WTC collapses - Layman's terms again

[Heiwa]

It appears that Heiwa just thinks American scientists are either idiots or ideologically motivated. Somehow I remain dubious. Shocking, that.

Yes. It appears that Heiwa just thinks some American scientists are either idiots or ideologically motivated. Somehow you remain dubious. Still shocking, that? Come on, how old are you? 4? Haven't met any bad guys yet? OK, they look normal on the outside ... so check what they actually say and do. Quite shocking!

 

[Heiwa]

Tell us about the scientists on your planet who have discovered errors in the NIST Report, or in Dr. Greening's papers.

Give me some evidence that the conspiray theories promoted by Bazant and Seffen are valid.

 

[DGM]

Heiwa:
Got those floor structure resistance to the acceleration of gravity numbers yet? You don't still want me to believe in your "gut feeling" do you?

 

[Heiwa]

You have had the benefit of learning from several extremely bright and knowledgeable people here--people who actually design large structures--and you have learned nothing.

DC is quite good - but I knew all his tips before. What other bright and knowledgeable people are you talking about? I have designed big steel structures say since 1968. At that time we did it long hand. Then came big computers and later PCs. Made things easier.
Pls - discuss topic and not my qualifications that you have no ideas about.

 

[beachnut]

Heiwa; People who are ignorant on 9/11 and engineering topics support your ideas. Your jumping on beds analogies, feather weights, and basic lack of physics and structures attracts those who possess zero abilities in engineer. With your flawed conclusions based on faulty engineering, your failed paper has fooled some who lack knowledge.

 

[Heiwa]

Heiwa:
Got those floor structure resistance to the acceleration of gravity numbers yet? You don't still want me to believe in your "gut feeling" do you?

Sorry, too many personal attacks to dismiss that the Moderator doesn't stop.

So you do not believe that a heavy vertical column will punch a hole in a thin horizontal floor just by its own weight. It's like a knife cutting butter.

My article doesn't go into such deep details you request. I just try to keep the basic assumptions correct and then there is no need to invent differential equations and integrations too impress people. KISS.

 

[twinstead]

DC is quite good - but I knew all his tips before. What other bright and knowledgeable people are you talking about? I have designed big steel structures say since 1968. At that time we did it long hand. Then came big computers and later PCs. Made things easier.
Pls - discuss topic and not my qualifications that you have no ideas about.

You seem to think then that your qualifications must trump every other 'debunker' here, because I know people personally who are every bit as qualified as you think you may be and who think you are totally full of it.

My explanation is that you may quite possibly not know as much as you think you do, or may not be as objective as you fancy yourself to be.

I may be wrong. You certainly aren't doing anything that suggests that, though.

 

[DGM]

Sorry, too many personal attacks to dismiss that the Moderator doesn't stop.

So you do not believe that a heavy vertical column will punch a hole in a thin horizontal floor just by its own weight. It's like a knife cutting butter.

My article doesn't go into such deep details you request. I just try to keep the basic assumptions correct and then there is no need to invent differential equations and integrations too impress people. KISS.

I have no problem with the punch through. Why can't you prove that the collapse will stop? "gut feelings" won't cut it.

 

[Newtons Bit]

when i make a "theory" and want to publish it, and maybe even get it peer-reviewed. i dont have to backup my assumptions. i can take a simplification when i lack the ability and knowledge to do it accurate, and that simplification or assumption has not to be backedup with evidence, a calculation or reality, i can use it, and others will have to prove that wrong.

If you have a theory and back it up with math, and then publish it in a legit journal, have it peer-reviewed, then the work itself compels some respect. What this means is that I can't just say, "well, what about this, ah HAH! You're wrong!" and have everyone believe me. I need to use math, I need to SHOW that you would be wrong.

Gordon Ross ATTEMPTED to do this. He didn't publish in a legit journal, and his grasp of physics is lacking. But he at least tried to do it with math. You're not even doing that. You expect us to reject a respectable work without any backup. We're not going to do that. Show us how Bazant is wrong.

 

[tanabear]

Talking about junk, Bazant and Frank Greening have just (31 March 2008) produced a new paper that you find as reference [2] in my latest article at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm .
So Bazant and Greening suggests that the upper block (solid, rigid, uniform density, etc) remains intact during the whole incident and only selfdestructs afterwards. Any evidence for such a preposterous suggestion? Seen on any videos?
It is sad how scientists can suggest:
1. All supports suddenly disappear below the upper block.
2. The upper block free falls 3.7 meters.
3. The upper block impacts a lower structure with perfect alignment
4. The upper block is still intact.
5. The upper block (most air) destroys the columns below (the columns break every 10-12 meters like spaghetti).
6. The upper block lands intact on a heap of rubble.
7. The upper block selfdestructs.
On any video of the WTC1 collapse none of 1 - 7 can be seen.

I sometimes wonder about US science! Is it just some crazy ideas in the minds of some individuals without contact with real matter?

Hi Heiwa. My brother just sent you that e-mail last night regarding Bazant, Greening's et al updated paper. Nice to see you already responded to it. I also thought that the crush-down and crush-up ideas were ridiculous as well.

"The gravity-driven progressive collapse of a tower consists of two phases—the crush-down, followed by crush-up."

"The fact that the crush-up of entire stories cannot occur simultaneously with the crush-down..."

So the top part of the building was able to plow through the entire lower section without damaging itself, except slightly during the impact, then once it hits the rubble pile it self-destructs??????????

 

[beachnut]

"The gravity-driven progressive collapse of a tower consists of two phases—the crush-down, followed by crush-up."

"The fact that the crush-up of entire stories cannot occur simultaneously with the crush-down..."

So the top part of the building was able to plow through the entire lower section without damaging itself, except slightly during the impact, then once it hits the rubble pile it self-destructs??????????

And your degree is in?

Let me get this clear. You support Heiwa's work as correct as is? And you do this base on years as a ______?

 

[Heiwa]

Air jets

Hi Heiwa. My brother just sent you that e-mail last night regarding Bazant, Greening's et al updated paper. Nice to see you already responded to it. I also thought that the crush-down and crush-up ideas were ridiculous as well.

"The gravity-driven progressive collapse of a tower consists of two phases—the crush-down, followed by crush-up."

"The fact that the crush-up of entire stories cannot occur simultaneously with the crush-down..."

So the top part of the building was able to plow through the entire lower section without damaging itself, except slightly during the impact, then once it hits the rubble pile it self-destructs??????????

Yes, isnt' it strange? And what about the 'air jets'! Also supposed to be caused by the top part plowing through the building before selfdestruction or crush-up. Plenty of NONSENSE in Bazant's and Greening's latest paper.What causes the air jets if there is no top part?

 

[DC]

And your degree is in?

Let me get this clear. You support Heiwa's work as correct as is? And you do this base on years as a ______?

how many years of practical and/or theoretical mechanical or structural engineering can you show us?

 

[DC]

If you have a theory and back it up with math, and then publish it in a legit journal, have it peer-reviewed, then the work itself compels some respect. What this means is that I can't just say, "well, what about this, ah HAH! You're wrong!" and have everyone believe me. I need to use math, I need to SHOW that you would be wrong.

Gordon Ross ATTEMPTED to do this. He didn't publish in a legit journal, and his grasp of physics is lacking. But he at least tried to do it with math. You're not even doing that. You expect us to reject a respectable work without any backup. We're not going to do that. Show us how Bazant is wrong.

strange, you accept Bazant's paper without the math to some of his fundamental assumptions, but one of the points you point out to me, when i would try to bring up a paper, that i have to include the math.

that is a double standard.

 

[Architect]

I have designed big steel structures say since 1968.

And yet, at various times on this (and other) threads you have laboured under the (later denied) misapprehensions that:

• structural steelwork is not susceptible to fire-indeced failure under normal (never mind aircraft impact) conditions, notwithstanding a wealth of evidence to the contrary in the form of internationally recognised testing criteria and buidling reglations/codes.

• you believe that the lower structure had sufficient reserve capacity to accommodate the imposed kinetic loads arrising from collapse and the changing load path routes as the collapse sequence progresses, notwithstanding your apparent inability to produce any meaningful structural calculations to support this assertion.

• You support the patently incorrect assertion that both the core and external load-bearing envelope would have stood in isolation, i.e. without the cross-bracing effect of both floors and hat trusses, in direct contradiction to every other technical account of the towers and with scant regard to issues about transferrence of wind loads and bending moments.

• You have suggested that a pastic garden table is a suitable structural emtaphor - or analogy, take your pick - for the towers.

Heiwa, you're a fraud. You clearly have no grasp of structural issues or the construction of buildings. You have claimed that your paper is peer reviewed when it is clearly not. You have claimed to answer technical criticism on this site, but instead have simply posted evasive responses and hand-waved away rejoinders. You claimed to have given evidence to the US government, but it tured out just to be someone citing your work. Doubtless if I keep looking, I will find more.

And this before I even note that, in a previous life, you appear to have been a no-planer.

 

[DC]

and the ppl that keep pointing that the floors connections will brake so quickly remember that the Panncake theory has been debunked, i hope you dont want to get back to that old myth.

 

[uk_dave]

and the ppl that keep pointing that the floors connections will brake so quickly remember that the Panncake theory has been debunked, i hope you dont want to get back to that old myth.

What?

The pancake theory for collapse initiation was an initial logical assumption based upon the top down collapse.

It is to the credit of NIST that they actually investigated the available evidence to conclude that the initiating event wasn't failure of the floor connections, but rather failure of the perimeter columns pulled inwards by the sagging floor trusses. In other words, the connection of perimeter columns to those above and below were stressed to breaking before the connections of floor to perimeter columns.

But then you knew this already.

The subsequent progressive collapse of the building while virtually impossible to model with the same degree of accuracy as the initiating event, can be assumed to have been overloading of each subsequent floor leading to separation of floor trusses from perimeter and core columns.

But you already knew this also.

 

[DC]

What?

The pancake theory for collapse initiation was an initial logical assumption based upon the top down collapse.

It is to the credit of NIST that they actually investigated the available evidence to conclude that the initiating event wasn't failure of the floor connections, but rather failure of the perimeter columns pulled inwards by the sagging floor trusses. In other words, the connection of perimeter columns to those above and below were stressed to breaking before the connections of floor to perimeter columns.

But then you knew this already.

The subsequent progressive collapse of the building while virtually impossible to model with the same degree of accuracy as the initiating event, can be assumed to have been overloading of each subsequent floor leading to separation of floor trusses from perimeter and core columns.

But you already knew this also.

virtually impossible to model
virtually?

 

[AZCat]

virtually impossible to model
virtually?

Are you asking about the meaning of the word or are you questioning his assertion?

 

[DC]

Are you asking about the meaning of the word or are you questioning his assertion?

im more asking about the word, im not so sure, what that exactly means.

prolly like" Praktisch unmöglich"