Layman's terms please! Tower collapse issue

[Myriad]

It could be added that the design is made of steel - put in the right position of course - and will not globally collapse if you hit it by another big tanker, say 150 000 tons or run it aground! Just local failures ... and minimal oil spills. Much better than the OPA90 designs that may actually collapse when the outer hull is damaged and the inner hull drops down due to lack of support.

I bet it would collapse if you stood it on end, loaded it with 11,000 tons of evenly distributed paper and flammable office furnishings, and then crashed a jetliner into it.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[tanabear]

According Bazant and Seffen, in order for a gravity driven collapse to take place, the upper block must be intact (and have uniform density) and aligned vertically with the structure below all the time! It is this upper block, or its released energy, that destroys the lower structure, storey by storey during the collapse. The upper block should actually, at the end of the collapse remain intact on top of the rubble, according Bazant and Seffen. They forget to say that in their articles, so I have asked them to explain what happens to the upper block after collapse.

In Bazant's latest paper he discusses the "crush up" phase as well, which explains why the upper block is not found on top of the debris.

 

[stateofgrace]

Let me get this straight.

Heiwa’s theory is that the upper section of WTC 2 should have either bounced off or slide off after it became dynamic because the external columns did not fall squarely on the external columns below. Furthermore it totally missed the floors that braced the inner core to the external columns. A massive explosion in the impact zone started the fall but they then staged another massive explosion in the upper section which then totally disintegrated so none of it hit anything. Further prove of this based on the fact that the upper section was not found fully intact at the bottom of the tower when the dust had settled.

Is that what you believe happened Heiwa?

If you do, please tell me how much explosives would be needed to produce such an event. Ta

 

[phunk]

You have not read Nist, Bazant, Seffen & Co? Before the upper block, rigid + uniform density, starts to fall vertically, all 280+ columns in the so called initiation zone fail ... and disappear. Then the upper block falls. It takes 0.8-0.9 seconds to drop one storey = the initiation zone. Not seen on any videos, of course.

That misinterpretation is your first mistake. The columns do not disapear, they lose their load bearing capacity. They simply fail to hold up the upper block anymore. They either slip out of alignment with the columns below them, or buckle. Either way, they go from holding up the upper block, to not holding it up, in a very short period of time. It's called progressive collapse. I can see why you'd have problems with the theory if you think that nist, bazant, etc are just assuming they go away magically.

And then there is an impact. The upper block impacts the lower structure. But the upper block is neither rigid nor of uniform density. It consists of 280+ columns on which many floors are hanging. It is mostly air! The total cross area of all columns is abt 5 m² so each column has an average area of 0.017 m². Actually just thin plates 15-90 mm thick. So the columns above must impact the columns below. If they are misalligned 15-90 mm they will miss completely! Little less - they will slide off. No impact. No global collapse.

I still don't understand where you think the columns go when they miss the columns below them. If they miss, then they go between the columns and destroy the framework. Missing the columns below means a better chance of collapse, not worse. Those columns are the only thing that could possible stop the upper block from falling (through the building below, not over the edge).

The lowest floor of the upper block - it is 4000 m² big - may drop on the uppermost floor on the lower structure ... but that is no impact.

What wierd definition of impact are you using? What you described, the upper floor dropping onto the lower, is the very definition of impact.

Nothing will happen according to Nist. You need to stack 6-11 floors on the top floor of the lower structure before ... the top floor drops down one storey. Not seen either on any video. And no global collapse due to that.

You don't need to stack 6-11 floors on there. The weight of the entire upper block is dropping onto it. None of the floors in building were designed to have that kind of mass DROPPED onto them.

And none of the above is seen on any videos. On the videos we see how the upper block disintegrates before anything happens to the lower structure.

I don't see that, are we watching the same videos? What can be clearly seen is that the upper and lower sections are both breaking apart in the impact zone.

WTC2 is very clear - there is a big explosion at the initiation zone tipping the upper block 20° sideways.

There was no explosion. There was dust & smoke expelled from the building as it began to collapse.

Some people suggest it was just one wall that collapsed in WTC2 causing this tipping but ... a second later the whole upper block of WTC2 disappears.

One wall did fail before the rest, that's why it tipped. But the upper block doesn't disapear, it collapses through the lower block and is quickly obscured by smoke & dust.

According Bazant and Seffen, in order for a gravity driven collapse to take place, the upper block must be intact (and have uniform density) and aligned vertically with the structure below all the time! It is this upper block, or its released energy, that destroys the lower structure, storey by storey during the collapse. The upper block should actually, at the end of the collapse remain intact on top of the rubble, according Bazant and Seffen. They forget to say that in their articles, so I have asked them to explain what happens to the upper block after collapse.

You've completely misinterpreted their paper. The upper block does not have to remain intact and aligned. They chose to test that because that is the case LEAST likely to collapse, and the results show that even that case can't resist collapse. The upper block breaking apart or coming out of alignment makes it more likely to collapse, because it takes the load off of the only thing that can hold it, the columns, and puts it onto the floors and into the framework where there is no capacity to hold it up.

No reply of course.

BTW - the unform density of the upper block is 0.18 (tons/m3) or less than baled wool! Read my article, and you will understand how 'scientists' and civil servant engineers (Nist) are fooling the adult public ... with help from the media. Luckily they cannot fool children ... my audience.

Unless it's low enough density to be bouyant in air, it doesn't matter. What matters is the weight and where it is applied to the structure below.

 

[einsteen]

According Bazant and Seffen, in order for a gravity driven collapse to take place, the upper block must be intact (and have uniform density) and aligned vertically with the structure below all the time! It is this upper block, or its released energy, that destroys the lower structure, storey by storey during the collapse. The upper block should actually, at the end of the collapse remain intact on top of the rubble, according Bazant and Seffen. They forget to say that in their articles, so I have asked them to explain what happens to the upper block after collapse.

No reply of course.

In Greening's (much more readable) paper it is better to understand the process, he uses a so-called 1st stage of collapse (Bazant: crush-down) and then a 2nd stage of collapse (Bazant: crush-up). When the top sections hits the ground then it will simply cave in quickly. In mechanics of progressive collapse there are some pictures at the end. I remember they estimated that about 20% of mass fell outside the footprint, I can't remember if they took into account the top section's mass.

 

[Heiwa]

Let me get this straight.

Heiwa’s theory is that the upper section of WTC 2 should have either bounced off or slide off after it became dynamic because the external columns did not fall squarely on the external columns below. Furthermore it totally missed the floors that braced the inner core to the external columns. A massive explosion in the impact zone started the fall but they then staged another massive explosion in the upper section which then totally disintegrated so none of it hit anything. Further prove of this based on the fact that the upper section was not found fully intact at the bottom of the tower when the dust had settled.

Is that what you believe happened Heiwa?

If you do, please tell me how much explosives would be needed to produce such an event. Ta

Read my article - and you will find that it is about gravity collapse in layman's terms and that the conclusion is that gravity force alone could not cause the collapse. The upper block, flexible and with non-uniform density, mostly air, would then only get entangled in the lower structure below the local failures in the fire zoe. No free fall, no impact, no shock wave ... and no global collapse due to PE>SE.

 

[stateofgrace]

Read my article - and you will find that it is about gravity collapse in layman's terms and that the conclusion is that gravity force alone could not cause the collapse. The upper block, flexible and with non-uniform density, mostly air, would then only get entangled in the lower structure below the local failures in the fire zoe. No free fall, no impact, no shock wave ... and no global collapse due to PE>SE.

I've read your posts about your article, now please answer the questions posted about your theory.

How much explosives would be needed to produce the event you believe happened?

Also you now say the upper block should have got entangled please make up your mind. Should it have bounced off, slide off or got entangled?

I will keep repeating the same questions about your theory until you offer up full and comprehensive answers.

 

[Heiwa]

1. That misinterpretation is your first mistake. The columns do not disapear, they lose their load bearing capacity. They simply fail to hold up the upper block anymore. They either slip out of alignment with the columns below them, or buckle. Either way, they go from holding up the upper block, to not holding it up, in a very short period of time. It's called progressive collapse. I can see why you'd have problems with the theory if you think that nist, bazant, etc are just assuming they go away magically.


2. I still don't understand where you think the columns go when they miss the columns below them. If they miss, then they go between the columns and destroy the framework. Missing the columns below means a better chance of collapse, not worse. Those columns are the only thing that could possible stop the upper block from falling (through the building below, not over the edge).


3. What wierd definition of impact are you using? What you described, the upper floor dropping onto the lower, is the very definition of impact.

4. You don't need to stack 6-11 floors on there. The weight of the entire upper block is dropping onto it. None of the floors in building were designed to have that kind of mass DROPPED onto them.

5. I don't see that, are we watching the same videos? What can be clearly seen is that the upper and lower sections are both breaking apart in the impact zone.

6. There was no explosion. There was dust & smoke expelled from the building as it began to collapse.

7. One wall did fail before the rest, that's why it tipped. But the upper block doesn't disapear, it collapses through the lower block and is quickly obscured by smoke & dust.


8. You've completely misinterpreted their paper. The upper block does not have to remain intact and aligned. They chose to test that because that is the case LEAST likely to collapse, and the results show that even that case can't resist collapse. The upper block breaking apart or coming out of alignment makes it more likely to collapse, because it takes the load off of the only thing that can hold it, the columns, and puts it onto the floors and into the framework where there is no capacity to hold it up.


9. Unless it's low enough density to be bouyant in air, it doesn't matter. What matters is the weight and where it is applied to the structure below.

1. Free fall and impact imply that the supports (the 280+ load bearing columns) disappear instantaneously in the fire zone. I would have expected gradual deformation of the supports due to heat/fire and no free fall/impact and that the columns, still connected to the upper block and lower structure would dampen any movement and get entangled in the lower structure, i.e. no sudden release of PE, no enormous velocity, etc.

2. See 1. I would expect the failed columns still to be connected both ends. Only IF they sheared off both ends - in order to support Bazant, Seffen - I would expect that they will never meet again.

3. An impact is a force exerted by one object when striking against another. If a 4000 m² large upper floor strikes against another 4000 m² large floor below, it is only the upper floor that strikes! Not the 15-20 other floors above. The weight of the other floors above is being transmitted to the columns ... that strike nothing.

4. See 3. No, it is only one floor involved.

5. ?? Evidently the upper block cannot disappear or get damaged prior local failures occur in the fire/heat zone below. Same with the structure below the fire/heat zone. Time for the upper block to free fall one storey is 0.8-0.9 seconds ... and is not seen on any video. And after these 0.8-0.9 seconds the lowest floor of the upper block is supposed to impact the uppermost floor of the structure below. Do you see that on any video? OK, smoke and dust are ejected (between intact wall columns)! Is that when the lowest floor of the upper block drops down? Nothing else has happened above?

6. So why was smoke/dust ejected? Floor dropping down?

7. So a complete wall section failed first and the upper block tipped? And then the floor dropped down only on that side? OK! So the smoke and dust were mainly ejected on the side where the wall failed! On the other hand I see big amounts of smoke and dust on the opposite side.

8. No, Bazant/Seffen treat problem in 1-D that does not allow any elastic deformations anywhere. Everything is supposed to be rigid except at the crush front (one storey) where brittle fractures or something occur - not very clear actually from their papers - ripping columns apart like spaghetti. And when the crush front arrives at ground ... the upper block (rigid, uniform density) should just stop there. It was the gravity force of the upper block - always intact - that was driving the crush front to ground.

9. Uniform density, particularly of the upper block, is a basic assumption by Bazant/Seffen in their 1-D analysises. It suits them fine. But has nothing to do with reality. See 1.

Thanks phunk for good comments that really clarify topic.

 

[Heiwa]

I've read your posts about your article, now please answer the questions posted about your theory.

1. How much explosives would be needed to produce the event you believe happened?

2. Also you now say the upper block should have got entangled please make up your mind. Should it have bounced off, slide off or got entangled?

I will keep repeating the same questions about your theory until you offer up full and comprehensive answers.

Here follows answers in layman's terms.

1. No idea! Not part of my article. Doesn't interest me actually.

2. When local failures occur in 3-D beam steel structures (with some components concrete/steel), the intact parts then get entangled in one another (no global collapse). If free fall/impact occur, as suggested by Nist, Bazant, Seffen (280+ columns failing!), I would expect, assuming perfect impact (relevant parts of upper block actually make contact with relevant parts of lower block), that there would be a bump, i.e. the upper block free fall would end, the lower structure would compress, some local failures may occur due overload, ... and that's it. Of course, the lower structure would decompress and push back the upper block a little. But I doubt perfect impact would occur due slipping off and misalignment of upper block/lower structure columns. Then the upper block structure would just get entangled in the lower structure. Evidently an upper block full of air cannot drive a gravity collapse! It is not a solid, rigid upper block we are talking about.

 

[stateofgrace]

Here follows answers in layman's terms.

1. No idea! Not part of my article. Doesn't interest me actually.

2. When local failures occur in 3-D beam steel structures (with some components concrete/steel), the intact parts then get entangled in one another (no global collapse). If free fall/impact occur, as suggested by Nist, Bazant, Seffen (280+ columns failing!), I would expect, assumingperfect impact (relevant parts of upper block actually make contact with relevant parts of lower block), that there would be a bump, i.e. the upper block free fall would end, the lower structure would compress, some local failures may occur due overload, ... and that's it. Of course, the lower structure would decompress and push back the upper block a little. But I doubt perfect impact would occur due slipping off and misalignment of upper block/lower structure columns. Then the upper block structure would just get entangled in the lower structure. Evidently an upper block full of air cannot drive a gravity collapse! It is not a solid, rigid upper block we are talking about.

You have no idea?

Please allow me to give you options.

1. A massive explosion caused the upper block that weighed in at 33000 tons to actually start moving.
2. A second enormous explosion totally disintegrated the 33000 ton upper block.
3. Further explosions occurred to ensure the collapse took place.

Now,how much explosives, in layman’s terms if you wish, do you think that would take?

a. A little bit
b. Quite a bit
c. A lot.
d. An enormous amount
e. So much so that not only would everybody in New York have heard it but so would the rest of the planet, as the event was being broadcast live.

Any idea yet,Hiewa? Please take give me your laymans opinion.

You second point is the same rubbish you have been spouting for the last ten pages and requires zero comment, it speaks for itself.

 

[phunk]

1. Free fall and impact imply that the supports (the 280+ load bearing columns) disappear instantaneously in the fire zone. I would have expected gradual deformation of the supports due to heat/fire and no free fall/impact and that the columns, still connected to the upper block and lower structure would dampen any movement and get entangled in the lower structure, i.e. no sudden release of PE, no enormous velocity, etc.

2. See 1. I would expect the failed columns still to be connected both ends. Only IF they sheared off both ends - in order to support Bazant, Seffen - I would expect that they will never meet again.

You seem to be suggesting that while they deform, they retain their load bearing capacity. In reality, when a column buckles, once it gets past a certain point it's failure will rapidly accelerate. And your use of the word 'simultaneously' seems to imply that you don't understand progressive collapse. Generally, a progressive collapse starts slowly, with columns slowing deforming as you suggest above. But as each column loses it's load bearing capacity, the load on the remaining structure increases, so the remaining columns each fail faster than the previous ones. The result is a structure slowly losing its integrity, possibly with little visible from the outside, until it reaches a threshold where the remaining columns fail very rapidly. This was seen in all 3 WTC collapses. In 1 & 2, the columns of the outer walls could be seen slowly bowing inward until they reached the threshold and failed, at which point the rest of the structure at that level was quickly overwhelmed and failed. The fact that the upper block tilted shows that it was not 280 simultaneous failures, but a progressive failure starting on the side that buckled first and progressed towards the opposite side where the 'pivot' was.

3. An impact is a force exerted by one object when striking against another. If a 4000 m² large upper floor strikes against another 4000 m² large floor below, it is only the upper floor that strikes! Not the 15-20 other floors above. The weight of the other floors above is being transmitted to the columns ... that strike nothing.

The weight of the other 15-20 floors does not magically disapear. Like you said, it is being transmitted to the columns. If the upper block is moving, the whole thing has momentum and whatever those columns impact will have to absorb the impact of most of the structure, not just the lowest floor. It is completely impossible for them to 'strike nothing'.

4. See 3. No, it is only one floor involved.

And the rest magically levitating above?

5. ?? Evidently the upper block cannot disappear or get damaged prior local failures occur in the fire/heat zone below. Same with the structure below the fire/heat zone. Time for the upper block to free fall one storey is 0.8-0.9 seconds ... and is not seen on any video. And after these 0.8-0.9 seconds the lowest floor of the upper block is supposed to impact the uppermost floor of the structure below. Do you see that on any video? OK, smoke and dust are ejected (between intact wall columns)! Is that when the lowest floor of the upper block drops down? Nothing else has happened above?

How do you expect to see the actual impact? You can only see the outer facade of the buildings, which is immediately obscured by dust & smoke as soon as the upper block begins to move downward.

6. So why was smoke/dust ejected? Floor dropping down?

Yes, the upper block dropping causes the ejections. As the upper block moves downward, the inside volume of the building decreases. Air pressure rises, and the smoke/dust is blown out whatever openings it can find, which is the already broken facade from the plane crash, and the remaining windows that are destroyed in the initial collapse zone as soon as movement begins.

7. So a complete wall section failed first and the upper block tipped? And then the floor dropped down only on that side? OK! So the smoke and dust were mainly ejected on the side where the wall failed! On the other hand I see big amounts of smoke and dust on the opposite side.

See my answer to 1 & 2. The floor didn't only drop on that side. That side fell a fraction of a second before the other side, as proven by the tilt of the upper block. The smoke and dust were ejected wherever there were openings. Air pressure changes transmit at the speed of sound, the whole floor overpressurized at once.

8. No, Bazant/Seffen treat problem in 1-D that does not allow any elastic deformations anywhere. Everything is supposed to be rigid except at the crush front (one storey) where brittle fractures or something occur - not very clear actually from their papers - ripping columns apart like spaghetti. And when the crush front arrives at ground ... the upper block (rigid, uniform density) should just stop there. It was the gravity force of the upper block - always intact - that was driving the crush front to ground.

Again, rigidity would hamper the progression of the collapse, not aid it. The mass doesn't change if the upper block is in 1 piece or 10000, only the impact duration. But if the upper block disintegrates, you have a different problem, where all of the mass of the upper block is no longer supported by the only thing that could hold it, the columns, and instead is overloading the floors and the non load-bearing members of the structure. Had there only been a 'crush up' with no 'crush down', then the result would have been a pancake collapse once enough of the upper block piled onto the top floor of the lower block.

9. Uniform density, particularly of the upper block, is a basic assumption by Bazant/Seffen in their 1-D analysises. It suits them fine. But has nothing to do with reality. See 1.

It's a valid simplification. Reality can not be duplicated, you can only create models that approximate it.

Thanks phunk for good comments that really clarify topic.

You're welcome!

 

[Architect]

Ah phunk, he's toying with your affections. You'll be on the scrapheap with me and NB soon, and the Daves, you just wait and see......

 

[Heiwa]

1. You seem to be suggesting that while they deform, they retain their load bearing capacity. In reality, when a column buckles, once it gets past a certain point it's failure will rapidly accelerate. And your use of the word 'simultaneously' seems to imply that you don't understand progressive collapse. Generally, a progressive collapse starts slowly, with columns slowing deforming as you suggest above. But as each column loses it's load bearing capacity, the load on the remaining structure increases, so the remaining columns each fail faster than the previous ones. The result is a structure slowly losing its integrity, possibly with little visible from the outside, until it reaches a threshold where the remaining columns fail very rapidly. This was seen in all 3 WTC collapses. In 1 & 2, the columns of the outer walls could be seen slowly bowing inward until they reached the threshold and failed, at which point the rest of the structure at that level was quickly overwhelmed and failed. The fact that the upper block tilted shows that it was not 280 simultaneous failures, but a progressive failure starting on the side that buckled first and progressed towards the opposite side where the 'pivot' was.

2. The weight of the other 15-20 floors does not magically disapear. Like you said, it is being transmitted to the columns. If the upper block is moving, the whole thing has momentum and whatever those columns impact will have to absorb the impact of most of the structure, not just the lowest floor. It is completely impossible for them to 'strike nothing'.


3. And the rest magically levitating above?


4. How do you expect to see the actual impact? You can only see the outer facade of the buildings, which is immediately obscured by dust & smoke as soon as the upper block begins to move downward.

5. Yes, the upper block dropping causes the ejections. As the upper block moves downward, the inside volume of the building decreases. Air pressure rises, and the smoke/dust is blown out whatever openings it can find, which is the already broken facade from the plane crash, and the remaining windows that are destroyed in the initial collapse zone as soon as movement begins.

6. See my answer to 1 & 2. The floor didn't only drop on that side. That side fell a fraction of a second before the other side, as proven by the tilt of the upper block. The smoke and dust were ejected wherever there were openings. Air pressure changes transmit at the speed of sound, the whole floor overpressurized at once.

7. Again, rigidity would hamper the progression of the collapse, not aid it. The mass doesn't change if the upper block is in 1 piece or 10000, only the impact duration. But if the upper block disintegrates, you have a different problem, where all of the mass of the upper block is no longer supported by the only thing that could hold it, the columns, and instead is overloading the floors and the non load-bearing members of the structure. Had there only been a 'crush up' with no 'crush down', then the result would have been a pancake collapse once enough of the upper block piled onto the top floor of the lower block.

8. It's a valid simplification. Reality can not be duplicated, you can only create models that approximate it.

You're welcome!

1. According my calculations the primary structure will not bucklebend below yield stress. It means that they will fail when they are being plastically deformed at a stress above yield. But the stresses are very low! <30% yield at ambient temperature. Heating them will reduce the yield stress but not much. So I query the whole sequence, local failures of primary structure (columns) in the fire/heat zone, progressive collapse of remaining primary structure in the same area. It is not seen on any videos.

2. The upper floors of the upper block do not participate in the impact (if it occurs)!!! They are hanging on the columns, etc. There are many elastic connections. Regard the upper block as a rubber ball (full of air, not solid, not rigid, no uniform density) being dropped on a floor. Only a small part of the ball 'impacts' and the other parts are deformed, etc. And then there is a bounce. Most PE of the ball is consumed deforming itself ... after the impact.
Nist & Co assumes the upper block is SOLID and that it transmits all its PE to the lower structure ... at every storey. Big difference!

3. See 2 above. But yes ... they are still hanging in the air. Not participating in the impact.

4. Between local failures start and impact there is 0.9 seconds of free fall time. Just watch the videos of that time ... if you can find the starting time and the impact time. You won't - because there is no free fall!

5. All windows appear broken in the 'drop zone'. It has 4000 m² floor area. Height 3.7 m. Thus volume 14 800 m3 (forgetting furniture, etc). Drop time 0.9 seconds. How big are all openings - windows, lift shafts, in the drop zone? Say 700 m². So the air/smoke will be ejected at an average velcocity of 24 m/s. Not very big. And dust? No impact has yet taken place. There is no dust. I would only expect som smoke puffs. Not the squibs being seen far below a second later, big dust clouds, etc. Too much dust and squibs, too quickly. Gravity alone does not produce it!

6. See 5. Speed of sound? Gravity is taking its time at much lower speed.

7. ?? As there is no free fall, no impact, gravity would only entangle the upper block parts in the lower structure. The upper block would be supported, all the time! , by the lower structure.

8. It is not a valid simplification. It is much, much worse. Reality is quite easy to duplicate with proper calculations, simulations and model tests. Nist's PE>SE is just plain stupid.

 

[Heiwa]

You have no idea?

Please allow me to give you options.

1. A massive explosion caused the upper block that weighed in at 33000 tons to actually start moving.
2. A second enormous explosion totally disintegrated the 33000 ton upper block.
3. Further explosions occurred to ensure the collapse took place.

Now,how much explosives, in layman’s terms if you wish, do you think that would take?

a. A little bit
b. Quite a bit
c. A lot.
d. An enormous amount
e. So much so that not only would everybody in New York have heard it but so would the rest of the planet, as the event was being broadcast live.

Any idea yet,Hiewa? Please take give me your laymans opinion.

You second point is the same rubbish you have been spouting for the last ten pages and requires zero comment, it speaks for itself.

Layman's opinion? I simply explain in layman's terms in my article for children and contributions to JREF that gravity force alone cannot produce the destruction/tower collapse of the WTCs. And a crop of bigoted zealots ready to work untold horror in the interests of some narrow creed objects! No problem with me. I know that such fanaticisms are largely due to hate. They have a problem I am glad that I do not have.

 

[Architect]

Layman's opinion? I simply explain in layman's terms in my article for children and contributions to JREF that gravity force alone cannot produce the destruction/tower collapse of the WTCs. And a crop of bigoted zealots ready to work untold horror in the interests of some narrow creed objects! No problem with me. I know that such fanaticisms are largely due to hate. They have a problem I am glad that I do not have.

Firstly, that's gibberish.

More pertinently, you have been challenged time and time again to post substantive calculations demonstrating the structural issues behind your argument. You have consistently failed to do so, either ignoring points put to you or spuriously claiming that they have been so phrased "for children".

We are not children. We are engineers. We are architects. Let us see your calculations. Let us see your rough working. Make your case to us in proper, professional terms.

Either put up, or shut up.

 

[Architect]

For those who haven't delved into Heiwa's other CT fantasy, the sinking of the Estonia (note to Merikans; the ship, not the country), here's some authors complaining about his lack of clarity and so on:

http://www.safety-at-sea.co.uk/mvestonia/downloads/VIES01-RE-001-AJ-e.pdf

 

[X]

... and no global collapse due to PE>SE.

Shouldn't that read "KE", not "PE"?

I mean, the thing was moving. Motion = kinetic energy.

 

[stateofgrace]

Layman's opinion? I simply explain in layman's terms in my article for children and contributions to JREF that gravity force alone cannot produce the destruction/tower collapse of the WTCs. And a crop of bigoted zealots ready to work untold horror in the interests of some narrow creed objects! No problem with me. I know that such fanaticisms are largely due to hate. They have a problem I am glad that I do not have.

I am sorry I forgot to give you option f.

Option f. Reply with words that have no meaning, make even less sense and hope that nobody notices I have completely dodged the question.

Again.

You have stated that an enormous explosion took place in the initiation zone. You have stated that the upper section of the lower completely missed the lower sections because it was totally disintegrated. The only way collapse can continue under this scenario is with a controlled demolition. You have stated that a gravity driven collapse is impossible because the upper portion was filled with air and completely missed the lower portion.

Now, take a deep breath, relax and tell me how much explosives would have to be used for your theory to work.

• A little bit.
• Quite a bit.
• A lot.
• An enormous amount.
• An amount so massive it would have been impossible for anybody to miss it.

Please try to refrain from option f, as it is no longer an option. I look forward to your expert opinion.

 

[Heiwa]

For those who haven't delved into Heiwa's other CT fantasy, the sinking of the Estonia (note to Merikans; the ship, not the country), here's some authors complaining about his lack of clarity and so on:

http://www.safety-at-sea.co.uk/mvestonia/downloads/VIES01-RE-001-AJ-e.pdf

OT but more clearly and better described at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/news.htm . It will be updated after 3 April 2008.
One of my innocent occupations to improve safety at sea. If something good will come of doing so, we will see then.

 

[Heiwa]

I am sorry I forgot to give you option f.

Option f. Reply with words that have no meaning, make even less sense and hope that nobody notices I have completely dodged the question.

Again.

You have stated that an enormous explosion took place in the initiation zone. You have stated that the upper section of the lower completely missed the lower sections because it was totally disintegrated. The only way collapse can continue under this scenario is with a controlled demolition. You have stated that a gravity driven collapse is impossible because the upper portion was filled with air and completely missed the lower portion.

Now, take a deep breath, relax and tell me how much explosives would have to be used for your theory to work.

• A little bit.
• Quite a bit.
• A lot.
• An enormous amount.
• An amount so massive it would have been impossible for anybody to miss it.

Please try to refrain from option f, as it is no longer an option. I look forward to your expert opinion.

OK - g! An amount so massive it would be possible for anybody to miss it unless you, like me, know the physics involved.