|
(scientifically explained by Anders Björkman, M.Sc., president Heiwa Co) |
|
|
|
SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE. (a) IN GENERAL.- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war. (b) COVERED PERSONS. - A covered person under this section is any person as follows: (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks. (2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces. National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 It would appear Prof. Bazant and others mentioned below are covered persons to be detained as per above US law. You wonder why they are still at large. Is the President or military sleeping? Americans don't know any more about physics and structural architecture and engineering than the Soviet population and Stalin knew about genetics. Today "Lysenkoism" is used as a metaphor to denote the corruption of science in behalf of a social, political, or ideological purpose.
A tower structure cannot destroy itself from top
The US government is not interested to dispel the 2001 fraudulous information that structures collapse from top down by gravity due local failure up top. So you have to read about it here. On 11th September 2011 it
was ten years since US terrorists destroyed the
WTC-complex at New York and blamed it on another
party - Usama Bin Laden and Al Qaida. On Oct. 7,
2001, the US Global War On Terror started and is
still on globally with millions killed. The US
terrorists overlooked one important matter:
No
structure or tower bottom section can be destroyed
by gravity from above initiated by local structural
failures up top caused, e.g. by a plane crash +
fire. In order to fool the public
the US terrorists asked Hollywood to produce a
movie showing the WTC towers being stricken
by planes and
collapsing (sic) from top down,
etc, that the terrorists then broadcasted 'live
on TV' assisted by US media, when the WTC-
complex was destroyed from bottom up. As the rubble
would reveal how the towers really were destroyed
(from bottom up) the area was fenced off and false
pictures also of the rubble were
published. The Federal Bureau of
Investigation, FBI, is supporting the US terrorists
and will not review the below information.
In the decade since the
9/11 attacks, the FBI's
intelligence program
has tripled in size, and FBI analysts work around
the world-from the war zone in Afghanistan to the
White House Situation Room-to help covering up the
Truth about 911. However, a simple fact
remains: The FBI has failed the
Heiwa
Challenge. The below article is based
on a scientific paper (Manuscript
MS EMENG-1029)
submitted early 2011 to The Journal of
Engineering Mechanics, JEM, issued by the
American Society of Civil Enginers, ASCE. On 3
October 2011 the scientific paper was rejected by
JEM as per below e-mail: Message du 03/10/11
17:19 De : "Kaspar Willam"
Objet : RE: tr: re:
Decision on Manuscript
MS EMENG-1029 I have consulted with
two of my Associate Editors in order to review your
informal appeal. You are free to submit your article to another journal of your choice. Sincerely, Kaspar Willam, Chief Editor of JEM I replied the same day: Hello Kaspar, Thanks for long awaited reply due to consultating with your Associate Editors. Who are they? Anyway, an easy to understand, popular version of mine by you now refused paper to JEM is available on the Internet at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/tower.htm and if you or your Associates can find anything wrong with it, you can earn €1M at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/chall.htm . Note that my website has had > 1 000 000 downloads since start up = it is quite popular. But nobody has been able to prove me wrong. So Kaspar, I challenge you and your Associates. Prove me wrong and I give you/them € 1M. Looking forward to hearing from you and Glück auf, as we we say Anders Björkman PS - You are not supporting terrorism, are you? No reply has been recieved from Kaspar and his associates (7 January 2012)  |
|
A 407 meters tall tower structure A+C cannot be reduced to rubble B, when a small, 40-50 meters tall, light and weak top part C drops on big, intact, solid and 350 meters tall, strong bottom part A, where Abottom is 7-8 times stronger than Atop and Atop is stronger than top part C, as A carries C. All and every tower structure can only be destroyed by
gravity from bottom up (by controlled demolition) and never
by itself from top
down. Anyone suggesting that a light weight, weak
top part C of a tower can globally crush
down the heavy weaight, strong bottom part
A into rubble B is a terrorist that FBI
should arrest at once. According to FBI at http://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/when/when,
we citizens are requested to, please, contact our
local FBI office or submit a tip electronically (at
https://tips.fbi.gov/)
if we have information about: 1. Possible
acts of terrorism, including violence, funding, or
recruitment; 2. Persons sympathetic to terrorists or
terrorist organizations; 3. Suspicious
activities that we believe threaten national
security, especially
suspicious activities that
involve foreign powers or foreign
organizations; There is plenty of information about (1)
verified acts of terrorism
(9-11 WTC destructions),
(2) known
persons
sympathetic to terrorists (prof.
Bazant, the staff of
NIST
(National Institute of Standards and Technology))
and (3) suspicious activities (faked photos
and videos of the destructions) that I believe
threaten (US) national security and I have informed
FBI accordingly several times. RESULT? 0! Zero. It
seems Ground Zero at NY is named after the
FBI efforts so far. Zero. In several stupid, peer reviewed articles in
ASCE's Journal of Engineering Mechanics
prof. Bazant suggests that
(green) light
weight, weak top part C is rigid (!) and
crushes and compresses
(yellow) heavy
weight, strong bottom part A below into
(blue) rubble
B by gravity. NIST in a 10 000+ pages
report suggests that top C applies energy on
bottom A that bottom A cannot absorb
elastically ... part A is crushed into
rubble and dust. You find the ridiculous
Bazant/NIST reports on the Internet web. The basic question is of course: Can a big, 407 meters tall skyscraper/tower,
10 times stronger and heavier at 1/10th bottom than
1/10th top, 'collapse' from top down by
gravity into a heap of rubble due to small local
damages up below 1/10th top and create a Ground
Zero? Illustration of
'progressive global collapse' from top to
bottom of a tower structure according prof. Bazant
and NIST and terrorists. Top C gets loose by plane
causing local failures and crushes down
bottom A into rubble B and rubble B then crushes
up top C into more rubble B. It cannot
happen in reality.
Below are two more faked, stupid photos you find on Internet of the same tower: It looks like the tower explodes ... by gravity? - with loose pieces flying around in all directions. You wonder why a big wall panel falling on side always is followed by a trail of smoke/dust. And why the smoke on top looks like coming from a volcano! It is though just copy/paste of different layers of animations! Really stupid actually.
Scientific description why a tower cannot collapse from top down It is easy to demonstrate theoretically and numerically that a tower structure A cannot globally, progressively collapse by itself from top down, when a small top C of A drops on A by gravity. It will take you <10 minutes to read below and understand why. Consider a tower structure of N floors, each of mass m, labeled from top (i = 1) to bottom (i = N). Adjacent floors are separated by springs. Floor n is supported by n springs. The springs realistically represent the elastic walls and columns that support the floors of the tower. All springs are identical, weightless, have rest length L (m), and are perfectly elastic with constant stiffness k (N/m) until compressed longitudinally (i.e. vertically) and laterally (i.e. sideways) a realistic and critical longitudinal (vertical) displacement, say xC = 0.01L, when they compress plastically another vertical distance xP, after which they fail (and the vertical length becomes 0). The tower is placed in a vacuum on a very large inertial mass, i.e. ground, and is subjected to a uniform gravitational field directed downwards. g = 9.82 m/s². Static equilibrium The tower is in static equilibrium when Fn = nkx = nmg (N) . It follows that x = mg/k. In static equilibrium the displacement x due to elastic compression of a spring is everywhere the same and the same is true for the strain x/L and the stress in the springs. A real tower is likewise equally strained and stressed at top and bottom. Safety factor The n springs below floor n can each support a load of FC = kxC before plastic deformation starts. If the actual design load of a spring is F, then the safety factor S = FC/F. Elastic and plastic strain energy The work performed in compressing a spring elastically is E = kx²/2 (J). A spring can therefore elastically absorb ES = 0.00005kL² (J). If a spring is overloaded elastically and starts to deform plastically, the spring will develop plastic hinges, which absorb more energy EP and which takes a certain time tP - when its effective length finally becomes 0 - it is broken! Let's assume that EP = 2ES. Real value is easy to establish in a laboratory. Note that the connection between one spring above and two springs below do not fail before any of the spring fails, because, if that were the case, there is no way that load, force and energy can be transmitted between springs.
Can little top part C, 7.2 times smaller and 77 times 'weaker' than bottom part A, really crush bottom part A by gravity? In this little example crush means breaking the springs in overload from above by gravity. Question! Can something small and weak like little top part C really destroy something big and strong like bottom part A just by dropping C 3.7 meters by gravity on A? FBI, Albuquerque is investigating! Imagine! FBI! Investigating! Call them at (+1) (505) 889-1300 and find out what they do. And tell me! Spring details - same everywhere Force F in every spring is F = mg = 35.352 MN as the spring carries a weight of 3 600 tons. The spring may have cross area of about 0.5 m² if it is of steel. The stress in the spring is then about 70 MPa. Note that the stress is same everywhere - at top and bottom of the structure. Let's assume S = 3, i.e. the springs will commence plastic deformation or yield at 210 MPa. The material of the spring is steel. Note that the total cross area of removed springs below part C is 6.5 m² (13 springs each 0.5 m²) and that the total cross area of springs at bottom of part A is 55 m² (110 springs each 0.5 m²). The tower evidently gets 'stronger' with more springs added further down. All towers are designed the same way (i.e. they are stronger at bottom getting lighter higher up). The critical force FC of a spring is FC = 106.056 MN. After that it deforms plastically absorbing more energy and soon has length 0. Let's assume that spring stiffness k = 3 GN/m that is typical when core and perimeter wall structure of WTC is replaced by one spring (a bundle of steel elements) with cross area 0.5 m² that can deform in 3-D. Actual k is easy to establish in a laboratory (by just compressing the spring with a known force and measuring the compression) or by structural analysis calculations. Then xC = 0.037 m ES = k(xC)²/2 = 2.053 MJ x = 0.037/3 m E = kx²/2 = 0.228 MJ When the tower is in static equilibrium, each spring is compressed 0.0123 meter and 0.228MJ energy is stored in it elastically. However the spring can be compressed elastically to xC = 0.037 meter (or 1% of L) before it starts to deform plastically and the energy EC required to compress it is then 2.053 MJ. All springs in tower can absorb 12.53 GJ energy elastically. From an energy absorption point of view factor of safety is 9 (actually static S²). Top part C can absorb elastically totally 78 x 2.053 = 160.1 MJ energy! By dropping top part C a certain distance, e.g. L, a certain amount of potential energy ED is released, where ED = 13mLg = 1.7 GJ. It is 13.6% of what the tower itself can absorb elastically. Or 6.8% plastically. By simple structural damage analysis you can establish whether C can damage A, ground or itself C. Experiment 1: Structure part C collapses from bottom up Experiment 1 shows how something weak, part C, dropped on rigid ground, will be affected by the impact. The part C assembly of 13 m is dropped on ground from distance L. At the impact C/ground total 1.7 GJ is applied to ground and C. The ground does not damp the impact. It is rigid and can absorb plenty energy. Evidently C itself damps the impact - it becomes compressed and maybe damaged: As C is 44.4 m tall and consists of 13 m separated by springs, it is the bottom m of C that physically contacts ground and is arrested by ground at the impact. The remaining 12 m above continue to displace down and compress the springs below. A certain damping takes place, when the springs compress elastically and plastically. As the dynamic forces acting on C and ground at impact and later are equal and opposite (the dynamic force F, i.e. a static force displaced a little during the short time t of impact, is the energy applied, 0.5ED, divided by the displacement x of the force F - the structure is compressed and maybe damaged), it follows that C will absorb 0.5ED and rigid ground will also absorb 0.5ED in the impact. It would then appear that 0.85GJ energy is applied on C one way or another and as C can only absorb 0.16GJ elastically and 0.32GJ plastically, all springs in C will fail. Ground is rigid and undamaged. Top part C is, as seen, not very strong, and it is why its springs are 100% broken at impact with ground. In what order will the springs in C fail? It can be seen on videos of controlled demolitions of buildings, where the bottom supports are destroyed and structure above drops and hits ground that destruction is from bottom up, thus: The bottom 12 springs fail first at impact with ground, 12 floors m above then drop down L, 11 springs fail, 11 m drop down L, 10 springs fail, 10 m drop, etc, etc, until the last one top spring fails and the last m (the roof!) impacts ground from L. As can be seen C, 12 L tall, is destroyed from bottom up in 12 steps that takes a certain time. All the energy released by the failed springs apart from the energy absorbed by failed springs is absorbed by ground.
Thus, just adding 13 m on top of A nothing special will happen except that all springs in A are again under original design, static load. Now, the big question is what happens if, in lieu of slowly putting 13 m on A we drop 13 m on A from L = 3.7 m and we let 13 m impact A! Will the dynamic forces at impact crush A ... or C? Experiment 3: Structure A impacted on top damps impact due to elastic and plastic deformations Experiment 3 shows what happens when a rigid mass of 13 m impacts A dynamically from above. 13 m are dropped on the top m of A from L = 3.7 m. The 13 m are connected together without any interconnecting springs, and that assembly is here called D. D is thus rigid as it cannot deform. At impact D/A (a short lived event) 1.7 GJ is applied to A and D and, as in experiment 1 0.85 GJ is applied to A. A can totally absorb 10.974 GJ so you would expect rigid D to bounce on A. The dynamic force F applied on A/D is, as stated above, simply the energy applied divided by displacement x of force F during impact/compression. The initial impact will produce more impacts, if further m gets loose and drops, but energy released in each impact will be elastically (and maybe plastically) absorbed by intact springs in A. The beauty of a spring is that it can absorb and release energy multiple times, when loaded in succession. It is very strange that NIST suggests that little C (or D) can apply energy on big A that A cannot absorb! The figures say something completely different! Why does NIST lie and spread false information to the public. Is it in order to support terrorism? It may be argued that the top 14 top springs and the 15 springs in the next layer of A may be destroyed locally in overload by the dynamic forces at impact with D and some extra energy released when D and one or more loose m displace down L. The 14 top springs of A can totally absorb elastically 14 x 2.053 = 28.74 MJ and maybe plastically totally say 86 MJ. The plastic destruction (failure) of springs takes time t, so in the mean time the dynamic impact force (i.e. energy divided by displacement) can be absorbed elastically by 6 000 springs below the 14 top spings and transmitted to ground (as a seismic wave). When one layer of springs is destroyed all m above displace down L and more energy is released - a second impact - and has to be absorbed by intact springs like a shock absorber. So D applies 850 MJ on A and about 86 MJ can be absorbed by destruction of the top layer of springs in A and the rest is absorbed elastically by 96 other layers of 6 000 springs in A and transmitted to ground. That D would destroy all 6 014 springs of A is unlikely. The springs of A will dampen the impact of D and loose m of A dropping, while only some local failures occur close to interface D/A. It is quite easy to verify experiment 3 in a laboratory. Just take the top C of any tower structure, compress it to a rigid block D, and drop D on the bottom part A and see what happens. Rigid D will always bounce and stop after producing some local failures at top of A, i.e. the weakest part of A! Experiment 4: Small top C cannot crush a bigger bottom A Experiment 4 shows what happens when part C impacts A from above. Part C is dropped on part A from L = 3.7 m. This is the famous WTC 1 event. 13 top floors m of WTC 1 drop on 97 intact floors/columns m below (and according videos of suspect origin the 97 floors/columns below are destroyed in a fountain of smoke, dust and debris - terrible! In reality, of course, it cannot happen). At impact C/A 0.85GJ is applied to C (with 12 springs at bottom) and 0.85GJ is applied to A (with 14 springs at top) as explained above. However, C does not impact rigid ground as in experiment 1 and A is not impacted from above by rigid D as in experiment 3. In fact only the top m of A supported by 14 springs below and the bottom m of C supported by 12 springs above contact each other in the impact and the dynamic forces are then transmitted via the 6 000 springs to other m in A to ground and via 66 springs to other m in C. The intacts springs behave elastically and dampen the impact. The impact, like in experiment 3, will be split in sub-impacts, when/if further floors m gets loose and drops, but energy released in each sub-impact will be elastically (and maybe plastically) absorbed by the intact springs. So in experiment 4 the initial impact will really be dampened, i.e. take longer time, as both A and C … and ground … will dampen (absorb the energy of) the local impact C/A. It also means that the dynamic forces are reduced. That small/weak top part C will crush big/stronger bottom part A at increasing speed and by gravity is impossible. That small top part C - that can absorb much less energy elastically and plastically than big bottom part A - can apply, via short lived dynamic forces, and release, via structural/spring failures, more energy on A and destroy A is impossible: C will destroy it's own springs first, before A is starting to get destroyed and then C cannot apply or release more energy to destroy A. In reality there will only be some local failures at interface C/A at impact, C and A then get locally entangled, friction develops and C will then just bounce on top of A. A arrests C! There is not enough energy for anything else. Numerical example: As seen above 0.85 GJ energy is applied to 12 bottom springs in C and 14 top springs in A at impact C/A. What happens if 0.065 GJ energy E is applied to one spring with stiffness k = 3 GN/m and 3.7 meter length L? Answer: the spring will compress x = 0.147 meter (as x² = E/k) due to the impact or 4% L. As one spring in our example can only elastically compress 1% it would appear that the spring plastically deforms or breaks at impact. However, our spring is not alone but supported by other springs above and below in the structure so you have to consider that. Evidently the 6 105 springs in A can easily absorb totally 0.85 GJ energy elastically (as shown in experiment 3). If the 78 springs in C can do it, is another matter (as shown in experiment 1). It is quite easy to verify experiment 4 in a laboratory. Just take the top part C of any tower, and drop it on the bottom part A and see what happens. My experience is that C always bounces on and is arrested by A, but I may be wrong. I have only tested a limited amount of towers. No smoke, dust, debris or ejections were produced when dropping C on A. I give Euro 1.000.000:- to anybody that can produce a tower/structure, where top C crushes bottom A! It is the famous Heiwa Challenge! It is actually impossible to win. Many people believe that scale or size of structure matters, e.g. that a small (model of a) structure cannot crush itself but that a bigger structure can or that material matters, e.g. that a structure of brittle elements will collapse but not a structure of more ductile elements. However, to believe things like that is unscientific, terrorist nonsense. Experiment 4 and its impact, elastic compression of springs and damping of parts can of course easily be modelled mathematically using FEM for any size of tower springs structure/elements/material. A linear spring-damper model of the form f(t)= k*x(t) + c*v(t), where x = input displacement, v= input velocity, and f(t)= output force can be developed (N off masses m connected by N(N+1)/2 off springs) based on test data in the time domain of the springs. The term k is the spring stiffness (Newton/meter, N/m) and c is the viscous damping coefficient (Ns/m). With k = 3 GN/m and c = 0.3 GNs/m the tower parts A and C become very flexible and will visibly deform/compress/oscillate, be damped, for several seconds after impact C/A. Plastic deformation and its time to develop failures of a spring are more complex to model mathematically (but it can be done). That a 407 meter tower structure will explode in smoke, dust and debris, rubble being formed and collapse from top taking place in 15 seconds as shown 'live on TV' Tuesday morning 11 September 2001 in the USA is not possible in reality. What was shown 'live on TV' was just a stupid movie made by disaster animators Hollywood style! Imagine that! FBI cannot understand such a simple thing. It is a pity. The writer's attempts to crush a structure by dropping its top on it have, naturally, always ended up with no springs failing in A and C and only bouncing/arrest of C taking place. Conclusion The writer has never seen a top part C of a tower impact and destroy the bottom part A due to gravity. Reason is that such a destruction is physically impossible! A always arrests C.
Only way is from bottom up starting at ground! You wonder who really destroyed WTC on 9-11 and made a fake movie (broadcasted 'live on TV') and photos of top/down destruction and included a false description of it at Wikipedia! And why the FBI is not investigating!
[August 2011 message from Wikipedia about above article: "Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Progressive collapse has been reverted. Your edit here to Progressive collapse was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://heiwaco.tripod.com/tower.htm ) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia." Wikipedia incorrectly describes the WTC total progressive collapse as follows: "The collapse of the World Trade Center has been
called "the most infamous paradigm" of progressive
collapse. In the case of both towers, the
top section (green part
C in picture right. Heiwa Co
note) tilted towards the face that had buckled,
behaving largely as a solid block separate from the
rest of the building. It fell at least one story in
freefall and impacted the lower sections
(yellow part A
in picture right. Heiwa Co note) with a
force equivalent to over thirty times its own
weight. This was sufficient to buckle the columns
of the story immediately below it; the block
(green part C
in picture right. Heiwa Co note) then fell
freely through the distance of another story
(yellow part A
in picture right. Heiwa Co note). Total
collapse was now unavoidable as the process
repeated through the entire height of the lower
sections (yellow part
A in picture right. Heiwa Co
note). The force of each impact was also much
greater than the horizontal momentum of the
section, which kept the tilt from increasing
significantly before the falling section
(green part C
in picture right. Heiwa Co note) reached the
ground. It (green part
C in pictureright. Heiwa Co note)
remained intact throughout the collapse, with its
center of gravity within the building's footprint.
After crushing the lower section
(yellow part A
in picture right. Heiwa Co note) of the
building, it (green part
C in picture right. Heiwa Co
note) was itself crushed when it hit the
ground." Any attempts to correct the relevant Wikipedia
articles are impossible! So Wikipedia supports terrorism!
Illustration of
'progressive collapse' from top to bottom of
a tower structure according Wikipedia, prof. Bazant
and NIST and terrorists. Top
part C gets loose
by plane causing local failures and crushes down
intact bottom
part A into
rubble
B and
rubble
B then crushes
up top
part C into more
rubble
B. A Ground Zero
is created! It cannot happen in reality.
|
