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]

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)