Newtons Bit:
Well thank you for that comment!
It is interesting that Heiwa thinks that the upper block of WTC 1 simply disintegrated before it had time to collapse. I have seen no evidence for that. And Heiwa has no proof that such a "disintegration" occurred.
And Heiwa apparently believes there was no tipping of the upper block of WTC 1 when it is in fact clearly visible in many videos (as long as they were not taken from the north!) Thus Heiwa fails to recognize that tipping is very important to collapse initiation and early propagation.
And may I add that it is most regrettable that Heiwa chooses to ignore most of the posts by myself and others that have previously pointed these and other things out to him.
So, before I go over all this stuff again, and get ignored again, I would ask Heiwa to go back and read my posts on all his threads and tell me how many of my posts he has addressed.
Oh, and Heiwa, as to my supposed "hidden agenda", let me tell you that I am a retired scientist living at home with my wife and son trying to live off a small pension. I spend my time writing submissions to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. (In fact if you google on Greening and CNSC or CANDU you can read all about it.)
So Heiwa, what would my " hidden agenda" be? If you can't tell me, I would ask that you retract this comment and stick to talking about things you can back up with evidence.
Hallo Frank!
Evidence that the WTC 1 upper block is disintegrating first before any local failures of the lower structure take place is given in my articles, e.g. that the mast on top of the roof of WTC 1 is falling first, then the roof, etc., when the lower structure is still intact. To suggest that the upper block is intact then is dishonest. In your analysis the mast should be the last part to fail in a
push-up on top of the rubble.
Of course the upper blocks of both WTC 1 and 2 are tipping very early - clearly shown in WTC 2 - also described in my articles. And that invalidates the basic assumptions of your recent paper '
What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York' with
"Abstract: Previous analysis of progressive collapse showed that gravity alone suffices to explain the overall collapse of the World Trade Center towers". That conclusion is as valid as a three dollars bill! Gravity force does not work like that.
You support many conspiracy theories about the collapse in your paper, e.g.:
1. All supports of WTC 1 suddenly disappear below the
upper block.
2. The
upper block near 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 (mostly air) assisted by gravity only destroys the columns of the lower structure below (the columns break every 10-12 meters like spaghetti).
6. The
upper block lands intact on a heap of rubble after a successful
push-down of the tower
7. The
upper block finally selfdestructs in a
push-up of the rubble.
Luckily the paper is not yet published by ASCE so you have time either to withdraw it or at least remove your name as co-writer.
Applying your and Bazant's (and Seffen's) theories to ship collisions it would appear that when a smaller ship hits a big ship, the small ship produces a shock wave, etc. and then slices through the big ship like butter. Ships are of course steel structures. But steel structures do not behave as you assume.
I remind you that ship collisions, or groundings for that matter, are much more frequent than steel tower collapses and that in many of these incidents the energies involved far exceed, e.g. WTC 1 collapse initiation. And they all end with an arrest after only local failures.
Why the WTC 1 local failures should end in a collapse arrest after the columns have locally damaged a few floors is described in my latest article at
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm . Evidently the strong columns of the lower structure (only 5-6 m² total crossarea) will slice the upper block - floor area 4000 m² - in two and the walls of the latter on the outside of the lower structure may drop down. The rest of the upper block structure, i.e. the sliced floors and remaining walls, will only get entangled in the lower structure. A thin floor of the upper block can never destroy the columns supported by spandrels of the lower structure.
In view of that and other observations of mine my remark about your agenda remains? Maybe you are only ignorant of basic facts what happens when two steel structures collide? Have you ever studied any ship collisions?
Kind regards
Anders Björkman
