Another Question for Heiwa : Amazing Fireproof Steel

[Belz...]

Vous etes fous, n'est pas?

That's "vous êtes fous, n'est-ce pas ?", but nice try.


Heiwa, what are your qualifications in this field ? I see many a person with experience here, but you ?

 

[Heiwa]

There's your problem, right there. The problem is that buckling was observed, therefore a theory based on the assumption that it can't happen is an unrealistic one.

Three questions for you, Heiwa:
(1) What were the temperatures of all the columns that failed?
(2) What were the yield stresses for each of those columns?
(3) What were the buckling stresses for each of those columns?

You can't actually answer any of those questions, I suspect. Without those answers, your entire analysis is yet another Unevaluated Inequality Fallacy.

Dave

1. According Nist no column in the initiation zone were heated >500°C which does not affect yield/buckling stresses very much (20% reduction). So I use the Nist data in my article. And evidently all columns in the 4 000 m² fire zone were not heated to that temperature simultaneously.

2. I assume around 250 MPa at ambient temperature and say 200 MPa at 500° C for all columns at floors 94/98 of WTC1 (normal steel). Nist failed to sample the relevant columns.

3. Due to low slenderness ratios of the columns at floors 94/98 of WTC1 the buckling stress exceeds yield = no buckling can take place except compressive deformtion/folding up (not seen anywhere) and which does not lead to collapse.

Actual static stresses in the columns at floors 94/98 of WTC1 were <70 MPa so it is difficult to visulize how they can be overloaded.

What buckling was observed at WTC1? The alleged pull-in of a wall on a photo? Sorry, no buckling there. Wall is just deformed a little - actually very strangely deformed which does not make any sense and the time is not clear. The wall is compressed only at 50 MPa and would not deform like that unless 4-5 floors are completely disconnected from it - 300+ bolts sheared off - which is not likely.

Happy with my answers?

 

[einsteen]

I'm wondering, that core is needed for the vertical load, assume if you remove the core only at one story then the perimeter columns probably cannot handle the static load and start to buckle, even not if they are all intact and not affected by fire. In the South Tower videos there is a very good one available, you really see that (after the damaged columns buckle) the intact perimeter columns at the other sides start to buckle exactly at the places to be expected when the top section starts rotating. My hypothesis is that the core really failed first. That is in contradiction with a wall that fails first, but since nothing can be seen inside, but only outside, I don't think it is a bad idea. From the outside that also explains why the block topples in the direction of least resistance after the core has been demolished and if that is not the case then the core is not destroyed at the same time. The perimeter columns weren't designed for vertical loads but for perpendicular loads, does that not mean that if you remove them at a single story that all the floors (or floors connected with each other as a solid top section) will still hang at the core columns ?

 

[Heiwa]

Why not ? How much of that force do you think B can handle ? Remember, A isn't falling by 12 pixels, in reality.

B can handle (X+A) so evidently B can handle A alone.

Evidently A is not dropped on B like a hammer head. X is assumed to compress between B and A to 0 thickness (and disappear ?), which takes time and consumes all the potential energy released by A that lands on B quietly.

Actually poor compressed X is still there between B and A, compressed into a nice cushion for A to rest on. A didn't fall in free air! It just changed position at the rate of X being compressed.

You do not suggest that X was removed instantaneously like magic?

 

[Heiwa]

I'm wondering, that core is needed for the vertical load, assume if you remove the core only at one story then the perimeter columns probably cannot handle the static load and start to buckle, even not if they are all intact and not affected by fire. In the South Tower videos there is a very good one available, you really see that (after the damaged columns buckle) the intact perimeter columns at the other sides start to buckle exactly at the places to be expected when the top section starts rotating. My hypothesis is that the core really failed first. That is in contradiction with a wall that fails first, but since nothing can be seen inside, but only outside, I don't think it is a bad idea. From the outside that also explains why the block topples in the direction of least resistance after the core has been demolished and if that is not the case then the core is not destroyed at the same time. The perimeter columns weren't designed for vertical loads but for perpendicular loads, does that not mean that if you remove them that all the floors will still hang at the core columns ?

Are you suggesting that all 47 core columns failed simultaneously first. What would demolish the core columns first? They are individually much heavier than any perimeter column, really solid and with much lower slenderness ratios = cannot buckle under any circumstances.

NB that the perimeter columns were designed for vertical loads (from the floors) resulting in 50 MPa compression. Any lateral wind load on one side would be transmitted to the core and to the other side wall via the floors and thus impose a shear force in the column and therefore some bending of it. On 911 there was very little wind. A vertical load on a floor in itself cannot impose any shear or bending on a column as the connection is a simple bolt.

 

[einsteen]

Heiwa,

I don't have the numbers but only a small fraction of them were destroyed by the plane. No of course I can't imagine how that happens after 60 minutes of silence. What is your opinion btw about the inward-bowing ?

ps. I'm a truther although a critical one.

 

[DGM]

Are you suggesting that all 47 core columns failed simultaneously first. What would demolish the core columns first? They are individually much heavier than any perimeter column, really solid and with much lower slenderness ratios = cannot buckle under any circumstances.
NB that the perimeter columns were designed for vertical loads (from the floors) resulting in 50 MPa compression. Any lateral wind load on one side would be transmitted to the core and to the other side wall via the floors and thus impose a shear force in the column and therefore some bending of it. On 911 there was very little wind. A vertical load on a floor in itself cannot impose any shear or bending on a column as the connection is a simple bolt.

I see Heiwa is back to the indestructible steel argument. I wish I had some of that.

 

[westprog]

B can handle (X+A) so evidently B can handle A alone.

Evidently A is not dropped on B like a hammer head. X is assumed to compress between B and A to 0 thickness (and disappear ?), which takes time and consumes all the potential energy released by A that lands on B quietly.

Actually poor compressed X is still there between B and A, compressed into a nice cushion for A to rest on. A didn't fall in free air! It just changed position at the rate of X being compressed.

You do not suggest that X was removed instantaneously like magic?

There's no need for X to disappear like magic. It's merely necessary for X to slip sideways a tiny bit. The building wasn't a solid structure. If the connection between X and A fails, then X will be able to slide through A without much difficulty.

It's fascinating to visualise Heiwa's theory of what should have happened. The supports give way, the building drops down, each component lands neatly on the corresponding piece one floor down, the steel compresses and then bounces back, and the entire structure sits there safe and sound. Just put the fire out, do a bit of refurbishment and you could move straight back in.

 

[funk de fino]

1. According Nist no column in the initiation zone were heated >500°C which does not affect yield/buckling stresses very much (20% reduction). So I use the Nist data in my article. And evidently all columns in the 4 000 m² fire zone were not heated to that temperature simultaneously.

NIST do not claim this. You are getting mixed up with samples tested. Refine your english or your claim.

2. I assume around 250 MPa at ambient temperature and say 200 MPa at 500° C for all columns at floors 94/98 of WTC1 (normal steel). Nist failed to sample the relevant columns.

NIST tested only items from as built and observed locations. No point testing something if they do not know where it came from.

3. Due to low slenderness ratios of the columns at floors 94/98 of WTC1 the buckling stress exceeds yield = no buckling can take place except compressive deformtion/folding up (not seen anywhere) and which does not lead to collapse.

Incorrect assumption not supported by calculations.

Actual static stresses in the columns at floors 94/98 of WTC1 were <70 MPa so it is difficult to visulize how they can be overloaded.

What buckling was observed at WTC1? The alleged pull-in of a wall on a photo? Sorry, no buckling there. Wall is just deformed a little - actually very strangely deformed which does not make any sense and the time is not clear. The wall is compressed only at 50 MPa and would not deform like that unless 4-5 floors are completely disconnected from it - 300+ bolts sheared off - which is not likely.

Happy with my answers?

LIE

Your answers are junk

 

[Dave Rogers]

What buckling was observed at WTC1? The alleged pull-in of a wall on a photo? Sorry, no buckling there. Wall is just deformed a little - actually very strangely deformed which does not make any sense and the time is not clear. The wall is compressed only at 50 MPa and would not deform like that unless 4-5 floors are completely disconnected from it - 300+ bolts sheared off - which is not likely.

In other words, you're denying the visual evidence because it doesn't fit your theory. That's why your theory is nothing to do with reality.

Happy with my answers?

Well, laughter is a sign of happiness.

Dave

 

[Belz...]

B can handle (X+A) so evidently B can handle A alone.

Evidently, you have even less than a gradeschool knowledge of physics.

You DO know about kinetic energy and speed, don't you ?

Evidently A is not dropped on B like a hammer head.

Evidently ? The damn thing came crashing down on it.

X is assumed to compress between B and A to 0 thickness (and disappear ?)

X didn't dissapear. Some of it was blown away by the crash and some of it collapsed, adding to A's mass.

which takes time and consumes all the potential energy released by A that lands on B quietly.

Heiwa. Please listen closely: get a high-school level physics class. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

Actually poor compressed X is still there between B and A, compressed into a nice cushion for A to rest on.

A cushion ? Where in the blue hell did you get that from ?

Honestly, I have no idea how truthers can claim to challenge the work of professional engineers and architects in this matter when it's obvious (or evident) that they, themselves, have no knowledge in the field.

 

[twinstead]

Honestly, I have no idea how truthers can claim to challenge the work of professional engineers and architects in this matter when it's obvious (or evident) that they, themselves, have no knowledge in the field.

It's 'cause all those sciency people can't think outside the box, man.

 

[Heiwa]

1. NIST do not claim this. You are getting mixed up with samples tested. Refine your english or your claim.

2. NIST tested only items from as built and observed locations. No point testing something if they do not know where it came from.

3. Incorrect assumption not supported by calculations.

LIE

Your answers are junk

1. Wrong.
2. Sloppy work then!
3. Calculations are found in my article. Very solid columns! Very weak connections between floors and columns according sound structural design. Thus a non-rigid design that will not collapse by itself (gravity).

You do not believe I write an article without solid knowledge and correct calculations, do you?

 

[Heiwa]

Evidently, you have even less than a gradeschool knowledge of physics.

1. You DO know about kinetic energy and speed, don't you ?

2. Evidently ? The damn thing came crashing down on it.

3. X didn't dissapear. Some of it was blown away by the crash and some of it collapsed, adding to A's mass.

4. Heiwa. Please listen closely: get a high-school level physics class. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

5. A cushion ? Where in the blue hell did you get that from ?

6. Honestly, I have no idea how truthers can claim to challenge the work of professional engineers and architects in this matter when it's obvious (or evident) that they, themselves, have no knowledge in the field.

1. Yes.

2. Did it? According my observations the damned thing (A) breaks up before it even impinges it (B).

3. So X was blown away? By gravity? Or CD? Pls clarify.

4. Thanks for the advice. I only use basics from my university (a very good one).

5. See 3.

6. To advance knowledge a little discussion doesn't harm.

PS. Study my article and propose improvements/corrections in a civilized manner. No need to mentally collapse.

 

[Heiwa]

1. In other words, you're denying the visual evidence because it doesn't fit your theory.

2. That's why your theory is nothing to do with reality.



Well, laughter is a sign of happiness.

Dave

1. You have not read my article, have you? Visual evidence suggests that the rigid upper block of WTC1 is not rigid (now proven) and does not come crushing down (also proven). Just look at the videos, FGS.

2. What theory are you talking about. That Nist & Co re-do their analysises? What's wrong with that?

 

[Belz...]

It's 'cause all those sciency people can't think outside the box, man.

Of course! All those years of study just set their minds like concrete¹. Only those with NO EXPERIENCE whatsoever in the field can see the truth for what it is!! I've seen the light! OMFG Inside job!!!111

^[1]Not to be confused with Invisicrete^tm

 

[Minadin]

1. According Nist no column in the initiation zone were heated >500°C which does not affect yield/buckling stresses very much (20% reduction). So I use the Nist data in my article. And evidently all columns in the 4 000 m² fire zone were not heated to that temperature simultaneously.

Erm, Heiwa, disregarding all the rest of the wrong stuff in your point here, even you should know that steel loses strength when heated. Standard structural steel loses half of its strength at about 550°C (that's 50%).

You can look this up easily.

 

[Belz...]

2. What theory are you talking about. That Nist & Co re-do their analysises? What's wrong with that?

When attempting "gotcha"s, you should really think it over.

What part of "your theory" didn't register ?

 

[Dave Rogers]

You do not believe I write an article without solid knowledge and correct calculations, do you?

Yes, that's precisely what we all believe.

Dave

 

[Newtons Bit]

Yes, that's precisely what we all believe.

Dave

I concur. The only person that believes that Heiwa's calculations are "solid" is Heiwa. Everyone else knows that they are crap.