WTC collapses - Layman's terms again

[stateofgrace]

Now - assuming the upper block has dropped down a little misaligned and sliced through three red floors in the lower structure as shown in the article. The lower structure has fought back and sliced through three green floors of the upper block. OK - you follow.

Evidently the red sliced floors are then no longer connected/braced to the wall columns. This evidently has no effect on the wall!!
.

Fought back? What on Gods green planet are you talking about?

The lower floors could not "fight” back, because as you have admitted they were non load bearing, just there to walk on, they could offer NO resistance to the massive falling weights.

So how can they suddenly "fight” back against the massive dynamic weights falling onto them?

 

[aggle-rithm]

So how can they suddenly "fight” back against a massive dynamic weights falling onto them?

Sounds like an overused Sci-Fi plot: "They've achieved consciousness and a desire to live!"

 

[ElMondoHummus]

This is ridiculous. We've already had multiple threads where Heiwa's concepts were dealt with in this forum.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=101791
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102226
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102407
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102982
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=108273

Notable excerpts from these threads:

Here's a post by Heiwa where he unveils his density claim:

Most (95%) of the towers was air. Uniform density of the mass of the tower top part was <0.18, i.e. less than wool. Could not do much damage to anything.

I'd post rwguinn's response, but all it was was the laughing dogs.

Here are some posts where Heiwa tries to argue that "density" matters, and also handwaves past the concept that the floors provide lateral support for the exterior columns:

Well pretty much everywhere, to be frank. And it's been pointed out to yout time and time again on this and other threads. For example:

- The structural design of the WTC towers

- The ability of the outer envelope to stand on it's own

- The initiation zone.

- The initiation sequence.

- The meaning of basic technical terms such as "initiation".

- The performance of steel in fire.

- The error in suggesting that core column integrity is a key part of the initiation sequence.

- Any structural analogy comparing the towers to the density of wool.

- The use of concrete for floors.

But, hey - that doesn't matter, does it? Because all these pesky trained academics and professionals are all fools, right? Only YOU can see the truth!

Well - evidently you have not read my paper because the structural design of WTC1 (or at least its upper part) is well described. One conclusion then is that the outer envelope, you mean the four outer walls consisting of 63 columns each, can stand on its own. The outer envelope does not need any floors to stand. Quite the opposite, the floors need the outer envelope to hang on (via bolts). Remove all floors and the walls stand. The initiation zone is apparently where the collapse started - no problem for me, except that the roof of WTC1 drops 20-25 meters and there is still no big damages at the initiation zone. The initiation sequence? One thing is sure - no mention that the upper block disintegrates prior to collapse below the initiation zone starts. The meaning of 'initiation' and other basic technical terms! Is 'initiation' a technical term? Sound more like magic and secret society to me! The performance of steel in fire is described (with a link) in the paper. The steel gets hot, etc! Strength is hardly affected below 500°C. Core column integrity! Yes, it is a mystery how 47 strong core columns were destroyed. Not by gravity in my opinion as explained in the paper. Solid stuff. Should deflect anything dropping on it. Comparison with wool! Well the uniform density of the upper block is less than that of wool, so I think it is a useful comparison. The use of concrete of floors. I thought you thought I did not know that there were concrete floors? Anyway - they poured concrete on the steel floors pans held by trusses to even them out, provide noise and fire insulation, etc. No big deal. I know Nist suggests that 6 or 11 floors fell down suddenly into the initiation zone and initiated the collapse, but it is nonsense. Only fools believe that.

Do you believe that 6 or 11 floors fell down and initiated the collapse?

My god, that is one of the the stupidest things you have ever said.


Without the floors, what is there to keep the exterior columns from buckling under their own weight?

Whoa! Painfully long. Ok, I'll just link from here on out. Here's where Architect does a point-by-point rebuttal of 1. Heiwa's odd concepts of the floor's contribution to the structure's integrity, and 2. Several other misapprehensions that he purports:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3522065#post3522065

Here's Dave Rogers' comments regarding Heiwa's "alignment" argument:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3522071#post3522071
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3522813#post3522813

And Newton's Bit rebutting various points of Heiwa's vaunted paper on the collapse:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3535159&postcount=213
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3539491&postcount=243

Etc. Further contributions from MRC Hans, Mindanin, and many others are viewable in those threads for all to see. At any rate, Heiwa's propositions have been discussed already, and judgements passed in those previous threads have been that his theses leave much to be desired. So why repeat things again?

 

[stateofgrace]

This is ridiculous. We've already had multiple threads where Heiwa's concepts were dealt with in this forum.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=101791
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102226
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102407
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102982
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=108273

Notable excerpts from these threads:

Here's a post by Heiwa where he unveils his density claim:



I'd post rwguinn's response, but all it was was the laughing dogs.

Here are some posts where Heiwa tries to argue that "density" matters, and also handwaves past the concept that the floors provide lateral support for the exterior columns:





Whoa! Painfully long. Ok, I'll just link from here on out. Here's where Architect does a point-by-point rebuttal of 1. Heiwa's odd concepts of the floor's contribution to the structure's integrity, and 2. Several other misapprehensions that he purports:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3522065#post3522065

Here's Dave Rogers' comments regarding Heiwa's "alignment" argument:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3522071#post3522071
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3522813#post3522813

And Newton's Bit rebutting various points of Heiwa's vaunted paper on the collapse:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3535159&postcount=213
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3539491&postcount=243

Etc. Further contributions from MRC Hans, Mindanin, and many others are viewable in those threads for all to see. At any rate, Heiwa's propositions have been discussed already, and judgements passed in those previous threads have been that his theses leave much to be desired. So why repeat things again?

You are of course correct.

Heiwa, goodbye.

 

[Architect]

Heiwa:

I know you have tended to focus only on the collapse of WTC 1, but I would ask you to take a moment to consider WTC 2. One of the best videos of the collapse of WTC , (pointed out by poster Einsteen over at PhysOrg) may be seen at:

http://baldur.globalsymmetry.com/fact911/wtc2-corner/911.wtc.2.demolition.north.very.close.mpg

Can I just say that I've never seen this video and found it absolutely fascinating in terms of failure sequence. I would commend it to you all, JREFer and Truther alike.

 

[DC]

The first floor down takes the impact of the upper mass.

The second floor down takes the impact of the upper mass + the first floor down.

The third floor down takes the impact of the upper mass + the first floor down + the second floor down...

And so on...

So to claim that 90 stories were crushed by 20 stories is a total lie... the lobby, for example was crushed by 110 stories.

you didnt answer my qusetion. we are still at the moment of the impact of the upper part on the lower part.

you claimed that the energy will only affect the most upper floor.
and i asked you if that was indeed what you ment.

 

[Architect]

DC, have you looked at that video yourself?

 

[DC]

....

I doubt very much that a would-be demolitionist would want the upper section of WTC 2 to tilt. Nor could he predict or control the kink that formed in the north face. (And please note that the upper section of WTC 1 also tilted before it dropped.)........

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=d77E0E46c2k

 

[DC]

DC, have you looked at that video yourself?

sure, and i knew it already, its a very good video. just a shame they didnt catch the 3.7m freefall.

and you can nicely see the upper part disintegrate. and the acceleration of dustclouds is also very very interesting.

 

[funk de fino]

how come the lowest floor and the lowest columns of the upper, falling, tower part, are able to crush all the floors of the lower intact tower part, without beeing destroyed untill the crush up phase started?

Dr. Bazant's Collapse fantasy is total nonsence.
even Haiwa's comparing to the bbq party table collapse is more accurate.

You still have not given us your qualifications or experience to be making grand claims like these?

 

[DC]

....

Because the falling part is at least ten stories whereas the floor underneath it is only one story (also the variation in column steel thickness from floor to floor is very small).

.....

 

[DC]

DC, have you looked at that video yourself?

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=nLHGLI1Ihv0

i guess you know that already, also a good one

 

[Minadin]

http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/6131/stress1ai7.gif

You can't honestly believe that the concrete floors would be able to plasticly deform like that. Or even that the connections between all those exterior members would not shear off immediately under the amount of force that would cause those deformations.

That graphic is a great example of how conspiracy theorists really don't understand anything about structure whatsoever.

 

[DC]

You still have not given us your qualifications or experience to be making grand claims like these?

i'm not qualified nor experianced nor educated nor anything

would i be qualified, i would not be credible. i would just be a kook like without qualifications.

from your point of view

 

[DC]

You can't honestly believe that the concrete floors would be able to plasticly deform like that. Or even that the connections between all those exterior members would not shear off immediately under the amount of force that would cause those deformations.

That graphic is a great example of how conspiracy theorists really don't understand anything about structure whatsoever.

this was also not the point.

it is just a very very simple demonstration tho the ppl that belive that the impact energy will only affect the most upper storey, the columns do "transmit" parts of that energy to the columns below them.

and it is not a displacement analysis, its a stress analysis.

 

[Apollo20]

Dictator Cheney:

In the demolition video you posted you can see:

1. Cutter charges going off all the way around the building in a horizontal band.

2. The upper block only tilts slightly - I would say by no more than 7 degrees - and then stabilizes in a more or less vertical configuration.

This is NOTHING like WTC 2, which tilts by more than 20 degrees (best seen in videos taken from the NE I believe) before smoke and dust obscure the view.

In addition, the WTC 2 collapse shows a non-horizontal kink/fold along the north face as the upper section tilts - a sure sign it was NOT a CD, i.e. A CONTROLLED demolition..... the key word being CONTROLLED!

 

[aggle-rithm]

i'm not qualified nor experianced nor educated nor anything

Yes, we figured that out.

would i be qualified, i would not be credible. i would just be a kook like without qualifications.

Correction: If you were qualified, and you said things that were completely inconsistent with your qualifications (for instance, if you were a pilot who believed that air pressure increases the higher you go), you would not be credible.

 

[Minadin]

A relatively small amount of energy will be transmited to the lower parts of the structure that haven't been impacted yet when compared to the amount of energy at the impact front. Once the structure above fails, it's added to the moving mass and the eventual impact energy below is greater than it was above, due to the added mass and increased speed.

You say that the above is a stress analysis, but a stress analysis of what? It's not representative of the WTC towers, for one, and secondarily, you're clearly using it for visual impact only as it's quite impossible to extract any meaningful data from it.

 

[Dumb All Over]

This is the end for this time, gentlefolks + others.

Anders Björkman has just left the building.

Ook.

His statement above leads me to believe he will not post in this thread again. So, the time has come to draw conclusions.

In his opening post, Mr. Björkman stated his paper was peer reviewed, purportedly to bolster and lend a certain credence and scientific credibility to his work. Throughout the course of this thread it has become clear that his paper has not been peer reviewed. Having children review a scientific and technical paper is by no stretch of the imagination anything that can be considered a part of the peer review process.

Ook, ook.

The closest his article has come to a proper peer review has occurred only here in this thread. Upon reading the criticisms from the fine posters here, Mr. Björkman's response is:

Actually, all technical questions raised in this thread have been answered and no faults in the article found. You confirm the opinions of my peer reviewers.

...hardly a give and take colloquy conducive to a true peer review process.

Mr. Björkman's level of dishonesty in presenting his paper as peer reviewed is apparent. He's been caught in a big fat act of deception. Because his paper was presented under a false pretense, the paper should now be rejected outright. There is no longer a need to examine any of the evidence presented within the paper.

Ook, ook, ook.

(For those without the latest version of MS MonkeySpeak Translator 2.2, "Ook, ook, ook" translates directly to, "Heiwa lied. Those who lie are commonly known as liars and should not be taken seriously.")

 

[DC]

Dictator Cheney:

In the demolition video you posted you can see:

1. Cutter charges going off all the way around the building in a horizontal band.

2. The upper block only tilts slightly - I would say by no more than 7 degrees - and then stabilizes in a more or less vertical configuration.

This is NOTHING like WTC 2, which tilts by more than 20 degrees (best seen in videos taken from the NE I believe) before smoke and dust obscure the view.

In addition, the WTC 2 collapse shows a non-horizontal kink/fold along the north face as the upper section tilts - a sure sign it was NOT a CD, i.e. A CONTROLLED demolition..... the key word being CONTROLLED!

1. afaik they didnt want to let it look like a normal collapse, in the video.

2.we dont know if they wanted the upper part to tilt. sometimes you dont get what you want.

in addition i find it interesting how even the tilted top leads to a relative symetrical "collapse" of the lower part.