IPB




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

6 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Introduction Of Heiwa, Planes should not collide with towers

Heiwa
post Nov 5 2011, 01:35 PM
Post #1





Group: Troll
Posts: 34
Joined: 5-November 11
Member No.: 6,445



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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elreb
post Nov 6 2011, 01:15 PM
Post #2





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,589
Joined: 31-December 07
From: Maui
Member No.: 2,617



I worked on the Berkman Plaza collapse in Jacksonville, Florida and in spite of being across the street from the police station…no FBI or CIA agents was there and no material was allowed to be removed until after an investigation had been performed.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
9/11 Justice Now
post Nov 7 2011, 06:07 AM
Post #3





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 119
Joined: 6-May 08
Member No.: 3,289



QUOTE (Heiwa @ Nov 6 2011, 03:35 AM) *
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.


No kidding dude, i remember you from the govt loyalist site good old Heiwa, just classic.

laughing1.gif laughing1.gif laughing1.gif

This post has been edited by 9/11 Justice Now: Nov 7 2011, 06:12 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
9/11 Justice Now
post Nov 7 2011, 06:16 AM
Post #4





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 119
Joined: 6-May 08
Member No.: 3,289



QUOTE (elreb @ Nov 7 2011, 03:15 AM) *
I worked on the Berkman Plaza collapse in Jacksonville, Florida and in spite of being across the street from the police station…no FBI or CIA agents was there and no material was allowed to be removed until after an investigation had been performed.



Yep just like what have should have been done on 9/11 a proper real investigation, one that doesnt involve destroying, ignoring, sweeping
away half of the evidence and leaving out anything that is inconvenient and will not fit in with the official narative of that day, sweep it all
under the rug and have it conveniently cut up melted down and recyled, but i think the only difference is as with the building collapse above
nobody had anything to hide, or did they? Just kidding lol.

This post has been edited by 9/11 Justice Now: Nov 7 2011, 06:18 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post Nov 7 2011, 08:49 PM
Post #5





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 910
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



QUOTE (9/11 Justice Now @ Nov 5 2011, 09:07 AM) *
No kidding dude, i remember you from the govt loyalist site good old Heiwa, just classic.

laughing1.gif laughing1.gif laughing1.gif





You didn't take that seriously ..... did you, Justice now??? blink.gif

Just in case you didn't know - it's called 'typical Scandinavian sarcasm',

especially amongst Scandinavians themselves! wink.gif


Cheers
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
9/11 Justice Now
post Nov 9 2011, 09:56 AM
Post #6





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 119
Joined: 6-May 08
Member No.: 3,289



QUOTE (Tamborine man @ Nov 8 2011, 10:49 AM) *
You didn't take that seriously ..... did you, Justice now??? blink.gif

Just in case you didn't know - it's called 'typical Scandinavian sarcasm',

especially amongst Scandinavians themselves! wink.gif


Cheers


You will have to explain the "term" Scandinavian Sarcasm to me i tried googling it but i got not search result explaining what the terms really means.

Thankyou cheers
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post Nov 9 2011, 10:21 PM
Post #7





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 910
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



QUOTE (9/11 Justice Now @ Nov 7 2011, 12:56 PM) *
You will have to explain the "term" Scandinavian Sarcasm to me i tried googling it but i got not search result explaining what the terms really means.

Thankyou cheers




That would be rather difficult as it comes in many and varied nuances.

Suffice to say though, that fundamentally it's based on 'dry humour'

to highlight the 'ridiculousness' or 'ludicrousness' of a situation, or of

somebody's behavior etc..

Heiwa's use, was but one such example -


Cheers

This post has been edited by Tamborine man: Nov 9 2011, 10:26 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Nov 9 2011, 10:48 PM
Post #8





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



Bjorkman has been discredited... he doesn't know what he is talking about. The collapse had nothing to do with the columns after the initiation. The destruction was a floor collapse and anyone who looks carefully sees that.

Go away Anders... you've been pounding that drum for years.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Heiwa
post Nov 10 2011, 02:10 AM
Post #9





Group: Troll
Posts: 34
Joined: 5-November 11
Member No.: 6,445



QUOTE (SanderO @ Nov 9 2011, 10:48 PM) *
Bjorkman has been discredited ...

Has he? He is actually offering you €1 million if you can prove him wrong at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/chall.htm . Isn't that kind of generous? Reason is of course that the money is safe in his bank for ever. Reason is that flying planes into weak tops of skyscrapers will never destroy the much stronger bottom parts below the weak top. No structure of any kind can be destroyed by a small top of itself and gravity ... according to the Bjorkman axiom.
If above link is too long, try http://heiwaco.tripod.com/chall.htm#TBS where Bjorkman discredits Bazant!

This post has been edited by Heiwa: Nov 10 2011, 02:14 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Heiwa
post Nov 10 2011, 04:31 PM
Post #10





Group: Troll
Posts: 34
Joined: 5-November 11
Member No.: 6,445




Above picture by my, to explain what we are talking about, shows a structure of 110 floors (actually it is 400+ meters tall full scale skyscraper) and a roof and a mast. Structure left shows the intact structure, structure right is damaged! A stupid terrorist pilot flow a plane into floor #97 and started a fire and the upper top part C (floors #98-110 + roof and mast) is shown to drop down 3.7 meters on bottom part A (floors#0-97).
Now, does anyone really believe that small (and weak) top part C can crush down bigger (and stronger) bottom part A in 10-20 seconds?
If you can prove it, I'll give you € 1 000 000:-, which is plenty of US$.
If you cannot prove it, welcome to the real world of pilotsfor911truth that I am glad that it exists.

This post has been edited by Heiwa: Nov 10 2011, 04:32 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elreb
post Nov 10 2011, 08:04 PM
Post #11





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,589
Joined: 31-December 07
From: Maui
Member No.: 2,617



As an engineer myself, I’m not sure if I grasp the conflict of this conversation.

If 6 Boeing 747 hump-backs hit the towers at the exact time…the damage would only be superficial.

Only controlled demolition could have brought down all three buildings.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post Nov 10 2011, 10:16 PM
Post #12





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 910
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



QUOTE (SanderO @ Nov 8 2011, 01:48 AM) *
Bjorkman has been discredited... he doesn't know what he is talking about. The collapse had nothing to do with the columns after the initiation. The destruction was a floor collapse and anyone who looks carefully sees that.

Go away Anders... you've been pounding that drum for years.




SandersO you became "famous" by writing long posts about the significance of 5/8" bolts,

(wasting our time as usual) and never letting an opportunity slip by telling us all you're an

'architect'.

I think you would have impressed us more had you been involved in the construction of

the Sydney Opera House, or the bridge between Denmark and Sweden etc. instead of just

one or two story warehouse buildings.

If the above had been the case, you would surely never have mentioned the damn 5/8" bolts,

as you then would have been fully aware of this absolute 'triviality'.

Because you would then again have been aware, that the towers would have come down

anyway, even if even 1 1/2" or 2" bolts had been used! rolleyes.gif


Cheers


PS!
Btw, just noticed that you're in deep shit over at the 9/11 truth forum.

There also, are some guys who can easily see through your "spin"! wink.gif

This post has been edited by Tamborine man: Nov 10 2011, 10:26 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Nov 11 2011, 07:59 AM
Post #13





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



Never wrote a long post about 5/8" bolts.

Not in deep doo at the 911 Free Forums

At this point I am not going to waste your time. If you want to consider what appears to be the best and most current research... all done within the last two years... visit the 911 Free Forums.

And if you have a problem with their findings... register and pick a fight about the work.

I don't think you or elreb will do that or if you do make them back down as you try to get me to do here.

Bjorkman had a go over there and left with his tail between his legs. Szamboti tried for a while and his work was also found to be flawed.

The 911FF has debunked NIST, WOOD, mini Nukes, explosive controlled demolition, Bazant and those who explain the twins with blocks...

You can remain isolated by and in your beliefs.... or you can try to inform yourself of ongoing research.

Your choice.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Nov 11 2011, 08:09 AM
Post #14





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



Anders,

You should know that what happened to the twin towers was the the floor system was overwhelmed and collapsed. The columns had nothing to do with the collapse or resisting it. The destructive loads were not applied axially to the columns but to the floors.

You can see the strongest part of the building remained post collapse - the core - most of it standing 50 stories...

What do you expect would happen if you dropped 10,000 tons of anything on one of the twin tower floors? The floor would fail... and drop.. the columns it was supported by and attached to would remain.

The column failure (aside from initiation) occurred after and as result of the floor destruction. Look at the videos.

Of course the axial load of the upper or weaker columns could not crush the lower ones. That is not what happened.

That's a bait and switch argument and you are a liar as well because you don't have a million dollars. Let's see you post a bond for that amount and your proof with be forth coming.

Your mickey mouse physics is laughable. Really... it is.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DoYouEverWonder
post Nov 11 2011, 10:38 AM
Post #15





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 770
Joined: 1-February 09
Member No.: 4,096



QUOTE (SanderO @ Nov 11 2011, 07:09 AM) *
Anders,

You should know that what happened to the twin towers was the the floor system was overwhelmed and collapsed. The columns had nothing to do with the collapse or resisting it. The destructive loads were not applied axially to the columns but to the floors.

You can see the strongest part of the building remained post collapse - the core - most of it standing 50 stories...

What do you expect would happen if you dropped 10,000 tons of anything on one of the twin tower floors? The floor would fail... and drop.. the columns it was supported by and attached to would remain.

The column failure (aside from initiation) occurred after and as result of the floor destruction. Look at the videos.

Of course the axial load of the upper or weaker columns could not crush the lower ones. That is not what happened.

That's a bait and switch argument and you are a liar as well because you don't have a million dollars. Let's see you post a bond for that amount and your proof with be forth coming.

Your mickey mouse physics is laughable. Really... it is.
Sandero you should know, that no one's buying your bullshit.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Heiwa
post Nov 11 2011, 04:30 PM
Post #16





Group: Troll
Posts: 34
Joined: 5-November 11
Member No.: 6,445



QUOTE (SanderO @ Nov 11 2011, 08:09 AM) *
Anders,

You should know that what happened to the twin towers was the the floor system was overwhelmed and collapsed. The columns had nothing to do with the collapse or resisting it. The destructive loads were not applied axially to the columns but to the floors.


Sure? Floor system was overwhelmed and collapsed? Columns were not snapping as suggested by Bazant at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/chall.htm#TBS . OK,OK! Describe it and win €€1000000:- . Bazant failed! Come on, SanderO. Show that you are not a 0!

I know what happened to the twin towers while the Hollywood show was running 'live on TV'. The towers were destroyed from bottom up. Only way to do it.
Planes??? You can fly any number of planes into tops of skyscrapers and kill yourself and nothing happens to the bottoms of skyscrapers.

This post has been edited by Heiwa: Nov 11 2011, 04:32 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elreb
post Nov 11 2011, 08:23 PM
Post #17





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,589
Joined: 31-December 07
From: Maui
Member No.: 2,617



QUOTE (Heiwa @ Nov 11 2011, 10:30 AM) *
The towers were destroyed from bottom up...Only way to do it. You can fly any number of planes into tops of skyscrapers and kill yourself and nothing happens to the bottoms of skyscrapers.

I express agreement…

This reminds me of General Sherman, a Giant Sequoia in California.

It has a 102 feet circumference at the base and 44 feet circumference near the top. Now crash a plane like Air France flight 296 into the tree.

The tree wins…and is still standing…

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Nov 11 2011, 09:53 PM
Post #18





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



Anders,

Bazant has been shown to be wrong... The floors were overwhelmed when the top section collapsed on to them... the columns broke at the joints which were much weaker than the cross sections themselves. Most of the core columns up to the 50th floor survived the floor collapse.. so obviously they didn't resist it. The core column fractured... but at their joints and many experienced Euler buckling.

Your conception is reductionist.. mickey mouse and doesn't match the observables.

Stick to ships...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Heiwa
post Nov 11 2011, 10:56 PM
Post #19





Group: Troll
Posts: 34
Joined: 5-November 11
Member No.: 6,445



QUOTE (SanderO @ Nov 11 2011, 09:53 PM) *
The floors were overwhelmed when the top section collapsed on to them...

But the weak top section consisted of what? Floors? OK, so top section floors overwhelmed the bottom section floors ... and the walls just fell off? Great!
Pls describe the structure with floors in more detail and test it in a laboratory - top section floors overwhelming bottom section floors - and walls just falling off. It sounds like pancaking? If it works € € 1000000:- are yours! Come on, O!

This post has been edited by Heiwa: Nov 11 2011, 10:57 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elreb
post Nov 11 2011, 11:22 PM
Post #20





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,589
Joined: 31-December 07
From: Maui
Member No.: 2,617



QUOTE (Heiwa @ Nov 11 2011, 04:56 PM) *
Come on, O!

Heiwa,

I would estimate that 90% of this forum is behind you.

Anyone with a 4th grade education would recognize that the buildings were brought down from the bottom-up.

The planes were nothing more than a distraction…

Why wastes your time…
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

6 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 23rd September 2014 - 04:23 PM