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,

Of course you simplify and misrepresent what happened.

Even if there was no plane damage... and someone had exploded enough of the columns on the 95th floor...collapsing the 15 floors above... this would have as much as 50,000 tons of mass descending not on the columns of the 94th floor... but on the floor itself.

But if it were possible to gather up all that mass.. 15 floors and place it on top of the columns of the 94th floor... you are absolutely correct... the columns would not collapse.

This is not what happened... and you know it.

The 50,000 tons of material came down on the 94th floor which was designed to support 58 PSF = 58#x 30,000 = 870 tons...

A floor designed to support 870 tons is no match for even half the 50,000 tons.... and since all the floors were the same except the mech floors.. this mass would destroy every floor one after the other including the stronger mech floors.

I win the Anders $1,000.000 challenge... I'll have a friend in Holland receive the payment.

Thank you.

This post has been edited by SanderO: Nov 12 2011, 07:58 PM

[Heiwa]

Of course you simplify and misrepresent what happened.



The 50,000 tons of material came down on the 94th floor which was designed to support 58 PSF = 58#x 30,000 = 870 tons...

Are you sure? Just demonstrate it and make a video of it. Then check is in the mail!

[SanderO]

Anders,

Before the lowers sections disintegrated... from whatever mechanism... the top sections of both towers somehow got destroyed... We can leave that aside for the time being. By destroy I don't mean *disappeared*, but rather dissociated.. much the way a demolition destroys a structure... the destroy structure is taken apart. One could explode it to kingdom come.... with the mass being blasted away and in its fractured state land some distance for the explosion. Or you could dismantle the structure by a series of smaller explosions attacking the integrity of the frame. With the frame destroyed... the floors and the roof., the walls and the contents have no support and would drop down by gravity. I suppose you could also slowly take the structure apart... stacking it up piece by piece on some floor... no explosives.

The bottom line here is unless the top sections of the twin towers were made to disappear... or the mass was blasted far from the foot print... gravity would see all or most of the mass bearing down on the top floor of of the intact lower structure. As noted that floor was designed for a static load of about 900 tons. Even with a factor of safety of 3 or 4 (not likely) when the equivalent of 4 floor masses...(FOS 3 for example)... landed on the top undamaged floor...(as it did) that floor would fail.

As already stated if you could some how add this mass as an AXIAL load to the columns of the intact structure, the tower would not fall, the frame would not fail... all the mass would be concentrated loads applied axially to the columns. That is impossible.... and you know it.

The mass.. enough mass came down on the top floor of the undamaged lower section... it did not disappear... it did not MOSTLY go outside the floor foot print... it was broken apart as it landed on that floor... it came down on it as a series of dynamic loads... the assault lasted about 3.75 seconds for tower 1 and the assault destroyed the entire footprint of the 94th floor... caused the columns above to lose their bracing and descend... all came down as a destructive dynamic load which the 94th floor could not support. It broke apart... And the same exact conditions were then presented to the 93rd floor. This proceeded (repeated) downward at the rate of about 100 feet per second more or less and no floor had the strength to arrest this gravity driven mass flow...

The planes or whatever kicked off the event were not of sufficient destructive force to destroy enough of the frame to have it all break apart. We saw that. Other factors then began to work at weakening the frame until it could not support the floor mass... they then came crashing down... leading to the gravity driven progressive floor collapse.

There is no other possible outcome if that much mass is coming down on a 58 psf floor system. We don't know what the precise mix of the core weakening factor were. But we can see that it took place.. the tops broke apart... the loads were freed from the column support below and gravity did what it does... pull the mass toward the ground.

It's all visible in many of the videos of the event. Open you eyes.

Are you sure? Just demonstrate it and make a video of it. Then check is in the mail!

[Heiwa]

It's all visible in many of the videos of the event. Open you eyes.

When I watch any video of the 911 one-way crush downs I just see Hollywood CGI at work. Why is that? Because no structure of any kind can destroy itself as shown - a fountain of smoke and debris - according the laws of physics. To me it is obvious fakery of normal Hollywood standard.
Actually every electronic video/photo of the 911 destructions are fake. Imagine the planning behind that. Of course all videos/photos were taken before the real destructions and then smoke/debris were added and parts of buildings removed using standard photoshopping.
So you failed the Challenge, 0!

[mrmitosis]

When I watch any video of the 911 one-way crush downs I just see Hollywood CGI at work.

No offence guys, but when I see SanderO is being subjected to a barrage of criticism, mockery and ridicule from every conceivable angle, while in the meantime quotes such as the one above are left basically unchallenged, I know for sure that I have entered cloud cuckooland.

[Heiwa]

No offence guys, but when I see SanderO is being subjected to a barrage of criticism, mockery and ridicule from every conceivable angle, while in the meantime quotes such as the one above are left basically unchallenged, I know for sure that I have entered cloud cuckooland.

SanderO has failed the Heiwa Challenge and is thus a failure.
Re CGI at work may I clarify:
All footage of videos and photos of 911 at NY is fake! Planes flying into towers, big holes in top of towers, fires, smoke, top-down destructions, more smoke and debris, heaps of rubble are fake. They are just parts of pre-made Hollywood cartoons to mislead the public.
How do I know? Do the plane/tower collisions look real? Maybe, maybe not? Do the holes in the towers and the fires and smoke look real? Maybe, maybe not. Do the top-down destructions look real? This is my expertize! Structural, dynamic damage analysis! And I can assure you that no structure can self-destroy by small, weak top crushing big, stronger bottom. So the top-down destructions are CGI. Easy to see for an expert like me.
And as the top down destructions are CGI, the rest is also CGI. Welcome to cuckooland USA/Hollywood/GWB/Condi Rice and other fools. Don't blame me. I am just a concerned observer from far away.
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

This post has been edited by Heiwa: Nov 15 2011, 02:49 AM

[9/11 Justice Now]

SanderO has failed the Heiwa Challenge and is thus a failure.
Re CGI at work may I clarify:
All footage of videos and photos of 911 at NY is fake! Planes flying into towers, big holes in top of towers, fires, smoke, top-down destructions, more smoke and debris, heaps of rubble are fake. They are just parts of pre-made Hollywood cartoons to mislead the public.
How do I know? Do the plane/tower collisions look real? Maybe, maybe not? Do the holes in the towers and the fires and smoke look real? Maybe, maybe not. Do the top-down destructions look real? This is my expertize! Structural, dynamic damage analysis! And I can assure you that no structure can self-destroy by small, weak top crushing big, stronger bottom. So the top-down destructions are CGI. Easy to see for an expert like me.
And as the top down destructions are CGI, the rest is also CGI. Welcome to cuckooland USA/Hollywood/GWB/Condi Rice and other fools. Don't blame me. I am just a concerned observer from far away.
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Heiwa just admit it you dont have 1 million dollars, and you CGI theory is crap anyhow.

What are you still doing here bothering everyone?

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/cleanup.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/cleanup.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/cleanup.gif)

[Heiwa]

Heiwa just admit it you dont have 1 million dollars, and you CGI theory is crap anyhow.

No, no. All my ideas are great. That's why I am a winner. What about you, Justinus? Tell us about your victories! Just one! Any! Of none? Justnone.

This post has been edited by Heiwa: Nov 15 2011, 08:36 AM