Introduction Of Heiwa, Planes should not collide with towers Options

[amazed!]

Well I guess that those people in the controlled demolition business learned a new trick, and the steel industry might learn something from it too, if SanderO is correct.

Simply take a highrise building, pour a certain amount of JetA into it and light it off. At some point the fire will cause the building to collapse with much symmetry, and the by-product will be a furnace capable of melting structural steel. Voila!

No need for charges and timers, just sprinkle sufficient JetA and light it off.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/cleanup.gif)

[SanderO]

Amazed,

Don't characterize what I have been saying. I don't the exact cause / imitation of the collapse. I am pretty confident that THAT design and THAT mass could collapse from the *top* down driven by gravity if sufficient mass cam down upon a floor.

The collapse seems to have started when the top sections came *apart*... were demolished and cam down on the intact section (floors) below it.

Heat from fires would weaken steel... but we don't believe sufficiently to buckle the columns. THe plane DID destroy some of the support (columns)... what else was in play to kick it off... we can't say. But with an FOS of 1.65 it would take as much as many seem to think.

Conventional steel high rises (of less mass) would not collapse as the twins.

[elreb]

Dr. Gayle, [NIST]

Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04, I felt the need to contact you directly.

As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year. I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies.

But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.

There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel.

He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel . . . burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown's theory."

We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F.

Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.

The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up, and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press, in which you were ready to "rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse". The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation.

Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.

However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building's steel core to "soften and buckle"(5). Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C". To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above 1100C. However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.

This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company.

There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving force behind the War on Terror. And the issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux of the story of 9/11. My feeling is that your metallurgical tests are at the crux of the crux of the crux. Either you can make sense of what really happened to those buildings, and communicate this quickly, or we all face the same destruction and despair that come from global decisions based on disinformation and "chatter".

Thanks for your efforts to determine what happened on that day. You may know that there are a number of other current and former government employees that have risked a great deal to help us to know the truth. I've copied one of these people on this message as a sign of respect and support. I believe your work could also be a nucleus of fact around which the truth, and thereby global peace and justice, can grow again.

Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel.

Kevin Ryan, Site Manager
Environmental Health Laboratories, A Division of Underwriters Laboratories

[SanderO]

Steel did not have to melt or *soften* to lose some of its strength. If the amount of weakening lowers the yield strength it reduces the safety factor.

For example if a steel column was rated at 36,000 psi and it is designed to support 24,000 psi it has a factor of safety of 1.5.

If you heat the steel it begins to lose some of its yield strength.. it's no longer 36,000psi and as it heats its yield strength is reduced to 0 and it buckles from its own weight even.

But as the yield strength drops from heating... the FOS is being reduced. When the steel in the above example has lost 33% of its strength it has an FOS of 1 and if it heats up more... the column will buckle.

If another column drops below FOS 1.. the column in question will see more load (redistributed) and this pushes the FOS lower as well.

You don't have to melt the steel to fail the cores.

[Heiwa]

I am pretty confident that THAT design and THAT mass could collapse from the *top* down driven by gravity if sufficient mass cam down upon a floor.

The collapse seems to have started when the top sections came *apart*... were demolished and came down on the intact section (floors) below it.

Yes, this is what the €1000000:- Heiwa Challenge ( http://heiwaco.tripod.com/chall.htm ) is all about!
Describe the design and mass of a structure A, top C of which can crush down intact A, driven by gravity, into rubble B.
Pls explain how top C contacts an intact upper floor of bottom part A triggering the whole thing.
What part X of top C contacts the intact upper floor of A?
Why doesn't part X (of top C) break up, while intact top floor of A remains intact?

This post has been edited by Heiwa: Nov 16 2011, 01:40 AM

[onesliceshort]

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf

It is believed that almost all of the jet fuel that remained on the impact floors was consumed in the first few minutes of the fire.

Sporadic, smokey office fires that firefighters (RIP) had called in as "small pockets of fire" that needed "two lines" weakened the steel SanderO??

Here are a few more...

pages 180, and 181 of the Final Report NIST

“None of the recovered steel samples showed evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 ºC for as long as 15 min. This was based on NIST annealing studies that established the set of time and temperature conditions necessary to alter the steel
microstructure.”

“Only three [out of 171] of the recovered samples of exterior panels reached temperatures in excess of 250 ºC during the fires or after the collapse. This was based on a method developed by NIST to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members through observations of paint cracking.” (NCSTAR 1, 181)

After only 15 minutes of exposure at 625ºC, the pearlite showed signs of spheroidization. As this feature was not observed in any of the four spandrel materials evaluated, it was believed that the spandrels were not exposed to this temperature or that if they were, it was for significantly less time than 15 minutes.

Annealing studies on recovered steels established the set of time and temperature conditions necessary to alter the steel microstructure. Based on the pre-collapse photographic evidence, the microstructures of steels known to have been exposed to fire were characterized. These microstructures show no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600º C for any significant time

Similar results, i.e., limited exposure if any above 250º C, were found for the two core columns recovered from the fire-affected floors of the towers, which had adequate paint for analysis.

NIST had no physical proof whatsoever that the steel was "weakened" yet despite this went on to say..

“Following the impact of the aircraft, the jet-fuel-ignited fires created the sustained and elevated temperatures that heated the remaining building structure to the point of collapse initiation.” (NCSTAR 1, 121)

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/pilotfly.gif)

You're here doing exactly the same!

Explosions felt, witnessed and recorded = "transformers" or "air pockets"

Explosions witnessed and severe damage testified to = "jetfuel mist making its way down to subbasements"

Collapse = "Office fire affected steel beams"

You've always said that advocating a "gravity driven collapse" isn't supporting the OCT. That the collapse initiation was the problem. Now you're saying that weakened steel was a factor in the collapse.

You are an OCT apologist who even goes beyond what NIST had the audacity to claim.

Is that a fair comment based on what I've posted MrM?


Heiwa, are you on the glue?

[Heiwa]

Heiwa, are you on the glue?

I drink coffee in the morning, red Bordeaux wine at lunch and dinner and ... that's it. Keeps you fit.

NIST says: “Following the impact of the aircraft, the jet-fuel-ignited fires created the sustained and elevated temperatures that heated the remaining building structure to the point of collapse initiation.”

OK, it means that fires/high temperatures changed the structure so it reached the point of collapse initiation.

And then?? Collapse is initiated high up in the structure and what then? A point is reached - the point of collapse initiation! What kind of point is that?

Small, weak top C drops by gravity and crushes big, strong bottom A into rubble B, pouff, pouff, pouff after reaching a point?

LOL
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

[elreb]

This entire discussion on the temperature of “Steel” has me buffaloed!

I have a cast “Iron” BBQ grill that will reach 600 degrees in 15 minutes and stay there all day long.

My son works with a commercial grill that operates at 800 degrees.

Back when I owned horses, our forge had a working temperature of 1400-1800 degree F.

Only a man made “pyrotechnic composition” could melt or weaken high strength steel.

Are we supposed to believe that a camp fire brought down 7 WTC a 47 story building?

As a Boy Scout…I could cook bacon and eggs in a brown paper bag over a campfire!

[DoYouEverWonder]

As a Boy Scout…I could cook bacon and eggs in a brown paper bag over a campfire!

Really? They didn't teach us that trick in Girl Scouts. But we did get to learn how to use a bunsen burner to cook on. Um, I love the smell of sterno in the morning. (Just kidding)

[elreb]

Really? They didn't teach us that trick in Girl Scouts. But we did get to learn how to use a bunsen burner to cook on. Um, I love the smell of sterno in the morning. (Just kidding)

I apologize...“DYEW”…

I’m guessing you never had any BSA sons?

As an Eagle Scout, I sat on the Eagle Board…as an adviser.

I trained Sherriff deputies...how to survive...

I know more tricks than Harry Houdini…

Elreb

[SanderO]

Here's the deal as far as I can say about the initiation.

1. We can't actually see it taking place. It is inside the core area.. likely involving the perimeter core columns

2. The core will fail - buckle - and the tops begin to descend and break apart... in a progressive manner.

3. The factor of safety of the steel in the core will determine how many columns need to be removed or weakened for collapse to begin. If the FOS were 2... initially taking out half the perimeter columns and or weakening columns will lower the FOS of the remaining ones.

4. You wouldn't expect that there would be the same kind of column failure at the initiation of collapse of the top sections. The columns which remained and were supporting the upper part were working at yield strength and then when the FOS slipped below 1 they failed... buckled.

5. There were likely several modes of column failure leading to the collapse of the top sections.
A- severing from the plane strike
B- weakening from elevated temps (if you don't think steel gets weaker from heat... sell that idea to the department of buildings which requires fireproofing of steel for 2 hr rating)
C - increase of load as other columns failed... redistributed load.

6. It's likely that there was no compressive failure of the columns but web buckling and once the frame started to displace and the ends and with some bracing attached the entire column was able to bend like a pretzel... maybe softened from heat as an assist.

So no... you wouldn't expect to see melted columns... perhaps if there were placed divices you'd see melted joints / ends. You might see partially melted columns sections mid way .. which would weaken them like an notch in a tree. Progressive column failure means that few failed columns leads to more stress in the others and this can then tip the balance past the the point of no return... when the FOS drops below 1. Then there is a global failure at that level and the remaining columns buckle and can be stone cold when they do.

[Heiwa]

Here's the deal as far as I can say about the initiation.

1. We can't actually see it taking place.
So no... you wouldn't expect to see melted columns... perhaps if there were placed divices you'd see melted joints / ends.

According NIST you shall just locally heat up the structure A to the collapse initiation point and then top C of A will crush bottom A into rubble B because C applies energy on A that A cannot absorb so A becomes B. Only problem is that it cannot be seen due to smoke being produced. If you deny this NIST Truth, you are a 911denier and that's bad.


NIST is of course the US Nazional Institute of SSupport of TerroriSSm at Washington DC.
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

[SanderO]

Anders,

NIST is just as wrong as you are. You both are hawking rubbish.

[Heiwa]

NIST is just as wrong as you are. You both are hawking rubbish.

No, NIST is wrong, I am right. A little top of any structure cannot crush the structure below by gravity, I say. NIST, a criminal, terrorist organization says a little top of any structure can crush the structure below by gravity.

There is no third alternative, 00!
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/welcome.gif)

[elreb]

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), known between 1901 and 1988 as the National Bureau of Standards (NBS), is a measurement standards laboratory which is a non-regulated agency of the United States Federal Department of Commerce.

The institute's official mission is to:

Promote U.S. government innovation and international control by advancing corrupt measurement science, standards, and technology in ways that enhance economic security and improve the “US Federal” quality of life at the expense of American lives.

[onesliceshort]

You've always said that advocating a "gravity driven collapse" isn't supporting the OCT. That the collapse initiation was the problem. Now you're saying that weakened steel was a factor in the collapse.

Thanks for proving my point SanderO.

[Heiwa]

Well I guess that those people in the controlled demolition business learned a new trick, and the steel industry might learn something from it too, if SanderO is correct.

Simply take a highrise building, pour a certain amount of JetA into it and light it off. At some point the fire will cause the building to collapse with much symmetry, and the by-product will be a furnace capable of melting structural steel. Voila!

No need for charges and timers, just sprinkle sufficient JetA and light it off.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/cleanup.gif)

Exactly - but you have to do it up below the weak top C of the building, where the steel is thin and easy to soften. That initiates the complete global progressive collapse from top down demolition: The weak top C then drops by gravity on the much stronger, not heated, intact, solid bottom parts A1-A4 and nothing is left except a heap of rubble on Ground Zero, easy to sweep up.
(IMG:http://heiwaco.tripod.com/ABWTC.jpg)
It happens all the time according NIST and other terrorists paid by the US government. Many US universities support the same idea, i.e. support terrorism, for financial reasons.

[SanderO]

Verinage

[elreb]

Demolition is an art…

If I had any questions…I would ask = Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI)

They hold the world record for imploding just about anything.

The mother company…the Loizeaux Group, LLC (TLG) specializes in forensic investigations and criminal cases associated with explosives.

What are the results of their investigation of WTC?

Example:

The free-fall felling of 25,000 ton concrete alone would have created over 9 billion foot-pounds of energy, sufficient to do widespread damage given soil conditions in the area.

To control vibration, CDI designed a program that would detonate small explosives charges to soften the roof structure so it would crush on impact (consuming energy) rather than letting it fall to grade intact.

The implosion program divided explosives detonations into two (2) distinct but integrated phases, creating a sequential collapse to spread out the impact of debris at grade.

Seating elements and ramps were pre-crushed by Aman were placed as windrows across the playing surface, below, to further assist in controlling vibration from the fall of the structure.

[Heiwa]

Demolition is an art…

Example:

The free-fall felling of 25,000 ton concrete alone would have created over 9 billion foot-pounds of energy, sufficient to do widespread damage given soil conditions in the area.

NIST/Bazant suggest that a 53 000 ton rigid top part C of WTC 1 dropped and crushed the bottom part A into rubble B. The associated energies are described in http://heiwaco.tripod.com/blgbclose.htm for easy reference. Anybody is encouraged to scientifically explain top down progressive by gravity only demolition and thus collect €1M!