The Heiwa Challenge

[Dave Rogers]

So does nobody want to have a guess what NIST might have omitted in the above explanation ? Or maybe comment on the liklihood of whether that omission could have occurred accidentally ? Does the omission totally invalidate this explanation and if so who will be the first to call NIST and damand a rectification?

You know that video of the F-4 hitting the concrete block? I have a funny feeling something like that is about to happen to bill.

Dave

 

[bill smith]

You know that video of the F-4 hitting the concrete block? I have a funny feeling something like that is about to happen to bill.

Dave

Not to back you into a corner or anything Dave but do you think that NIST made a glaring omission in this explanation above ? And do you think that that omission could have been accidental ?

 

[bill smith]

You know that video of the F-4 hitting the concrete block? I have a funny feeling something like that is about to happen to bill.

Dave

Just rereading this post Dave I noticed that it could be seen as a very threatening remark. Would you mind explaining exactly what you mean by it ?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Not to back you into a corner or anything Dave but do you think that NIST made a glaring omission in this explanation above ? And do you think that that omission could have been accidental ?

I'm happy to let you go first. Please feel free to enlighten us as to the glaring error NIST made.

Just rereading this post Dave I noticed that it could be seen as a very threatening remark. Would you mind explaining exactly what you mean by it ?

I'm suggesting that you're working your way up to full speed on this issue, in blissful ignorance of a large and extremely solid obstacle in your way, and your line of argument is about to crash and burn in a very spectacular way. I may be wrong; you may actually have found a significant omission in the NIST FAQ, and therefore may be able to demonstrate that the simplified explanation of the collapse is very slightly over-simplified, which, let's face it, though insignificant, would be one of the greatest victories that the truth movement has ever won. On past performance, though, it's more likely that you've failed to understand some absurdly obvious point, and it'll be pointed out to you in a way that would make anyone else retire from the forum out of sheer embarrassment (a response you seem immune to, in general).

As I say, I may be wrong. Tell us what you think NIST has left out, and we'll see.

Dave

 

[bill smith]

I'm happy to let you go first. Please feel free to enlighten us as to the glaring error NIST made.



I'm suggesting that you're working your way up to full speed on this issue, in blissful ignorance of a large and extremely solid obstacle in your way, and your line of argument is about to crash and burn in a very spectacular way. I may be wrong; you may actually have found a significant omission in the NIST FAQ, and therefore may be able to demonstrate that the simplified explanation of the collapse is very slightly over-simplified, which, let's face it, though insignificant, would be one of the greatest victories that the truth movement has ever won. On past performance, though, it's more likely that you've failed to understand some absurdly obvious point, and it'll be pointed out to you in a way that would make anyone else retire from the forum out of sheer embarrassment (a response you seem immune to, in general).

As I say, I may be wrong. Tell us what you think NIST has left out, and we'll see.

Dave

Some people would find your answer evasive Dave and a lot less than a resounding vote of confidence in the above NIST explanation of the collapse dynamic.

Seeing that you are unwilling to give the NIST exlanation your unqualified support I must explain the vital omission made by NIST as I see it.

In my opinion no analysis of the collapse can exclude the 47 upstanding massive core columns. Nor the offset descending 47 core columns in the disconnected upper block. Both upper and lower columns will chew the concrete floors that they meet into a rain of loose rubble that has little concentrated force, just like a bag of loose nails, while heavier will never drive a nail into a plank. So the overall destructive power of the descending upper block on the lower intact 90% of the building is massively diluted by comparison with a rigid and intact upper block.

NIST does not take the upstanding or descending core columns into account in this way at all and of course that is a vital and glaring omission.

So can I ask you again ?...Could this omission have been accidental ?

 

[funk de fino]

Dave was right.

 

[Heiwa]

I remind you that topic is The Heiwa Challenge! Maybe NIST has the solution how to win the Challenge?

NIST suggests in its FAQ: 'Since the number of floors above the level where the collapse initiated, exceeded 6 for both towers (12 for WTC 1 and 29 for WTC 2), neither tower could have arrested the progression of collapse once collapse initiated. In reality, the highest intact floor was about three (WTC 2) to six (WTC 1) floors below the level of collapse initiation. Thus, more than the 12 to 29 floors reported above actually loaded the intact floor suddenly.'

So it seems that you only need a structure with one intact floor, say A97, that is suddenly loaded by many other floors, say C1 - C13 ... and global collapse ensues!

But how do you do that by gravity alone? I can put/drop one floor, C1, on the intact floor, A97, if I remove all supports in between, but the other floors, C2-C13, are still high above! They are not loading A97. C2-C13 are putting their loads into the columns!

NIST only talks about initiation! Floor C1 drops on A97 ... and therefore global collapse ensues. But what about the columns?

The Heiwa Challenge is the opportunity to test the NIST fuzzy ideas!

It seems you only need a structure with floors (A1-A97 + C1-C13) and then you only have to remove a top assembly of floors, C1-C13, and drop it on A97 ... and you are a winner!

But maybe A97 destroys C1? And do not forget the vertical elements.

PS - Bazant ... and Mackey (where has he gone?) make it very easy. C1-C13 is just one rigid mass M !!! and it destroys anything. But - reminder - rigid mass M is not permitted in The Heiwa Challenge. The structure must be real!

 

[Dave Rogers]

Both upper and lower columns will chew the concrete floors that they meet into a rain of loose rubble that has little concentrated force, just like a bag of loose nails, while heavier will never drive a nail into a plank. So the overall destructive power of the descending upper block on the lower intact 90% of the building is massively diluted by comparison with a rigid and intact upper block.

F-4, meet concrete block.

Although this is not in fact true - such a rain of loose rubble still has exactly the same amount of momentum, that still has to be absorbed by the floor below, whether it's in one piece or many - you may notice that the NIST report also points out that each floor could support at most 11 additional floors, and that 12 floors of WTC1 were falling. (Do I need to point out that 12 is a bigger number than 11?) In other words, had the upper structure been broken into small pieces and lowered gently on to the highest undamaged floor, it still would have collapsed. Since every subsequent floor would have had to support a greater weight, the collapse would still have propagated. And this has been explained and reiterated so many times on this forum, in threads that you have frequented, that wilful ignorance is the only possible explanation for you even bothering to discuss it.

Incidentally, the reason a bag of nails won't drive a single nail into a plank is that most of the moving nails miss the stationary one and hence can't transfer momentum to it. There was no possible way for the overwhelming majority of the mass of the upper block to miss the lower block.

Dave

 

[bill smith]

F-4, meet concrete block.

Although this is not in fact true - such a rain of loose rubble still has exactly the same amount of momentum, that still has to be absorbed by the floor below, whether it's in one piece or many - you may notice that the NIST report also points out that each floor could support at most 11 additional floors, and that 12 floors of WTC1 were falling. (Do I need to point out that 12 is a bigger number than 11?) In other words, had the upper structure been broken into small pieces and lowered gently on to the highest undamaged floor, it still would have collapsed. Since every subsequent floor would have had to support a greater weight, the collapse would still have propagated. And this has been explained and reiterated so many times on this forum, in threads that you have frequented, that wilful ignorance is the only possible explanation for you even bothering to discuss it.

Incidentally, the reason a bag of nails won't drive a single nail into a plank is that most of the moving nails miss the stationary one and hence can't transfer momentum to it. There was no possible way for the overwhelming majority of the mass of the upper block to miss the lower block.

Dave

I suggest that any reader of this post of Dave's looks for the word 'column' in his post. As a reply to a post about NIST ignoring the upstanding and descending core columns in WTC1 this will obviously not suffice and can be taken as the rubbish it appears to be .

Concerned Citizens who are reading along should bear this in mind when assessing future posts from Dave.


Additionally in the following oiece of rubbish you say :-

''....a rain of loose rubble still has exactly the same amount of momentum, that still has to be absorbed by the floor below, whether it's in one piece or many ''

What you should have said if you were not being deliberately misleading is that each and every piece of rubble had it's OWN momentum and struck independently. Lots of little blows do not have the same effect as one large one.

 

[funk de fino]

Lots of little blows do not have the same effect as one large one.

Do you watch boxing Bill?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Lots of little blows do not have the same effect as one large one.

Pretending that's true, let's forget the lots of little blows and go for the one big one. Your argument is that, because the core columns would have broken the floors, the floors wouldn't have broken.

Dave

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Some people would find your answer evasive Dave...

...says the guy who won't step up and articulate why he promotes a conspiracy theory that is 100% impossible.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Concerned Citizens who are reading along should bear this in mind when assessing future posts from Dave.

Concerned Citizens who are reading along should be amazed that heiwa continues to stumble along promoting some silly little "challenge" that has little-to-no relation to what happened to the Twin Towers.

And that bill smith won't spell out what his agenda is with regard to giving support to a conspiracy theory that is 100% impossible.

 

[tfk]

[bill quotes NIST]

QUESTION:
1. Was there enough gravitational energy present in the World Trade Center Towers to cause the collapse of the intact floors below the impact floors? Why was the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 not arrested by the intact structure below the floors where columns first began to buckle?

ANSWER:
Yes, there was more than enough gravitational load to cause the collapse of the floors below the level of collapse initiation in both WTC Towers. The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 11 additional floors if the load was applied gradually and 6 additional floors if the load was applied suddenly (as was the case). Since the number of floors above the approximate floor of collapse initiation exceeded six in each WTC Tower (12 and 29 floors, respectively), the floors below the level of collapse initiation were unable to resist the suddenly applied gravitational load from the upper floors of the buildings. Details of this finding are provided below:

Consider a typical floor immediately below the level of collapse initiation and conservatively assume that the floor is still supported on all columns (i.e., the columns below the intact floor did not buckle or peel-off due to the failure of the columns above). Consider further the truss seat connections between the primary floor trusses and the exterior wall columns or core columns. The individual connection capacities ranged from 94,000 lb to 395,000 lb, with a total vertical load capacity for the connections on a typical floor of 29,000,000 lb (See Section 5.2.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6C). The total floor area outside the core was approximately 31,000 ft2, and the average load on a floor under service conditions on September 11, 2001 was 80 lb/ft2. Thus, the total vertical load on a floor outside the core can be estimated by multiplying the floor area (31,000 ft2) by the gravitational load (80 lb/ft2), which yields 2,500,000 lb (this is a conservative load estimate since it ignores the weight contribution of the heavier mechanical floors at the top of each WTC Tower). By dividing the total vertical connection capacity (29,000,000 lb) of a floor by the total vertical load applied to the connections (2,500,000 lb), the number of floors that can be supported by an intact floor is calculated to be a total of 12 floors or 11 additional floors.

This simplified and conservative analysis indicates that the floor connections could have carried only a maximum of about 11 additional floors if the load from these floors were applied statically. Even this number is (conservatively) high, since the load from above the collapsing floor is being applied suddenly. Since the dynamic amplification factor for a suddenly applied load is 2, an intact floor below the level of collapse initiation could not have supported more than six floors. Since the number of floors above the level where the collapse initiated, exceeded 6 for both towers (12 for WTC 1 and 29 for WTC 2), neither tower could have arrested the progression of collapse once collapse initiated. In reality, the highest intact floor was about three (WTC 2) to six (WTC 1) floors below the level of collapse initiation. Thus, more than the 12 to 29 floors reported above actually loaded the intact floor suddenly.

.
[bill issues a challenge]

So does nobody want to have a guess what NIST might have omitted in the above explanation ? Or maybe comment on the liklihood of whether that omission could have occurred accidentally ? Does the omission totally invalidate this explanation and if so who will be the first to call NIST and damand a rectification?

.
[Several posters immediatly predict bill's impending "crash & burn"]
.
[bill reveals his "Gotcha"]

In my opinion no analysis of the collapse can exclude the 47 upstanding massive core columns. Nor the offset descending 47 core columns in the disconnected upper block. Both upper and lower columns will chew the concrete floors that they meet into a rain of loose rubble that has little concentrated force, just like a bag of loose nails, while heavier will never drive a nail into a plank. So the overall destructive power of the descending upper block on the lower intact 90% of the building is massively diluted by comparison with a rigid and intact upper block.

.
[Predictions come true.]
.
Here's your "thought for the day", bill:
"Arrogant and aggressive" does NOT constitute lipstick for "ignorant's" pig.

1st error: NIST does NOT "exclude the 47 upstanding massive core columns" from their discussion.

The "47 upstanding massive core columns" are key components of the "vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor". Without the upstanding massive core columns, the vertical capacity of the connections is zero.
___

2nd (minor) error: NIST does NOT completely exclude the "descending 47 core columns in the disconnected upper block" from their discussion either.

While they are not tallied in this explicitly "SIMPLIFIED" analysis, they are a component in addition to the top hat assembly that makes their weight estimates "conservative".
___

3rd major error: Your charmingly quaint assumption that you possess the knowledge or experience to dictate to a bunch of PhD Structural Engineers what is, and is not, significant.

NIST does not take the upstanding or descending core columns into account in this way at all and of course that is a vital and glaring omission.

So can I ask you again ?...Could this omission have been accidental ?

No, bill. It was not an accident.

NIST states explicitly that this is a "simplified and conservative analysis". It is neither necessary nor desirable to discuss all the myriad effects going on. It's the forest vs. the trees, bill. If you identify ONE point of certain failure that leads inextricably to total collapse, you're done. Additional discussion blurs focus for the non-professional.

The structural engineers have identified such a single point of certain failure: the carrying capacity of the cross truss to column connectors. They have shown that these components would have been overloaded no matter how non-traumatic any other effect might have been.

There are dozens of other effects that might be considered. All of them (including your cherished "massive core columns") are rendered irrelevant by the total failure of the connectors.

"Painting the lily & gilding the gold..."
___

I DO have one bitch with this explanation. It's the "... the dynamic amplification factor for a suddenly applied load is 2 ... " comment. This is a gross understatement. Another conservative simplification. If you think that it is accurate, I'll invite you to lay on the ground, and I'll gently lower a 40 lbs cement block onto your chest. Then, with your arms strapped to your side, I'll drop a 20 lb block cement block from 12 feet onto your chest. And then I'll ask you which one you'd prefer I do 10 additional times.

But again, this is a "simplified and conservative analysis". So I won't bitch too vocally.
___

Finally:

Some people would find your answer evasive Dave and a lot less than a resounding vote of confidence in the above NIST explanation of the collapse dynamic.

4th error: This was NOT NIST's "explanation of the collapse dynamic". It was one condition that was - on its own - sufficient for total collapse.

Furthermore, unlike you idjits and your teenage YouTube-ology, we don't take NIST as holy-writ. We'll actually listen to, and participate in, critiques of the report. In fact, there have been many competent critiques, such as the much-discussed Dr. Quintiere's.

So Dave gave you the option of presenting your "gotcha" moment. Meanwhile, predicting (along with the vast majority) your imminent crash & burn.

Dave was right on the money.

1. You misunderstood what NIST was saying here.
2. You baselessly attributed malevolent intentions to NIST as a result of your misunderstanding.
3. Your "gotcha" exposé fell on its face.
4. You expressed the quaint delusion that you could "paint into a corner" anybody except yourself.

In other words, SNAFU.

tom

 

[SteveAustin]

If 29,000,000 pounds is the carrying capacity of 1 floor (not doubting you)...

Is this why the floor could not support the weight of the collapsing top section? Because the top section weighed more than 29,000,000 pounds?

That is the essential NIST theory boiled down in a nutshell is it not?

 

[Newtons Bit]

Pretending that's true, let's forget the lots of little blows and go for the one big one. Your argument is that, because the core columns would have broken the floors, the floors wouldn't have broken.

Dave

It doesn't even have to be "blows". The floor connections will break under the static load of 11 floors above them (according to NIST). This is the upper-limit of what the floors can resist as a static load: the floor trusses and the concrete deck will fail before this point.

And columns aren't even part of the equation. One could pretend a completely invulnerable building below (such as in the ridiculous Heiwa Axiom), but the build-up of debris on the top most floor would eventually cause that floor to collapse.

 

[tuc0]

If 29,000,000 pounds is the carrying capacity of 1 floor (not doubting you)...

Is this why the floor could not support the weight of the collapsing top section? Because the top section weighed more than 29,000,000 pounds?

That is the essential NIST theory boiled down in a nutshell is it not?

No.

 

[GlennB]

If 29,000,000 pounds is the carrying capacity of 1 floor (not doubting you)...

Is this why the floor could not support the weight of the collapsing top section? Because the top section weighed more than 29,000,000 pounds?

That is the essential NIST theory boiled down in a nutshell is it not?

Static + dynamic are the words you need to appreciate here. The NIST faq makes it clear. Try reading it.

"This simplified and conservative analysis indicates that the floor connections could have carried only a maximum of about 11 additional floors if the load from these floors were applied statically"

p.s. while you're here ... I did ask some time back how it was that 'barely a day passes' in your life when you don't find someone who's surprised to hear that WTC7 also collapsed on 9/11. I find this strange. I go for years at a time with no mention of the subject at all in conversation, even though I have an interest. How come you're getting into the subject most days?

 

[beachnut]

I see that you still believe that bluster, arrogance and aggression are substitutes for rational debate.
Have a nice life.

Bring some physics next time you troll. Your a game? Your empty support of Heiwa's failed pizza box engineering is showing. Do you need some help to understand why the WTC tower fell on 911?

So does nobody want to have a guess what NIST might have omitted in the above explanation ? Or maybe comment on the liklihood of whether that omission could have occurred accidentally ? Does the omission totally invalidate this explanation and if so who will be the first to call NIST and damand a rectification?

You forgot to say what they got wrong and you can't. Do you have any engineering background? No your post prove you don't. Go ahead educate the world with more posts proving you will not bring engineering, math, or physics to this discussion to support your delusions or Heiwa failed ideas.

If 29,000,000 pounds is the carrying capacity of 1 floor (not doubting you)...

Is this why the floor could not support the weight of the collapsing top section? Because the top section weighed more than 29,000,000 pounds?

That is the essential NIST theory boiled down in a nutshell is it not?

Did you forget to read NIST before commenting on something you don't understand? Read NIST and try again to form a rational question. Do you need help?

 

[Heiwa]

It doesn't even have to be "blows". The floor connections will break under the static load of 11 floors above them (according to NIST). This is the upper-limit of what the floors can resist as a static load: the floor trusses and the concrete deck will fail before this point.

And columns aren't even part of the equation. One could pretend a completely invulnerable building below (such as in the ridiculous Heiwa Axiom), but the build-up of debris on the top most floor would eventually cause that floor to collapse.

Aha, an NB structure for The Heiwa Challenge!

"columns aren't even part of the equation"

LOL!

Yes, a structure only with horizontal elements not supported by anything will have little resistance against global collapse!

Can you provide an example of such a structure!