IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags safety factors , wtc

Reply
Old 15th March 2009, 08:52 AM   #81
metamars
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,207
Originally Posted by GregoryUrich View Post
OK. There are your mistakes. (I assume you are using floor 97 with 33,000 tonnes total mass above as usual.)

In accord with the correct load distribution calculated by Urich [2007] (which concurs with S. W. Banovic, T. Foecke, W.E. Luecke, et al. “The role of metallurgy in the NIST investigation of the World Trade Center towers collapse”, JOM, vol. 59, no. 11, pp. 22-29, November 2007.)

the values you should be using are:
The mass acting on the core is closer to 19,500 tonnes.

The total core demand is 1,9081E+08 N.

Correct calculation of buckling stress here using the actual properties of the steel as opposed to your assumptions.

The load capacity of the core is 4,3603E+08 N.

Core DCR = 44% (FoS = 2.29) prior to aircraft impact damage.

Core DCR = 51% (FoS = 1.96) after aircraft impact damage.
Greg, as you know, I have been working on a computer program to calculate stresses in a purely elastic, axial collision of a WTC top (floors 93 to 111) with the WTC base (floors 92 and down). In the process, I calculate a spring constant for each floor, using the mass of columns, only (no spandrels, e.g.). I also calculate the total mass for each floor, using the assumption that the mass remaining when you subtract the absolute total mass from the column masses, is to be evenly divided between 111 floors. (So, I ignore differences in spandrel weights, service floors, etc., and I completely ignore the basement floors).

Also, to repeat, I haven't carefully double checked everything, yet. Caveat emptor.

Even so, I read this thread and got curious as to how theoretical maximum load that is within the elastic limit compares to the static weight. I just added a few lines of code, and I am getting a ratio not of 3 or 5, but rather an overall ratio of about 60 (mks units):

Quote:
Output:
Spring Constant at floor 92: 3965840390490.68
Total Mass floors 93 - 111: 43824141.6906478

Therefore, static load from WTC top is 429,476,588.568348
Force to get .002 compression at floor 92 is 30,695,604,622.3978
Do you have any comments on this wide discrepancy? Somehow, taking a normal eccentricity into account doesn't seem like it should make a column over 10X as weak, but then again, I'm not an engineer.



Whoa, after I posted the above, I noticed that my spring constant calcs were using total mass, instead of column mass. Here are the corrected figures:

Quote:
Static load from WTC top is 429,476,588.568348
Force to get .002 compression at floor 92 is 1,971,244,221.96645

===================================

Spring constant calcs:

// compute spring constants; from F = (YA / L) * Delta_L = (YV / L^2) * Delta_L ,
// k = (Y(m/rho) / L^2 ) where Y is Young's modulus = 200 GPa

Last edited by metamars; 15th March 2009 at 09:08 AM.
metamars is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2009, 10:03 AM   #82
Heiwa
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,148
Originally Posted by GregoryUrich View Post
OK. There are your mistakes. (I assume you are using floor 97 with 33,000 tonnes total mass above as usual.)

In accord with the correct load distribution calculated by Urich [2007] (which concurs with S. W. Banovic, T. Foecke, W.E. Luecke, et al. “The role of metallurgy in the NIST investigation of the World Trade Center towers collapse”, JOM, vol. 59, no. 11, pp. 22-29, November 2007.)

the values you should be using are:
The mass acting on the core is closer to 19,500 tonnes.

The total core demand is 1,9081E+08 N.

Correct calculation of buckling stress here using the actual properties of the steel as opposed to your assumptions.

The load capacity of the core is 4,3603E+08 N.

Core DCR = 44% (FoS = 2.29) prior to aircraft impact damage.

Core DCR = 51% (FoS = 1.96) after aircraft impact damage.
Well, I use mass 16 500 tons, total core cross area 2.1 m˛ and average yield stress 248 MPa (<critical buckling), so my (average) FoS is abt 3 of upper part C (and yours is 2.29).
The FoS of the core due to plane damages is of course of no importance.
A structure with FoS 3 or 2.29 cannot be rigid as suggested by NIST and Bazant & Co. You have to agree with that.

However, as I always say; the main observation/conclusion in my paper is that a small upper part C of a structure of many elements cannot crush the lower part A of the structure due to gravity alone and some local failures and nobody seems to be able to debunk that! FoS of local steel elements do not really matter.

You did not find anything wrong with that.

It seems plenty of people are trying to make models of various kind to prove the opposite, i.e. that upper part C of a structure can crush down lower part A of similar structure (a little stronger as it carried part C before) by dropping part C from a certain height and then allowing gravity alone to crush part A.

It is a futile exercise as part C will be damaged by part A and then be stopped. Quite easy to show with, e.g. full scale simulations of any structures.
Heiwa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2009, 10:16 AM   #83
Architect
Chief Punkah Wallah
 
Architect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 9,811
Heiwa

Simply stating that "I use mass of..." is not appropriate; this thread has been started specifically for you to support your assertion that FoS>3 - something which you have wholly failed to do, and something which several posters here have shown to be wrong. I'm afraid that I must press you to clarify your position, and your calculations, on this issue.

Moreover you try to claim once again that FoS is not relevant to the collapse mechanism, albeit that this is now caveated in respect of core damage. Yet you quite specifically and clearly used FoS in support of your arguments regarding gravity-driven collapse. Now you can't have it both ways - either it is important, in which case you need to clarify your figures properly, or it isn't and you deliberately introduced spurious material. Which is it?
__________________
When the men elected to make laws are but a small part of a foreign parliament, that is when all healthy national feeling dies.

James Keir Hardie (1856 - 1915): Politician, Founder of Scottish Labour Party
Architect is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2009, 10:34 AM   #84
Heiwa
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,148
Originally Posted by Architect View Post
Heiwa

Simply stating that "I use mass of..." is not appropriate; this thread has been started specifically for you to support your assertion that FoS>3 - something which you have wholly failed to do, and something which several posters here have shown to be wrong. I'm afraid that I must press you to clarify your position, and your calculations, on this issue.

Moreover you try to claim once again that FoS is not relevant to the collapse mechanism, albeit that this is now caveated in respect of core damage. Yet you quite specifically and clearly used FoS in support of your arguments regarding gravity-driven collapse. Now you can't have it both ways - either it is important, in which case you need to clarify your figures properly, or it isn't and you deliberately introduced spurious material. Which is it?
FoS is just a description of the capacity over demand of an element in an intact structure and gives you a feeling of the redundancy of the structure.

Re 'gravity-driven collapses' you should by now know my position, i.e. a small upper part C of a structure of many elements cannot crush the lower part A of the structure due to gravity alone and some local failures.

Try to debunk that! KISS.
Heiwa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2009, 10:48 AM   #85
Furcifer
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 13,797
Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
FoS is just a description of the capacity over demand of an element in an intact structure and gives you a feeling of the redundancy of the structure.

And FoS>3 is a lie to exaggerate that "feeling".

Architect nailed it, spurious -3 a: of falsified or erroneously attributed origin : forged b: of a deceitful nature or quality

ps- It takes about 30 seconds to show that most building code is going to have FoS around 2 for any element. Greg's calculation reflects this, and if memory serves NIST places it around 1.5.

Last edited by Furcifer; 15th March 2009 at 10:51 AM. Reason: clarify
Furcifer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2009, 11:17 AM   #86
Heiwa
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,148
Originally Posted by 3bodyproblem View Post
And FoS>3 is a lie to exaggerate that "feeling".

Architect nailed it, spurious -3 a: of falsified or erroneously attributed origin : forged b: of a deceitful nature or quality

ps- It takes about 30 seconds to show that most building code is going to have FoS around 2 for any element. Greg's calculation reflects this, and if memory serves NIST places it around 1.5.
NIST confirmed WTC 1 was not built according to code?

However, as I always say; the main observation/conclusion in my paper is that a small upper part C of a structure of many elements cannot crush the lower part A of the structure due to gravity alone and some local failures and nobody seems to be able to debunk that! FoS of local steel elements do not really matter.

Try to debunk that! Try to build a model with two parts C and A of similar structure that collapses when C drops on A!
Heiwa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2009, 11:21 AM   #87
Heiwa
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,148
Based on mass 16500 tons, cross area 2.1 m˛ and yield stress 248 MPa FoS is abt. 3. Where is the lie?
Heiwa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2009, 11:40 AM   #88
metamars
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,207
Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
Based on mass 16500 tons, cross area 2.1 m˛ and yield stress 248 MPa FoS is abt. 3. Where is the lie?
The M-FOS at floor 92 is:

1,971,244,221.96645 N / 429,476,588.568348 N = 4.59

For the uninitiated, M-FOS is "metamars factor of safety".

metamars is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2009, 12:00 PM   #89
Furcifer
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 13,797
Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
NIST confirmed WTC 1 was not built according to code?
Yes they did! After the impacts and subsequent fires...
Furcifer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2009, 01:01 PM   #90
moorea34
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 157
Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
My calculations are at ...

Somewhere else in my paper I show that the critical buckling stress of a core column exceeds yield, assumed properties of the steel, &c.

.

Dear Heiwa,

Why have you changed this text TODAY in your site

Remember that the outer core columns are extremely solid, e.g. no. 501. It is an H-beam with two flanges 17x3.5 inch connected by a 2.2x12.6 inch web. In metric terms the flanges are 430x90 mm and the web is 56x320 mm. Such thick plates, 56 and 90 mm cannot buckle under any circumstance when the compressive stress is only 30% of yield stress, even if the temperature is 500°C. The (smallest) moment of inertia I of this section is about 120 000 cm4 and its radius of gyration r is thus of the order 35 cms. With a free length l of 350 cms the slenderness ratio (l/r) is 10! Removing three floors as support and the free length is 1 400 cms and the slenderness ratio is still only 40! Such a column will not buckle!


by this one

§7.2 of page ...nist1.htm

Remember that the outer core columns are extremely solid, e.g. no. 501. It is an H-beam with two flanges 17x3.5 inch connected by a 2.2x12.6 inch web. In metric terms the flanges are 430x90 mm and the web is 56x320 mm. Such thick plates, 56 and 90 mm cannot buckle under any circumstance when the compressive stress is only 30% of yield stress, even if the temperature is 500°C. The (smallest) moment of inertia I of this section is about 120 000 cm4 and its radius of gyration r is thus of the order 11 cms. With a free length l of 350 cms the slenderness ratio (l/r) is 32! Such a column will not buckle! Same for the wall columns that have a radius of gyration r of abt 15 cms and a slenderness ratio of 24, when supported by spandrels and floors. We know how the core columns were joined and that it seems most failed at their weld planes, with little to no buckling involved.



???

Because I have written TODAY in my site that you don't know how is calculated the radius of gyration ??

moorea34 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2009, 01:51 PM   #91
Heiwa
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,148
Originally Posted by moorea34 View Post
Dear Heiwa,

Why have you changed this text TODAY in your site

Remember that the outer core columns are extremely solid, e.g. no. 501. It is an H-beam with two flanges 17x3.5 inch connected by a 2.2x12.6 inch web. In metric terms the flanges are 430x90 mm and the web is 56x320 mm. Such thick plates, 56 and 90 mm cannot buckle under any circumstance when the compressive stress is only 30% of yield stress, even if the temperature is 500°C. The (smallest) moment of inertia I of this section is about 120 000 cm4 and its radius of gyration r is thus of the order 35 cms. With a free length l of 350 cms the slenderness ratio (l/r) is 10! Removing three floors as support and the free length is 1 400 cms and the slenderness ratio is still only 40! Such a column will not buckle!


by this one

§7.2 of page ...nist1.htm

Remember that the outer core columns are extremely solid, e.g. no. 501. It is an H-beam with two flanges 17x3.5 inch connected by a 2.2x12.6 inch web. In metric terms the flanges are 430x90 mm and the web is 56x320 mm. Such thick plates, 56 and 90 mm cannot buckle under any circumstance when the compressive stress is only 30% of yield stress, even if the temperature is 500°C. The (smallest) moment of inertia I of this section is about 120 000 cm4 and its radius of gyration r is thus of the order 11 cms. With a free length l of 350 cms the slenderness ratio (l/r) is 32! Such a column will not buckle! Same for the wall columns that have a radius of gyration r of abt 15 cms and a slenderness ratio of 24, when supported by spandrels and floors. We know how the core columns were joined and that it seems most failed at their weld planes, with little to no buckling involved.



???

Because I have written TODAY in my site that you don't know how is calculated the radius of gyration ??

What site do you have? I have never visited it and I haven't got a clue who you are! But you are right - I corrected a typo in my article today. Doesn't change the conclusions, though: the main observation/conclusion in my paper is that a small upper part C of a structure of many elements cannot crush the lower part A of the structure due to gravity alone and some local failures and nobody seems to be able to debunk that! FoS of local steel elements do not really matter.

Try to debunk that! Try to build a structure with two parts C and A of similar structure that collapses when C drops on A!

Last edited by Heiwa; 15th March 2009 at 02:22 PM.
Heiwa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2009, 01:58 PM   #92
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 31,398
Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
...
I corrected a typo in my article today....
Typo ?
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2009, 02:13 PM   #93
Architect
Chief Punkah Wallah
 
Architect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 9,811
I think that Heiwa's tactic is for us to identify the many shortcomings in his paper, he'll fix 'em to the point where we can't respond, and then he'll flog it around the doors as the paper that beat the debunkers.
__________________
When the men elected to make laws are but a small part of a foreign parliament, that is when all healthy national feeling dies.

James Keir Hardie (1856 - 1915): Politician, Founder of Scottish Labour Party
Architect is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2009, 02:15 PM   #94
Architect
Chief Punkah Wallah
 
Architect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 9,811
Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
FoS is just a description of the capacity over demand of an element in an intact structure and gives you a feeling of the redundancy of the structure.
Designed safety factors give you a "feeling" for the redundancy of the structure which, in turn, presumably means that one analysing the structure doesn't have to produce meaningful - or indeed accurate - structural calculations? Is that your position?

However, back to reality.

Originally Posted by Architect
Simply stating that "I use mass of..." is not appropriate; this thread has been started specifically for you to support your assertion that FoS>3 - something which you have wholly failed to do, and something which several posters here have shown to be wrong. I'm afraid that I must press you to clarify your position, and your calculations, on this issue.

Moreover you try to claim once again that FoS is not relevant to the collapse mechanism, albeit that this is now caveated in respect of core damage. Yet you quite specifically and clearly used FoS in support of your arguments regarding gravity-driven collapse. Now you can't have it both ways - either it is important, in which case you need to clarify your figures properly, or it isn't and you deliberately introduced spurious material. Which is it?
Answer the points put to you.
__________________
When the men elected to make laws are but a small part of a foreign parliament, that is when all healthy national feeling dies.

James Keir Hardie (1856 - 1915): Politician, Founder of Scottish Labour Party
Architect is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2009, 02:20 PM   #95
Heiwa
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,148
Originally Posted by moorea34 View Post
Dear Heiwa,

Why have you changed this text TODAY in your site
Dear Bastion.

Well, it was not due to you!

Salutations distingués

Heiwa
Heiwa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2009, 02:26 PM   #96
Architect
Chief Punkah Wallah
 
Architect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 9,811
Enough of your hissy fit. This thread is for you to support your claim that FoS>3. That you have made a significant change to your website following criticism here is noted, even if you didn't have the balls to flag it up yourself. Now, answer the technical issues put to you.
__________________
When the men elected to make laws are but a small part of a foreign parliament, that is when all healthy national feeling dies.

James Keir Hardie (1856 - 1915): Politician, Founder of Scottish Labour Party
Architect is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2009, 03:07 PM   #97
Heiwa
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,148
will

Originally Posted by Architect View Post
Enough of your hissy fit. This thread is for you to support your claim that FoS>3. That you have made a significant change to your website following criticism here is noted, even if you didn't have the balls to flag it up yourself. Now, answer the technical issues put to you.
Yes, this thread is A question to Heiwa &c and you have got the answer. And there is no significant change to my web site.
Of course I spent some space in my article to debunk the suggestion that upper part C would perfectly impact lower part A column/column to produce crush down, but that is a non-starter for obvious reasons. No broken column can ever impact itself after failure.

So I changed the assumption! I disconnected part C, lifted it with a crane and dropped it so column/column impact takes place. Result? Well lower part A compresses like a spring (assuming the elements do not fail) and that's it. Same thing with upper part C + that it bounces. No crush down! Details are given in the article. Happens every time similar, flexible structures collide as assumed. Compare pizza boxes, sponges, lemons.

But it could never take place at WTC 1! Part C is suggested to drop and then it must contact part A columns/floor and part A will also contact part C columns/floor, local failures will be produced in both parts ... and arrest will soon follow.

You see the contact is not between similar structures! A column hitting a thin floor is not a lemon hitting a lemon. It is a knife hitting a lemon.

But it doesn't happen either! A column hitting a floor!

So what happens? If you read my article carefully, you will see that part C is destroyed prior to even touching part A!! Why is that?

Well, it is not due to FoS 3 or 2.29 of the columns. So I will not spend more time on FoS.

Unless you can debunk; the main observation/conclusion in my paper is that a small upper part C of a structure of many elements cannot crush the lower part A of the same structure due to gravity alone and some local failures to start it! FoS of local steel elements do not really matter.

Try to debunk that! Propose a structure with two parts C and A of similar structure (C has previously been carried by A) that is crushed down, when C drops on A! To me it is a paranormal event but maybe you can explain?

Then we can discuss! In a friendly and lively way!
Heiwa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2009, 03:21 PM   #98
Architect
Chief Punkah Wallah
 
Architect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 9,811
Heiwa

Let's be quite clear. On the gravity collapse thread you posted a claim in support of your argument. This stated, unequivocally, that the safety factor at the towers was greater than 300%. Your actual quote is "FoS>3".

You have been challenged to prove this figure. And you have not. In fact, as we scan through the pages, we find that all you've done is produce a half-baked discussion on yield in individual elements. There is no substantive back-up.

Posters have pointed to significant errors in your calculations. Gregory has shown you how one might actually progress an argument. And another poster caught you changing your own website on the sly to reflect the criticisms put to you here.

Whenever you're pressed, you return to gravity collapse. These derails have been singularly unsuccessful. Every single time, you are brought back to the issue of how you calculated factor of safety and how you address the demand to capacity information.

Now, after 3 pages, the best you can muster is:

Originally Posted by Heiwa
Well, it is not due to FoS 3 or 2.29 of the columns. So I will not spend more time on FoS.
I think we can only draw the conclusion that you can't, in fact, substantiate your claims about safety factors. You pulled the figure out of the air. Whether because you just don't understand building structures and genuinely think you're right, or whether you're just unwilling to accept the truth, I don't know. And frankly I don't care.

You see, Heiwa, what's clear from this thread is that your approach - your paper - is founded on sand. You just don't get structures, or buildings, or the WTC. You're not a player, and you never will be. And I'm going to remind you of this every time I see a new, incorrect claim. You gave it your best shot, and were found wanting.
__________________
When the men elected to make laws are but a small part of a foreign parliament, that is when all healthy national feeling dies.

James Keir Hardie (1856 - 1915): Politician, Founder of Scottish Labour Party

Last edited by Architect; 15th March 2009 at 03:24 PM.
Architect is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2009, 03:26 PM   #99
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post

Try to debunk that!
So to just be clear you want us to debunk, "because I said so"?

Did I get that right?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2009, 03:27 PM   #100
Architect
Chief Punkah Wallah
 
Architect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 9,811
DGM et al; I suggest we set this thread to one side for now and leave it as it is, a perfect example of Heiwa's inability to support information which he presented in support of his own argument. A perfect metephor for the Truth Movement as a whole.
__________________
When the men elected to make laws are but a small part of a foreign parliament, that is when all healthy national feeling dies.

James Keir Hardie (1856 - 1915): Politician, Founder of Scottish Labour Party
Architect is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2009, 03:35 PM   #101
Heiwa
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,148
Originally Posted by Architect View Post
Heiwa

And frankly I don't care.
But you seem to get upset about FoS! Now, try to debunk the real message in my paper - that C crushing A by gravity is not possible.

Make an effort! How can C crush A? It is a paranormal event. NIST could not explain it, Bazant assumed that C was rigid and then C crushed A but as everyone knows, C was not rigid. Bazant was cheating. Pls do not start new threads about irrelevant things.
Heiwa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2009, 03:39 PM   #102
Architect
Chief Punkah Wallah
 
Architect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 9,811
Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
But you seem to get upset about FoS! Now, try to debunk the real message in my paper - that C crushing A by gravity is not possible.

Make an effort! How can C crush A? It is a paranormal event. NIST could not explain it, Bazant assumed that C was rigid and then C crushed A but as everyone knows, C was not rigid. Bazant was cheating. Pls do not start new threads about irrelevant things.
And what a great quote to end the thread on. There we have it, readers. Heiwa, in considering the structural modelling of the collapse, does not think it important to consider safety factors. He did until we asked him to back it up, but now it's "irrelevant". All talk and no show.

Game, set, and match.
__________________
When the men elected to make laws are but a small part of a foreign parliament, that is when all healthy national feeling dies.

James Keir Hardie (1856 - 1915): Politician, Founder of Scottish Labour Party
Architect is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2009, 03:55 PM   #103
HannibalGroup
Thinker
 
HannibalGroup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 153
Originally Posted by Architect View Post
DGM et al; I suggest we set this thread to one side for now and leave it as it is, a perfect example of Heiwa's inability to support information which he presented in support of his own argument. A perfect metephor for the Truth Movement as a whole.
The Truth Movement as a whole is ... well ... a hole.
HannibalGroup is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2009, 11:38 PM   #104
moorea34
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 157
OK Heiwa,

It was a coincidence...

But the mistake was great : a buckling resistance overevaluated near 10 times (slenderness)˛ !!!!!


Best regards

moorea34 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2009, 12:46 AM   #105
Heiwa
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,148
Originally Posted by moorea34 View Post
OK Heiwa,

It was a coincidence...

But the mistake was great : a buckling resistance overevaluated near 10 times (slenderness)˛ !!!!!


Best regards

Or only 3 times? I was fascinated by: quote

Remember that the outer core columns are extremely solid, e.g. no. 501. It is an H-beam with two flanges 17x3.5 inch connected by a 2.2x12.6 inch web. In metric terms the flanges are 430x90 mm and the web is 56x320 mm. Such thick plates, 56 and 90 mm cannot buckle under any circumstance when the compressive stress is only 30% of yield stress, even if the temperature is 500°C.

Urich treat this monster column with length 3.5 m as 'slender' and apply the famous formula to it. But this core corner column, there are four!, is nothing but slender. It will not follow the idealistic formula. It would have been pretty simple to pick out this column from the rubble - 90 mm thick flanges!! - and see how they fractured ... due to bending? How apply an impact load on them? I am pretty certain that these columns were cut using some exotic controlled demolition device.

That the upper part C was destroyed prior to part A is affected is pretty obvious from all videos. I cannot understand that the liers do not accept that, but try to explain or develop some strange crush down model with gravity. Luckily it is not possible. When two structures of similar types, parts C and A, collide, both are affected and the stronger elements will damage the weaker elements. As these core corner columns are the strongest elements in the structure, they should have remained undamaged!
On the other hand, the structures being destroyed by controlled demolition, these columns are the first to be cut.

Heiwa

PS - your web site is pretty awful!
Heiwa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2009, 01:33 AM   #106
Minadin
Master Poster
 
Minadin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 2,469
Heiwa, the relation between slenderness ratio and resistance to buckling is squared - so when you changed the values you were using by more than 3x, you admitted that the resistance to buckling was 10x lower than the original values you supposed. That's an order of magnitude.

I could refer you to page 149 of B.S. Benjamin's Statics, Strengths and Structures for Architects, which states:

Quote:
If the column is long and slender, with a high slenderness ratio, the value for Fcr is very small, showing that the column will buckle long before the material crushes.
Or, I could refer you to Euler's formula specifically states that:



But, the subject of this thread is your own ridiculous assertion that the Safety Factor for the loads in all of the steel in the WTC structure was greater than 300%. You can't back that up and won't ever be able to. The only reason that I bring up the above is that it so aptly demonstrates how you've failed to consider various failure modes, have done simply awful math whenever you provided any whatsoever, and simply can't be depended upon to know what you're talking about when it comes to building structures.

Last edited by Minadin; 16th March 2009 at 02:00 AM.
Minadin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2009, 02:09 AM   #107
moorea34
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 157
Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
Or only 3 times? I was fascinated by: quote

PS - your web site is pretty awful!
10 times of course for buckling resistance...

I better understand why you cannot justify your FoS...

Thank you for my web site
moorea34 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2009, 02:09 AM   #108
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
I think I write proper articles on my web site. I get many mails of appreciation.
Originally Posted by Jo Walton
The Lurkers support me in e-mail
They all think I'm great don't you know.
You posters just don't understand me
But soon you will reap what you sow.
http://barb.velvet.com/humor/lurkers.html

Dave
__________________
There is truth and there are lies.

- President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2009, 02:10 AM   #109
Architect
Chief Punkah Wallah
 
Architect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 9,811
Originally Posted by Minadin
But, the subject of this thread is your own ridiculous assertion that the Safety Factor for the loads in all of the steel in the WTC structure was greater than 300%. You can't back that up and won't ever be able to. The only reason that I bring up the above is that it so aptly demonstrates how you've failed to consider various failure modes, have done simply awful math whenever you provided any whatsoever, and simply can't be depended upon to know what you're talking about when it comes to building structures.
In fact, it wasn't the steel that he claimed had a safety factor of over 300% but rather the entire structure. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if some elements were of this maginitude, however Heiwa fails - once again - to distinguish between the overall structural model and finite elements thereof. That he has failed to substantiate his figure comes as no great surprise; he's just made the figure up, and now he's been caught for all to see.

Let me stress that, Heiwa; you've been caught out, and for all to see.
__________________
When the men elected to make laws are but a small part of a foreign parliament, that is when all healthy national feeling dies.

James Keir Hardie (1856 - 1915): Politician, Founder of Scottish Labour Party
Architect is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2009, 02:17 AM   #110
Minadin
Master Poster
 
Minadin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 2,469
It's still amazing to me that he can (pretend to) look at just the compressive load and assume that he's done some sort of comprehensive structural analysis.
Minadin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2009, 03:34 AM   #111
Heiwa
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,148
Originally Posted by Minadin View Post
Heiwa, the relation between slenderness ratio and resistance to buckling is squared - so when you changed the values you were using by more than 3x, you admitted that the resistance to buckling was 10x lower than the original values you supposed. That's an order of magnitude.

I could refer you to page 149 of B.S. Benjamin's Statics, Strengths and Structures for Architects, which states:



Or, I could refer you to Euler's formula specifically states that:

http://www.efunda.com/formulae/solid...mages/FcrB.gif

But, the subject of this thread is your own ridiculous assertion that the Safety Factor for the loads in all of the steel in the WTC structure was greater than 300%. You can't back that up and won't ever be able to. The only reason that I bring up the above is that it so aptly demonstrates how you've failed to consider various failure modes, have done simply awful math whenever you provided any whatsoever, and simply can't be depended upon to know what you're talking about when it comes to building structures.
If you check again, you will see that I applied the Euler formula for the columns and suggest that you cannot really apply it to e.g. column 501, &c.

That the perimeter wall columns have FoS>3 for static loads only, everyone seems to agree to. Reason being that the wall columns are also subject to dynamic loads when tower is subject to wind loads.

Re the core it should be clear that the outer core columns carry more load than the inner core ones (http://heiwaco.tripod.com/loaddistribution.htm ) and that we disagree on the total core load carried. I suggest 16 500 tonnes, Urich 19 500 tonnes (and Bazant much more). You should also see that the wall columns carry different static loads at each floor as floor spans differ.

So my description contains many simplifications just to get a feeling for the structure and its redundancy.

Because, regardless of FoS of various elements, upper part C is virtually identical to lower part A. Evidently upper part C can never free fall on lower part A due to the 280+ columns in between that must fail, which is not seen on any video. What is seen on all videos is that part C suddenly telescopes into itself - it gets shorter - while nothing happens to part A.

But even if part C would free fall on part A, part C cannot crush down part A. Reason being that part A will destroy part C at collision contact. &c, &c.

The liers, suggesting that progressive collapse produces a crush down of structure, cannot produce any evidence for their fantasies. They assume that part C is rigid, which it is not. They assume that the bottom floor of part C cannot get damaged at impact but it is completely unrealistic. They assume that part C remains virtually intact while it ploughs down through part A at 0.7g, &c, but it is impossible. No structure type part C can plough through similar structure in part A due to gravity or any force. It is very easy to prove with sponges or lemons or pizza boxes or similar structures and the same result applies to parts A/C structures.

I find it fascinating that so many people at JREF are prepared to support the official, paranormal lies. They cannot even do it in a friendly way.

I am prepared to offer $1M to anybody that can produce a structure with two parts C and A of similar/identical structural composition, where, initially part A, fixed to ground, carries part C on top, and later by dropping part C on part A, gravity will then assist part C to crush down part A completely. Maybe JREF will sponsor this program like the other paranormal study? Similar rules will apply.
Heiwa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2009, 03:49 AM   #112
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 31,398
Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
I am prepared to offer $1M to anybody that can produce a structure with two parts C and A of similar/identical structural composition, where, initially part A, fixed to ground, carries part C on top, and later by dropping part C on part A, gravity will then assist part C to crush down part A completely. Maybe JREF will sponsor this program like the other paranormal study? Similar rules will apply.


There. Can I have my $1,000,000 by PayPal please?
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2009, 04:01 AM   #113
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,078
Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
I am prepared to offer $1M to anybody that can produce a structure with two parts C and A of similar/identical structural composition, where, initially part A, fixed to ground, carries part C on top, and later by dropping part C on part A, gravity will then assist part C to crush down part A completely. Maybe JREF will sponsor this program like the other paranormal study? Similar rules will apply.
1) $1M usually means one million US dollars. Is this what you mean? If so, please produce evidence that you've got the cash. You say you're "prepared." I'll need proof of that.

2) Once that's done, draw up a legal contract stating your offer and conditions. You'll probably want to use a lawyer for that.

3) Then publish your offer, but you may want to limit it to the first person who delivers the evidence to you or something, unless you have many millions of dollars to part with.

Okay, Anders?
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

Last edited by Gravy; 16th March 2009 at 04:03 AM.
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2009, 04:10 AM   #114
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
There. Can I have my $1,000,000 by PayPal please?
Since I showed him this clip before he made the offer, I claim not only this but the Randi MDC too.

Dave
__________________
There is truth and there are lies.

- President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2009, 04:12 AM   #115
Heiwa
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,148
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/g...demolition.jpg

There. Can I have my $1,000,000 by PayPal please?
Well, in this model you destroy part A partly (not using gravity) before you drop part C on what is left of it, so it does not qualify.

It should also be understood that part C should volume/mass wise be, say 1/10th of part A, to make it more challenging and similar to WTC 1. Elements of both parts should have indentical connections to other parts. You cannot weaken, e.g. part A before the drop.

Good try, though.

Last edited by Heiwa; 16th March 2009 at 04:18 AM.
Heiwa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2009, 04:23 AM   #116
Heiwa
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,148
Originally Posted by Gravy View Post
1) $1M usually means one million US dollars. Is this what you mean?
Okay, Anders?
Money, as money. Are you worried about what currency I am offering? Go ahead with you structure!
Imaging also the honour involved.
Heiwa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2009, 04:26 AM   #117
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,078
Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
Well, in this model you destroy part A partly (not using gravity) before you drop part C on what is left of it, so it does not qualify.

It should also be understood that part C should volume/mass wise be, say 1/10th of part A, to make it more challenging and similar to WTC 1. Elements of both parts should have indentical connections to other parts. You cannot weaken, e.g. part A before the drop.

Good try, though.
You're now claiming that the towers weren't weakened before collapse?
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2009, 04:28 AM   #118
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,078
Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
Money, as money. Are you worried about what currency I am offering? Go ahead with you structure!
Imaging also the honour involved.
You say you're prepared to "offer." I say you haven't got the money to "pay." Prove that you do or admit you're a liar.
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2009, 04:35 AM   #119
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
Well, in this model you destroy part A partly (not using gravity) before you drop part C on what is left of it, so it does not qualify.
Heiwa is cheating with this definition. In the standard definition of crush-up and crush-down zones, part A and part C are separated by a part B composed of rubble. In this instance, a section between parts A and C is partly removed and partly converted to rubble, becoming part B. At the point where the upper block strikes the lower, the lower block is substantially intact.

Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
It should also be understood that part C should volume/mass wise be, say 1/10th of part A, to make it more challenging and similar to WTC 1.
Here Heiwa is moving the goalposts. His initial offer was, "I am prepared to offer $1M to anybody that can produce a structure with two parts C and A of similar/identical structural composition, where, initially part A, fixed to ground, carries part C on top, and later by dropping part C on part A, gravity will then assist part C to crush down part A completely." Nothing about relative sizes of parts A and C is specified.

Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
Elements of both parts should have indentical connections to other parts. You cannot weaken, e.g. part A before the drop.
The clip satisfies both these conditions, even though neither was specified in the initial offer.

It should be perfectly clear that Heiwa's intention all along was to redefine the offer retrospectively to exclude any successful responses.

Dave
__________________
There is truth and there are lies.

- President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2009, 04:37 AM   #120
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
Originally Posted by Gravy View Post
Prove that you do or admit you're a liar.
Mark, just taking on a role you more commonly play yourself here: Is there any point to this challenge? Do you think there is the slightest possibility that either (a) Heiwa will admit to being a liar, or (b) any unbiased observer still believes he's honest?

Dave
__________________
There is truth and there are lies.

- President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:55 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.