• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Why scale models are ineffective

Scott_Milner said:
You misunderstood my point about the box columns, however it's not important as I see the dilemma between choosing a model which produces a similar strength to weight ratio, or a model that replicates similar forces.

There is still a problem with the towers' falling, especially World Trade 7: finding an instance in history where fire accomplishes what only a well planned, properly executed controlled demo has done.
Click to expand...

Henry Guthard, 70, one of Yamasaki's original partners who also worked as the project manager at the [WTC] site, said, "To hit the building, to disappear, to have pieces come out the other side, it was amazing the building stood. To defend against 5,000 (sic) gallons of ignited fuel in a building of 1350 feet is just not possible.

Report From Ground Zero
http://snurl.com/j54gc (Bottom of page 188)​
Click to expand...

There was no man-made explosive seen or heard at WTC. Prove me wrong.
10 seconds of video or one clear unambiguous quote will do it. No such quote or video exists.

Here are more steel structures that failed due to only fire.



January of 1997 -- the $15 million dollar Sight and Sound Theater in
Lancaster County, Pa collapsed due to fire.

http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-097.pdf


Historical Survey of Multistory Building Collapses Due to Fire
By: Jesse Beitel and Nestor Iwankiw, Ph.D., P.E.
http://www.fpemag.com/archives/article.asp?issue_id=27&i=153

On Jan 16, 1967, the steel roof of the McCormick Place in Chicago
collapsed due to fire



Enigma Business Park fire
http://www.bbc.co.uk/herefordandwor...s/2006/11/03/malvern_fire_video_feature.shtml

Dutch fire
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaK5YVVaRCo


-------------------------------------------------
September/October 2002

Bridge Rebuilt on the Fast Track
by Timothy Barkley and Gary Strasburg

When a crash occurs on a main travel artery, it can back up traffic
for miles-causing a chain reaction affecting every route in the
vicinity. If the incident occurs at an interchange of three major
highways and destroys a well-traveled bridge, transportation officials
have the makings of a major congestion emergency.

This exact scenario occurred at the junction of Interstates 65, 20,
and 59 in downtown Birmingham, AL, on Saturday, January 5, 2002. At
approximately 10 a.m., a gasoline tanker truck hit the I-65 Southbound
bridge. Fire and heat caused the steel girders to sag up to 3 meters
(10 feet) on one side. The interchange was engulfed in smoke that
filled the skyline, visible to motorists and residents of the city.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Steel building collapsses due to fire.

http://www.charleston.net/news/2007/jun/20/mourning_heroes/

Mourning 9 heroes
By Noah Haglund (Contact), Nadine Parks (Contact), Glenn Smith (Contact)
The Post and Courier
Wednesday, June 20, 2007


'Fearless' Charleston firefighters 'will never be forgotten,' Riley says

Capt. Ralph Linderman of the St. Andrews Fire Department said the
blaze was the hottest he could recall in three decades of
firefighting. "That fire bent steel like a wet noodle," he said.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charleston_Sofa_Super_Store_fire

----------------

(04-29) 12:51 PDT -- A huge ball of fire from an exploding
gasoline tanker melted steel and caused an overpass in the
MacArthur Maze near the East Bay end of the Bay Bridge to collapse
onto the roadway below early Sunday, virtually ensuring major
traffic problems for weeks to come.

The tanker, loaded with 8,600 gallons of unleaded gasoline, was
heading from a refinery in Benicia to a gas station on Hegenberger
Road, in Oakland, shortly before 4 a.m. when it crashed.

Engineers not connected to the incident said the steel underbelly
of the I-580 overpass seems to have heated to a sufficient
temperature to bend -- and that movement pulled the
roadbed off its supports.

"It was so much engulfed in flames, it was hard to see the freeway
itself," Rodriguez told KCBS radio. "It was scary because, you
know, it's metal and cement... You could see the freeway drooping.
It looked like plastic melted. It was unbelievable. It was bent
and finally it just fell and we saw it hit the ground."


http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2007/04/29/BAGVOPHQU46.DTL

-------------------------------


1989 FIRE CLOSES I-78, FORCES DETOURS
http://www.nycroads.com/roads/I-78_NJ/

FIRE CLOSES I-78, FORCES DETOURS: In the early morning hours
of August 7, 1989, a multiple-alarm fire at an illegal garbage
dump underneath I-78 near Newark Airport caused heavy damage to
the freeway overpass. The source of the fire was a mound of
trash 25 feet tall and hundreds of yards long consisting of
scrap wood, plastics and paper. The heat of the fire buckled
the ten-inch concrete surface and melted steel support beams,
and the resulting weight shifts from the highway (which had
sagged nearly a foot)
 
Dave_46 said:
Well, you have replied to two posts after this one, so I guess the answer is that you will ignore it.

Dave_46
Click to expand...

Yes, because you are off topic. But safety at sea is my biz so I apply it ashore too. Don't worry. Any thoughts why my model didn't collapse due to severe fire/heat?
 
Heiwa said:
Yes, because you are off topic. But safety at sea is my biz so I apply it ashore too. Don't worry. Any thoughts why my model didn't collapse due to severe fire/heat?
Click to expand...

wheres the video/pictorial archives of your test?
you wouldnt spend that time and money without recording the event, would you?

and i dont know how laws are in your neck of the woods
but i think id get in a good deal of trouble for lighting something like that in my yard if i didnt have the FD involved and standing by

your safety measure is a water can and to tell kids not to play with matches lol
 
Dave Rogers said:
Because there's more to it than the square-cube law; there's the gravitational potential energy, which varies as the fourth power of the dimensions, and the buckling resistance of the columns, which varies linearly. Energy absorbed in buckling goes as buckling stress times length, so that varies as the square of the linear dimension. So, in a one-hundredth scale model, for example, do we increase the weight by a factor of a hundred to compensate for the strength-to-weight ratio, but then find that collapse is arrested because the energy balance is now biased by a hundred times in favour of survival? Or do we increase the weight by ten thousand times to get the energy balance right, and then find that the structure can't support even a few per cent of its own static weight?

It seems to me that collapse progression scales differently to collapse initiation. And that, actually, is a far more fundamental problem than the square-cube law. If everything scaled the same, we could correct for it; but different properties scale differently with the same variables.

Dave
Click to expand...

Absolutely, which gets back to the point that what/how you scale depends on what you are looking for. It seems unlikely that you would model all the behaviors with one model. You might need several different model arrangements to capture the initiation, the global collapse, the sagging beams/pulling columns, etc. Truthers who think they can get anywhere with pizza boxes and lemons are seriously deluded. Better to burn the boxes for heat and make lemonade.:p
 
sylvan8798 said:
Absolutely, which gets back to the point that what/how you scale depends on what you are looking for. It seems unlikely that you would model all the behaviors with one model. You might need several different model arrangements to capture the initiation, the global collapse, the sagging beams/pulling columns, etc. Truthers who think they can get anywhere with pizza boxes and lemons are seriously deluded. Better to burn the boxes for heat and make lemonade.:p
Click to expand...

in other words
a model built in a computer that cost a few million?
 
Heiwa said:
Yes, because you are off topic. But safety at sea is my biz so I apply it ashore too. Don't worry. Any thoughts why my model didn't collapse due to severe fire/heat?
Click to expand...

Your biz is not safety at sea, my company, the largest offshore sub sea construction company on the planet as records of all contracts carried out by all third party contactors, you are not listed. You are a lying fraud who when asked did not know the first thing about offshore safety.

List all the offshore projects your company as been awarded, with dates.

List all the safety recommendations that your company has put forward and as been adopted as standard by the entire offshore industry.
 
Last edited:
Heiwa said:
Any thoughts why my model didn't collapse due to severe fire/heat?
Click to expand...


The most likely possibility is that it didn't collapse because it was never exposed to severe fire/heat, because it never existed, because you never constructed it. You have not performed the test you've described and you are lying every time you state or imply that you did.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Heiwa said:
Yes, because you are off topic. But safety at sea is my biz so I apply it ashore too. Don't worry. Any thoughts why my model didn't collapse due to severe fire/heat?
Click to expand...

If I was off topic it was because I followed you off topic.

As to why your model didn't collapse,

1. I don't believe you carried out the test (see Myriad's comments)
2. See the title of this thread.

Dave_46

Have you done the risk assessment/method statement before encouraging children to mess with flammable liquids?
 
stateofgrace said:
List all the offshore projects your company as been awarded, with dates.
Click to expand...

Heiwa was asked this a few years ago, here I think. The only real project he would admit to was 'welding lifeboat davits on a Med. ferry'. I found this strange for the proprietor of the "European Agency for Safety at Sea".

I have regular doubts about my own motivation for continuing to attack his nonsense. It's feeling a lot like bullying an unfortunate who knows no better. He hasn't published in professional journals the way he claims. He hasn't presented at learned conferences the way he claims. He doesn't hold several maritime patents, the way he claims. His Agency is a name only, and even the name is in breach of European law. He spews unscientific guff right, left and centre. He is a sad case. In a word - deluded.

So - over and out on the Heiwa front. Good luck all.
 
GlennB said:
Heiwa was asked this a few years ago, here I think. The only real project he would admit to was 'welding lifeboat davits on a Med. ferry'. I found this strange for the proprietor of the "European Agency for Safety at Sea".

I have regular doubts about my own motivation for continuing to attack his nonsense. It's feeling a lot like bullying an unfortunate who knows no better. He hasn't published in professional journals the way he claims. He hasn't presented at learned conferences the way he claims. He doesn't hold several maritime patents, the way he claims. His Agency is a name only, and even the name is in breach of European law. He spews unscientific guff right, left and centre. He is a sad case. In a word - deluded.

So - over and out on the Heiwa front. Good luck all.
Click to expand...

My bolding.

I understand what you are getting at. However, when he is promoting dangerous experiments for children I feel the need to bring it to peoples attention. I strongly suspect it will make no difference to him, but it helps my concience to know that I have not let his advocacy of stupidity pass without comment. And, I will continue to comment on it whenever I notice his advocacy.

Dave
 
GlennB said:
Heiwa was asked this a few years ago, here I think. The only real project he would admit to was 'welding lifeboat davits on a Med. ferry'. I found this strange for the proprietor of the "European Agency for Safety at Sea".

I have regular doubts about my own motivation for continuing to attack his nonsense. It's feeling a lot like bullying an unfortunate who knows no better. He hasn't published in professional journals the way he claims. He hasn't presented at learned conferences the way he claims. He doesn't hold several maritime patents, the way he claims. His Agency is a name only, and even the name is in breach of European law. He spews unscientific guff right, left and centre. He is a sad case. In a word - deluded.

So - over and out on the Heiwa front. Good luck all.
Click to expand...

I also hear what you say and yes you are correct but I will not let remarks like he makes go unchallenged. It annoys me when I see him try hitching a ride on the backs of guys out there who do work in this industry. I have worked offshore for the last fourteen years, on various installations and vessels and on them all safety is paramount. There is not a single offshore operation that takes place unless it is safe. All offshore operations are task risked and it is the duty, of any individual out there to call a time out if an unsafe act takes place. Safety is a religion out there, heck the company I work for even as the “Do it safely or not at all" as its motto. Offshore contracts are awarded on safety records and removed if safety is poor. There is a massive effort by everybody out there to work safely and take it very seriously.

And this fraud as the nerve to try and claim some sort of credit for this massive effort, to try and jump on the bandwagon and take some sort of credit for safety at sea. There is a supreme effort to work safely out there; this effort is reinforced at every level. This massive effort takes place day in and day out and does so without any input from Heiwa. He is not responsible for safety at sea, in the industry I work in, at any level. The thousands of guys who work out there are.

Anyway I hear what you say and as such this will be my last comment on this topic in this thread and I would like to apologise to 1337m4n for being drawn into a derail by this fraud.
 
Last edited:
Hokulele said:
Please do not fall for Scott Milner's transparent attempt at changing the subject. There are umpteen threads regarding WTC7 and fire.
Click to expand...

Changing what subject? Are you going to fall for the poor analogy of a tin building sagging from heat to explain a total collapse of WTC7? Do you see any concrete, or structural grade box columns as used in WTC1, 2, or 7 in that two level office structure? I think not.

Notice the photo of the office building on page two is not a total collapse.
 
Scott_Milner said:
Changing what subject? Are you going to fall for the poor analogy of a tin building sagging from heat to explain a total collapse of WTC7? Do you see any concrete, or structural grade box columns as used in WTC1, 2, or 7 in that two level office structure? I think not.

Notice the photo of the office building on page two is not a total collapse.
Click to expand...

Not an office building it was a warehouse. The only reason the side columns did not collapse was because they were supported by concrete and brick walls. There was no weight on the roof section yet it still failed in a fought fire. WTC building fires were not fought.

Steel fails in fire, get over it. Stop moving OT again. Back to the OP and defend your earlier claims.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom