Another Question for Heiwa : Amazing Fireproof Steel

[Architect]

Collapse mechanism well understood? Nist could not produce any 'failed' columns from the initiation zone that would have started a collapse; just said they 'buckled' someway! But how? Bending, twisting, crumping up? And what happened to the two end supports of every 'failed' column in the initiation zone? Ripped apart, twisted apart?

Again you willfully misconstrue the evidence presented to you. If you are unable to grasp the basic structural concept then I find it difficult to see how you can seek to speak authoritively on this subject.

The deformation of the outer envelope is supported by incontrovertible visual evidence, moreover this envelope is not columinar in the nature you suggest but rather composed of a series of interlinked box sections.

That heat can affect a horizontal steel beam is well known; it sags due to its own weight and load on top - and it might break in the middle or at the ends ... and the load may drop off.

With respect, this represents a significant change from your original position that steel is not, in fact, susceptible to fire induced failure and I am disappointed that you have not grasped the opportunity to acknowledge your original error.

Notwithstanding your new position, however, you again fail to understand the implications of heat-induced deformation and failure. In general it would not be possible for a continuous reinforced concrete slab to simply "drop off".

And yes the end joints may fail leaving the outer envelope unrestrained and - this is a point you will fail to grasp - susceptible to deformation. Alternatively (as in the case of the WTC) the connections may remain intact resulting in strain deformation of the envelope and hence - wait for it - deformation.

How heat affects a vertical steel column is less well known. It depends on the cross section and slenderness ratio of the column. In the WTC1 case you would expect every core column just to crumple up (being compressed) when heated enough but no such effect was seen. And what happens to the load above then? Does it free fall?
Evidently not. The load is used to crumple up the column! Basic actually and easy to show in a model test;

Again, you wholly disregard the actual collapse mechanism and the failure of mode of complex structural frames. Initiation zone is the external envelope, per visual data, not the internal columns - you will recall that the cores in fact stood for some 10-15 seconds after the main collapses, before the lack of restraint led to failure.

It is also wholly incorrect to assume that the columns act monolithically during the collapse, inasmuch as following the failure of the restraining envelope one would expect failure at the joints rather than mid-section.

This is quite basic stuff. I don't understand why you're having difficulty grasping it, to be honest.

 

[Heiwa]

Again, you wholly disregard the actual collapse mechanism and the failure of mode of complex structural frames. Initiation zone is the external envelope, per visual data, not the internal columns - you will recall that the cores in fact stood for some 10-15 seconds after the main collapses, before the lack of restraint led to failure.

It is also wholly incorrect to assume that the columns act monolithically during the collapse, inasmuch as following the failure of the restraining envelope one would expect failure at the joints rather than mid-section.

This is quite basic stuff. I don't understand why you're having difficulty grasping it, to be honest.

Collapse mechanism is one thing, initiation is another. If no initiation, no collapse. And initiation - simultaneous failure of 280+ columns - is not possible and not seen! Free fall of a rigid load above is not possible and not seen. Steel structures do not behave like that. Luckily.

And no, I do not recall that the cores stood for 10-15 seconds after the main (?) collapses. What I recall from WTC1 is that the block above the so called initiation zone breaks up ... before anything else happens incl. initiation and global collapse. It would appear that the WTC1 upper block must have been affected by some sort of CD. This is the main subject of my paper, BTW.

Cordially

Heiwa

PS - I do not understand why you insist that I pretend steel is not affected by heat? Can't you read? Evidently I pretend that 500°C has little effect on steel - based on tests and experience.

 

[Architect]

Collapse mechanism is one thing, initiation is another. If no initiation, no collapse. And initiation - simultaneous failure of 280+ columns - is not possible and not seen! Free fall of a rigid load above is not possible and not seen. Steel structures do not behave like that. Luckily.

You seem to misunderstand technical terms, and I find this puzzling. I suggest you reread my post and then respond in appropriate terms.

By way of example, my overview of the collapse mechanism includes reference to the initiation site and you should be aware that there is conclusive evidence for the deformation (and thereafter failure) of the outer envelope.

The remainder of your opening paragraph is little more than an appeal to incredulity and fails to consider technical issues in a manner I would expect of any professional engineer.

And no, I do not recall that the cores stood for 10-15 seconds after the main (?) collapses.

Then I suggest you avail yourself of the basic evidence surrounding the collapse and consider whether such an omission of such basic research is appropriate when publishing a sopposedly professional analysis of the collapse.

What I recall from WTC1 is that the block above the so called initiation zone breaks up ... before anything else happens incl. initiation and global collapse. It would appear that the WTC1 upper block must have been affected by some sort of CD.

That would be wholly incorrect and you should also revisit the collapse images at an early juncture.

This is the main subject of my paper, BTW.

A paper which seems ill at ease with any form of comprehensive research or detailed structural analysis, BTW.

I do not understand why you insist that I pretend steel is not affected by heat? Can't you read? Evidently I pretend that 500°C has little effect on steel - based on tests and experience.

Because you - yes, you - sought to suggest elsewhere on the forum that fire-induced failure was not possible in steel structures per se. You now appear to have wholly retreated from this position.

 

[Minadin]

PS - I do not understand why you insist that I pretend steel is not affected by heat? Can't you read? Evidently I pretend that 500°C has little effect on steel - based on tests and experience.

Well, your position does seem to have migrated a bit, and this is just in the past page or two:

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.

Quite irrelevant actually - except that steel is affected by heat and deforms accordingly as shown in my article. Gradually. No sudden losses of strength at any temperature. Try my model test http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm#6 starting at ambient temperature. It doesn't matter if the temperature is 300°C or 800°C - the upper block (the water tank) does not come free falling down at any temperature when heating the columns.

The individual steel columns adapt themselves to any temperature and the complete structure (260+ supporting columns) adapts itself accordingly (load re-distribution). No sudden collapse will ever occur. Has never occured.

I could go on, really, but I don't think I will, yet.

 

[Heiwa]

1. By way of example, my overview of the collapse mechanism includes reference to the initiation site and you should be aware that there is conclusive evidence for the deformation (and thereafter failure) of the outer envelope.

2. Because you - yes, you - sought to suggest elsewhere on the forum that fire-induced failure was not possible in steel structures per se. You now appear to have wholly retreated from this position.

1. Sorry - no evidence of any kind that outer envelope fails in WTC1 at the initiation zone. The upper block is destroyed before that = a smoking gun. You seem not to read what I write.

2. You must have misread. I have always maintained: Local failures (deformation due heat) yes (of course). And local ruptures due heat are very rare! Global collapse of an intact, not heated multi-member steel structure due local heat high up, no - not possible. As explained in my article. Try yourself - drop a cementblock on your bird cage aft home (if you have any). Don't forget to take out the bird! The bird cage does not break into 1000's of pieces. It only deforms.

A little car does not destroy a big truck when running into it - as initiation, etc.

 

[Dave Rogers]

1. Sorry - no evidence of any kind that outer envelope fails in WTC1 at the initiation zone. The upper block is destroyed before that = a smoking gun. You seem not to read what I write.

Heiwa, it's not a question of not reading what you write. It's a question of what you write being wrong. There are plenty of videos that show visible crush down as the top block of WTC1 descends, including the ones typically used by truthers to demonstrate the absence of such crush-down by drawing red lines in the wrong place.

There is also, of course, evidence of a kind that the outer envelope fails in WTC1 at the initiation zone - it's the visible evidence of the same thing happening in WTC2. See http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3481081#post3481081 for a very clear sequence of video stills. This is circumstantial evidence for the same process in the similar case of WTC1. It may not be positive proof, but your statement that there's "no evidence of any kind" is obviously wrong.

Dave

 

[Belz...]

1. Sorry - no evidence of any kind that outer envelope fails in WTC1 at the initiation zone. The upper block is destroyed before that = a smoking gun.

Absolutely not, Heiwa. AGAIN, please get an education in these matters.

2. You must have misread. I have always maintained: Local failures (deformation due heat) yes (of course). And local ruptures due heat are very rare! Global collapse of an intact, not heated multi-member steel structure due local heat high up, no - not possible. As explained in my article. Try yourself - drop a cementblock on your bird cage aft home (if you have any). Don't forget to take out the bird! The bird cage does not break into 1000's of pieces. It only deforms.

Scale ? What's that ?

A little car does not destroy a big truck when running into it - as initiation, etc.

Of course it does. It all depends on the relative sized and the enrgy involved. The big truck in your example has a thicker shell. That's a bad analogy.

 

[AZCat]

2. You must have misread. I have always maintained: Local failures (deformation due heat) yes (of course). And local ruptures due heat are very rare! Global collapse of an intact, not heated multi-member steel structure due local heat high up, no - not possible. As explained in my article. Try yourself - drop a cementblock on your bird cage aft home (if you have any). Don't forget to take out the bird! The bird cage does not break into 1000's of pieces. It only deforms.

With this, Heiwa has moved into spooked911 territory (if he hadn't taken up residence there already).

 

[uk_dave]

Little car rams big truck at 500 mph pushing truck over edge of cliff.

Little car and big truck both fall to earth.

Gravity.

Big mess.

'Truther' looks to see if explosives were used.

 

[Heiwa]

Little car rams big truck at 500 mph pushing truck over edge of cliff.

Little car and big truck both fall to earth.

Gravity.

Big mess.

'Truther' looks to see if explosives were used.

The little plane hit the truck in the side at 500 mph ... and produced a hole ... and the truck was standing for 100 minutes.

Then the little car - the upper block - is breaking up before any impact ... and moves down a slow speed ... and then the truck blows up in 10 seconds. Explosives must have been used. Gravity does not work like that. Did you try my model test?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

With this, Heiwa has moved into spooked911 territory (if he hadn't taken up residence there already).

Well, in fairness, he's hasn't suggested lighting a cup of kerosene in the cage yet. But beyond that, I do see what you mean.

 

[uk_dave]

The little plane hit the truck in the side at 500 mph ... and produced a hole ... and the truck was standing for 100 minutes.

Then the little car - the upper block - is breaking up before any impact ... and moves down a slow speed ... and then the truck blows up in 10 seconds. Explosives must have been used. Gravity does not work like that. Did you try my model test?

Well that analogy just disappeared up its own ana..... nevermind.

C'mon Heiwa, you just don't cut it on structures. You may (possibly) know a bit about boats, but you just don't have a clue about the structure of the wtc towers.

They were made of individual bits which tied each other together to form a whole.

The impact of the planes caused damage to this whole.

The subsequent fires caused even more damage to this whole.

The whole began to revert back to bits around the impact zone, leaving two 'wholes', one above the imapct zone and one below.

The 'whole' above the impact zone could no longer be supported by the bits below it and so tilted and fell onto the 'whole' below.

This impact between the two 'wholes' created even more bits.

But there was no equality between the two 'wholes' because the bits liberated from the lower 'whole' added to the mass of material falling onto the lower 'whole'.

The lower 'whole' became more and more a liberated mass of falling bits.

And then there was no 'whole', just bits.

 

[AZCat]

Well, in fairness, he's hasn't suggested lighting a cup of kerosene in the cage yet. But beyond that, I do see what you mean.

We're close enough for truther science.

 

[Architect]

It's time to dig out my copy of "Why People Believe Stupid Things" in the hope that it might explain Heiwa's position.