Question for Heiwa

[bje]

Ach, he'll be out of here shortly. I wouldn't worry. Well, unless you're travelling by sea in Scandanavia.....

Heiwa's getting no respect there, either. He doesn't have a clue why.

 

[Architect]

Perhaps he's responded to their technical critiques in the same cack-handed manner he has to ours?

Just askin' questions.....

 

[bje]

Gregory and Apollo,

Do you have any comments about Heiwa's paper?

 

[Architect]

Gregory and Apollo,

Do you have any comments about Heiwa's paper?

Or the critical technical points raised in response to same?

 

[Apollo20]

BJE and Architect:

I do have some thoughts about Heiwa's paper - I am working on some of the relevant issues myself right now - but unfortunately I have been too busy to get involved with this thread. Nevertheless, I felt compelled to comment on the JREFers condescending "you must be mentally ill" approach to Heiwa's ideas. I've seen too much of it before on JREF, some of it directed at yours truly; but it really is an inappropriate method of debating don't you think?

 

[Architect]

Nope, indeed you will recall that I have on several occasions decried the JREF tendancy to jump all over Truthers who wander in. We need to be more like the Bautforum, IMHO.

However I spent a stack of time responding to Heiwa's manifestly incorrect assertion about the performance of structural steel frames, quoting sources and trawling through some textbooks. He hasn't responded in the slightest, despite the creation of a seperate thread, but meanwhile waxes lyrical about how we all need to "debunk" his "excellent" paper.

Is this really an appropriate method of debating?

 

[beachnut]

BJE and Architect:

I do have some thoughts about Heiwa's paper - I am working on some of the relevant issues myself right now - but unfortunately I have been too busy to get involved with this thread. Nevertheless, I felt compelled to comment on the JREFers condescending "you must be mentally ill" approach to Heiwa's ideas. I've seen too much of it before on JREF, some of it directed at yours truly; but it really is an inappropriate method of debating don't you think?

Darn, he never does pay attention. Like someone I showed the east side of WTC2 with panels flying off and the insulation being destroyed.
But my question to Heiwa's paper and he; does it support your work, or does it deny your conclusions?

 

[beachnut]

wow

Intelligence?

Oh, and this is what?

The mass above - 80% concrete and glass and lose furniture, etc - immediately break up in small pieces and cannot put any big load on the steel structure below and should just fall straight down.

WRONG! (as an engineer I have graded this section of your paper as FAILED)

This statement in your work in not the sign of an educated expert? Please explain why mass is not mass? Your paper is junk, and this excerpt is indicative of that.

I am sorry, your statement seems to say mass does not count, things like this make no sense! Either correct your paper or suffer the pains of it being called wrong. Explain how you can ignore the mass of the building like this statement implies? What do you really mean?

 

[GregoryUrich]

Gregory and Apollo,

Do you have any comments about Heiwa's paper?

As I understand it, the paper is supposed to be a simplification for laymen. I think any simplification should be based on an underlying solution of the mechanics of the collapse. As far as I can tell, this is not the case.

Problems:

1.1 The spandrels act as belts around the bird cage that prevent transverse (outward/inward) deflections of the wall bars.

The spandrels create a Vierendeel truss which resists forces parallel to the spandrels. The only significant element resisting forces perpendicular to the wall (preventing inward/outward deflection) is the floor trusses.

2.1 Only the material properties (steel) are affected by the heat but are virtually unchanged between 20 and 500° C.

NIST NCSTAR 1-3 (p. 111) gives the temperature/yield strength curves from high temperature tests for many WTC steel samples with values (for 500° C) ranging from 45-85% with 65% being the approximate average.

3. Arrangements at floor 94 of WTC 1

The mass calculation is superficial and incorrect. The correct mass for floors 95-roof is 38,400 tonnes. The masses of the individual components are simply guess work. Note: Since the collapse was between floors 97-98 the mass should be 32,800 tonnes.

4. NIST never checked the yield stress of the steel in the rubble.

NIST NCSTAR 1-3 (p. 111) gives the data from yield strength tests which were performed on recovered steel.

5. How is the yield stress of steel affected by heat? In the writer's opinion it is virtually unaffected at about 500°C, i.e. about the same at 500°C as at room temperature 20° C.

NIST NCSTAR 1-3 (p. 111) gives the temperature/yield strength curves from high temperature tests for many WTC steel samples with values ranging from 45-85% with 65% being the approximate average.

7. Let's assume that only half this energy is used to compress the 'spring' and that the other half was lost destroying the columns in the initiation zone and that the upper part breaks up before impact.

Bazant gives the energy for plastic deformation in the buckling columns as 12% of the available potential energy for room temperature steel. Bazant uses an incorrect mass (58 x 10^6 kg), so it should actually be 21%. This is the upper limit for energy consumed in buckling.

I don't think the conclusion is convincingly supported. I have pointed out most of the above problems previously to Heiwa, but he has ignored my criticisms.

 

[GregoryUrich]

Yes, I've long been aware of the masses, even before your paper. Heiwa believes they are irrelevant in his calculations.

What was your source?

 

[bje]

I don't think the conclusion is convincingly supported. I have pointed out most of the above problems previously to Heiwa, but he has ignored my criticisms.

Thanks for the response. Do you think Heiwa has responded to others in an intellectually honest manner? Do you think he think Heiwa reacted to a pile-on or precipitated it and encouraged it?

 

[bje]

What was your source?

You got me there. I don't recall the original source since I saw it used many years ago in early discussions and calculations on other forums (PhysOrg, Bautforum, here?). I realize it differs from yours, Greenings, and others, but I kept using it. Mea Culpa if I'm wrong.

 

[GregoryUrich]

Spreading lies is inexcusable; rewarded in kind. There are so many errors in his work. He is an order of magnitude behind you!

You also miss a big red flag. Those who argue about treatment at JREF have nothing to offer in facts or they would stick to their facts to prove their point and ignore the other distractions. Those with no facts protest the most about treatment when they start slinging what even you quickly picked apart!

My take on Heiwa is not that he is spreading lies, but rather something he believes to be true. Should we take people to task in the same way because they believe in god and spread the word? How about a little compassion Beachnut. Repetition may be the father of learning, but hostility and alienation are the evil siamese twin stepmothers of ignorance. Attacking and ridiculing people will never help bring them around.

People with no facts...you mean like Apollo?

 

[Heiwa]

As I understand it, the paper is supposed to be a simplification for laymen. I think any simplification should be based on an underlying solution of the mechanics of the collapse. As far as I can tell, this is not the case.

Problems:



The spandrels create a Vierendeel truss which resists forces parallel to the spandrels. The only significant element resisting forces perpendicular to the wall (preventing inward/outward deflection) is the floor trusses.



NIST NCSTAR 1-3 (p. 111) gives the temperature/yield strength curves from high temperature tests for many WTC steel samples with values (for 500° C) ranging from 45-85% with 65% being the approximate average.



The mass calculation is superficial and incorrect. The correct mass for floors 95-roof is 38,400 tonnes. The masses of the individual components are simply guess work. Note: Since the collapse was between floors 97-98 the mass should be 32,800 tonnes.



NIST NCSTAR 1-3 (p. 111) gives the data from yield strength tests which were performed on recovered steel.



NIST NCSTAR 1-3 (p. 111) gives the temperature/yield strength curves from high temperature tests for many WTC steel samples with values ranging from 45-85% with 65% being the approximate average.



Bazant gives the energy for plastic deformation in the buckling columns as 12% of the available potential energy for room temperature steel. Bazant uses an incorrect mass (58 x 10^6 kg), so it should actually be 21%. This is the upper limit for energy consumed in buckling.

I don't think the conclusion is convincingly supported. I have pointed out most of the above problems previously to Heiwa, but he has ignored my criticisms.

Actually it is a paper written for children and for the sake of children.

If one wall column tries to deflect outward, while the adjacent ones remain in position, the spandrels will try to prevent this deflection (in tension or compression). If the whole wall deflects outward (all the floors are disconnected), evidently the spandrels have no real effect, except at the corners of the building.

The mass calculation is, as shown, superficial to enable approximate, static stresses to be computed. But the value is close enough.

I have not seen any results of tests of steel from the initiation zone or, for that matter, any pieces from the initiation zone that show sign of buckling, deformation, being affected by heat, etc. Heat evidently affects steel, and for the sake of simplicity, it is assumed that heat contributed to the failure of some columns. My personal opinion is that in that case the load carried on the failed columns would be transferred to adjacent intact columns with a completely different result.

Bazant apparently assumes that both the structure below the initiation zone (A) and the structure above the initiation zone (B) are extremely stiff (!) and that (B) impacts (A) with an enormous energy and significant speed and that (A) then collapses like a house of cards. What happens to (B) is not clear.

In my article for children it is shown that the enormous energy corresponds to maximum 40 kgs of diesel oil used efficiently and that the significant speed is that of a child on a bike running into a wall (10 km/h) so there isn't a real big impact between (B) and (A). It is just like children (B) jumping on a bed (A). Not a hammer (B) hitting a nail (A). Bazant got it all wrong.

It is thanks to Gregory Urich's (and others) kind comments that article ( http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm ) is what it is even if I am of course responsible for facts and conclusion.

The conclusion is evidently a recommendation to correct the Nist and Bazant reports ... for the sake of our children.

And nobody has debunked that conclusion, I am glad to see.

 

[beachnut]

My take on Heiwa is not that he is spreading lies, but rather something he believes to be true. Should we take people to task in the same way because they believe in god and spread the word? How about a little compassion Beachnut. Repetition may be the father of learning, but hostility and alienation are the evil siamese twin stepmothers of ignorance. Attacking and ridiculing people will never help bring them around.

People with no facts...you mean like Apollo?

Stick to the facts and stop trying to preach 9/11 truth junk as a belief system. It is an event, your 9/11 truth guys are full of beliefs, short on facts. It is a lie presenting false ideas as if you are an expert.

He needs to be more careful and learn before he tries to mislead. 9/11 truth, is a religion, based on lies.

Apollo? What facts are you saying he messed up? You should ask him.

 

[beachnut]

i am sorry, you paper is a joke, I am just an engineer, check with more...

And nobody has debunked that conclusion, I am glad to see.

no one has to, it is self debunking, even kids know it

My 5th grade classes can debunk this!

The mass above - 80% concrete and glass and lose furniture, etc - immediately break up in small pieces and cannot put any big load on the steel structure below as the velocity is too small and should just fall straight down. Live videos, forensic evidence, show furthermore that the mass above actually disintegrates (!) when the wall columns at the initiation zone are still intact. The total energy actually applied to the structure below is very uncertain.

FOUR big errors. Gregory ripped up your paper and you thanked him. I have to save your paper, your errors are changing.

As I said, self debunking.
LOL

But let's again assume that the mass above drops down 3.7 meters due to gravity acceleration 9.8 m/s². It means that the speed after 3.7 meters displacement is abt 3 m/s or 10 kms/h. It is not a significant speed. A collision at such speed is not an impact!

OMG, Please fix your paper! Please! No way you work with big ships! You really have no clue with statements like this.

The 236 off wall columns are, e.g. never seen to deflect at all prior to the sudden, explosive initial collapse of the core columns. If the core columns collapse, as alleged, by release of potential energy above, the wall columns should remain intact as no release of potential energy is acting on them!

Wrong, as shown and you called the photos a lie. Debunked!

 

[Darat]

I have moved the posts regarding Forum Management issues to Forum Management, please keep to the appropriate topics for this section and thread.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[Heiwa]

no one has to, it is self debunking, even kids know it

My 5th grade classes can debunk this!
FOUR big errors. Gregory ripped up your paper and you thanked him. I have to save your paper, your errors are changing.

As I said, self debunking.
LOLOMG, Please fix your paper! Please! No way you work with big ships! You really have no clue with statements like this.
Wrong, as shown and you called the photos a lie. Debunked!

Gregory did not at all rip up my paper. He had some comments/doubts of some details in the article which are highly appreciated and contribute to improvements of understanding. I have learnt a lot from Gregory ... as you can see from my paper. Actually it is Gregory's papers that inspired me to write my little WTC paper in the first place. Same stuff actually, but from another perspective. The practical one! What does all these formulas mean on 10 000 pages of Nist reports.

In my opinion the Nist report sheets are quite useful as toilet paper ... and little more. But in my part of the world we do not even use toilet paper!

Guess what we use!

 

[uk_dave]

Guess what we use!

Thermite?

 

[Good Lt]

Edited by Lisa Simpson: 

Edited to removed quoted remark.

The true power of the collective intellect of the 9-11 Troof brigade on display for the world to see.

Go, man! Go!