Introduction Of Heiwa, Planes should not collide with towers Options

[Heiwa]

Hi all. I am Heiwa. Naval architect. Designing ships since 40 years. Quite complex! Lots of forces acting on a ship structure in the interface water/air affecting strength, buoyancy and stability. Like planes. Structures fixed on land are easier to design. Take a tower/skyscraper:

A tower/skyscraper structure consists generally of load carrying elements of only two types, i.e. vertical steel columns and horizontal composite steel/concrete floor panels, all joined together one way or another, e.g. by bolts.

The vertical elements, the columns, joined on top of each other are primary structural elements that transmit their loads down to ground.

The horizontal elements, the floor panels, placed between and connected to the columns are secondary structural elements that transmit their loads to the columns.

And that’s it. Nothing magic at all! Not like a ship or a plane.

If a skyscraper has 110 floors, like WTC, there are thus 110 assemblies of horizontal floor panels all connected to the vertical columns. Evidently the columns between ground and the first floor are designed to carry 110 floors and the columns below the top floor (or roof) are designed to carry just one floor (or the roof).

It means that the lowermost columns of a tower structure are 110 times stronger than the topmost columns.

Airplane pilots are highly recommended not to fly their planes into towers/skyscrapers, as the vertical and horizontal elements of the towers/skyscrapers will slice/shred the plane into small pieces. Evidently the plane will cause some local damage to the structural elements of the tower or skyscraper … but that’'s it.

Anyone believing that flying planes into the weak tops of skyscrapers will destroy or crush the strong bottom parts of same towers should read my scientific paper at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/tower.htm . I am happy to inform that you can in fact fly as many planes you like into the tops of skyscrapers and nothing will happen to skyscraper below impact. The plane's pilot will evidently get smashed.

If you belong to a terrorist organization and plan a flying attack anywhere you should thus avoid flying planes sideways into the weak tops of skyscrapers as you will only produce local failures up in the weak top and kill yourself. Better is to hit the bottoms or Stuka style vertically through the roof. But you will still kill yourself.

I have informed the FBI and CIA about the above and they, Pearl Harbour style, informed that couldn’t care less, I was sorry to hear. They apparently have great difficulties in Afghanistan forgetting the home front. Well, do not blame me.

This post has been edited by Heiwa: Nov 5 2011, 01:38 PM

[SanderO]

Anders,

This last post was totally nonsense. If you refuse to accept the visual record.. then there is nothing to work with. You reductionist block models are not reality. And there's this:

"I think it's important for both the yayers and the nayers on a given topic to recognize the mutual gaps which sometimes exist in the common language of discourse. If you don't know that Euler buckling exists, it's not even part of your worldview constructions let alone your arsenal of tools for explaining observed phenomena.

If the phenomena you are observing is indeed Euler buckling, and you have no concept of it, you will be at a total loss to explain what you're seeing. I'm not talking about the name for something, I'm talking about the something itself. It may be possible for you to leverage your observation into a true understanding of the phenomena - and then might be tempted to name the effect after yourself not knowing it's taught in undergraduate structural classes.

The issue is - ignorance. I don't mean it in a disparaging sense, just that when you don't know something you are ignorant of it and can't make use of it to aid in further understanding. Many discussions I see are steeped in incredulity at very well understood phenomena and invariably go off course into pointless bickering because one side simply cannot accept that the boundaries of their knowledge on a particular subject may end right where standard freshman coursework begins.

On the other side of the fence, someone who is comfortable with a subject may not approach it with the necessary rigor to differentiate the cases where looks can be deceiving, simply because of a rote familiarity and habit of reaching for the same old tools when solving a problem.

Here, in this thread, the explanations DO come off as "this IS what happened" as opposed to "this COULD be what happened" and naturally that reflects personal confidence of those telling the tale. So long as that is understood, what's the problem? Of the two conditions I've raised in this post, ignorance of well-understood principles of physics and engineering seems to me a much bigger obstacle towards obtaining representational models. If you don't know about Euler buckling, you cannot explain the fall of certain core segments towards the end of collapse. You will resort to some f***king magic to explain your observation, whereas a structural engineer will not only be able to call it for what it is, they will be able to predict the threshold at which it would occur.

Most of what I see here are remedial explanations of very basic engineering concepts which your average person does not know. They cannot be faulted for not knowing; though elementary it is also specialized and there is no expectation the general populace should be conversant. However, if members of the general populace choose to inject themselves into conversations of this nature, it is essential they get up to speed on certain tools and vocabulary such that they are not fatally impeded by their ignorance.

Like discussing disease vectors when you have no concept of the existence of a microbial world, your position will be stilted by what you don't know. It's really as simple as that. Now, you learn the rules, examine things carefully, and it still doesn't make sense - then you may have something, but at least you'll have the means to articulate it in such a way that others will be able to objectively reconstruct what you claim to be discrepant."

[Heiwa]

If you refuse to accept the visual record.. then there is nothing to work with.

If the visual record is a Hollywood cartoon, it is not much to discuss in case of 'progressive top crush down by gravity NIST collapse', etc, etc. The good news are that nukes do not work at all (impossible to trigger a nano-seconds explosions of a 0.5' diameter 100 lbs uranium sphere) so we can discount that possibility.
It was much simpler. Plenty of smoke around the WTC and bottom-up controlled demolition, while the Hollywood pre-fab cartoons was aired 'live on TV' as direct news.