads had been shared, as in the intact structure.

You don't understand this, bill. I have no idea whether or not you COULD understand it. Because you've completely hidden what intelligence you MIGHT possess behind a curtain of agenda-driven stooopid that you DO possess.

So, I'll make a deal with you. You stop pretending to ask me questions as though you cared about the answer. And I'll stop pointing out that you don't care about the answers in the first place.

Deal?

tk

You left lots and lots of meat on this bone T. But I will wait to see what a real expert has to say about it. I might come back on it later though.

 

[bill smith]

Arkadia ... Greece. What makes you think I'm in England?

Cool. I lived in Greece for a while. Crete- on the Libyan sea. I don't know, I just assumed you were posting from England for some reason.

 

[GlennB]

Cool I lived in Greece for a while. Crete- on the Libyan sea. I don't know, I just assumed you were posting from England for some reason.

OK that's nice. But you seemed to be leaning towards the idea that I'm unable to read the little clock at the bottom right of my PC, or setting out to deceive for no apparent reason. Why on earth might you doubt my idea of my local time, or lie about where I live? That's worrying.

 

[FineWine]

I was just thinking...

No, you weren't.

now that it looks like Bazant will be forced to accept Heiwa'a challenge what on Earth is he going to do ?

Like all the real engineers on this forum, he will show that your goofy guru is clueless about basic physics.

He has to demonstrate that the impossibe is possible...

No, he has to show that what actually happened on 9/11 can be explained by real engineers who know what they're talking about.

There was a time that he could pull the wool over people's eyes but that time is long gone. Reducing the whole thing to impenetrable technical jargon will not work either as eminently qualified Truthers and other Techs will be able to see right through it.

There are no "eminently qualified truthers." All "truthers" are fools and liars. You, for example, are incapable, through lack of education and intelligence, to see through the absurdities your leaders shove down your throat.

So what CAN he do ?

He can radically alter his explanation by introducing a peviously unknown phenomenon into the equation- A bit ike NIST did with the 'thermal expansion' in WTC7. It will have to be very exoticly exotic to explain WTC1 though.

Or he may decline to answer at all....

He can, and will, show the errors Heiwa makes and is unable to correct. Remember, nobody who knows anything agrees with Heiwa. Your mind is enslaved by his nonsense because it supports your zany political agenda.
Note that when the real engineers here explain Heiwa's errors, you bleat incoherent gibberish and then return to asking the same silly questions. Nothing penetrates your wall of ignorance. You won't learn anything from the ASCE people either. You can't.