Är han svensk?

Kan någon kontakta honom?

Har försökte.....

Spännande info...

AE911Truth is proud to add Anders Bjorkman to its list of petition signers. Bjorkman, M. Sc. Naval Architect and Marine Engineer, is the managing director of Heiwa Co. of Beausoleil, France, specializing in ship safety and ship management audits. Bjorkman has more than 40 years experience of steel structural design including structural damage analysis.

Bjorkman is most noted as the leading critic of the official investigation and report concerning the M/S Estonia disaster. He has authored two books to this end, Lies and Truths about the M/V Estonia accident (1998), and, in eBook form, Disaster Investigation (2001).

Bjorkman is now bringing the same critical thinking, the same skills in analyzing structural damage, and abilities as a writer to the destructions of the WTC buildings. As he explains, "having investigated the structural destructions of many ship collisions, the WTC1 destruction is in many respects similar to a collision between two steel ships." Check out his recent writings on WTC1 at The Case for Collapse / Crush-down Arrest and Clear Thinking.


http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist7.htm

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm



Klistrat lite info här....


According NIST Final report of the WTC7 collapse (20 November 2008) pp 47-48:

"The probable collapse sequence that caused the global collapse of WTC 7 was initiated by the buckling of Column 79 … The buckling of Column 79 led to a vertical progression of floor failures up to the east penthouse and to the buckling of Columns 80 and 81. An east to west horizontal progression of interior column buckling followed due to loss of lateral support to adjacent columns, forces exerted by falling debris, and load redistribution from other buckled columns. … Global collapse occurred as the entire building above the buckled region moved downward as a single unit."

Similar and more precise suggestions are given on page 90:

"WTC7 was prone to classic progressive collapse in the absence of debris impact and fire-induced damage when a section of Column 79 between Floors 11 and 13 was removed. The collapse sequence demonstrated a vertical and horizontal progression of failure upon removal of the Column 79 section, followed by buckling of exterior columns, which led to the collapse of the entire building."

WTC7 is a very simple steel structure. There are 24 inner columns supported by external wall columns as per simplified figure right. The columns are primary load carrying parts. The columns are connected by horizontal beams at every floor. The beams are secondary parts carrying local loads to the primary parts - the vertical columns. There are 47 floors. Total height of structure is 147 meters.

A more detailed animation of the structure can be seen here!

Every floor horizontal beam (secondary structure) transmits average about 200 tons of weight to an inner column and 100 tons of weight to a wall column. You evidently have to adjust the load for different spans of beams, etc.

It means that the total load transmitted to the ground by each inner column is on average 9 400 tons. A wall column transmits half that load to ground or 4 700 tons. Again the real values have to be adjusted for actual values of loads transmitted to the columns from the beams.

The columns have variable dimensions from ground to roof so that the compressive stress is always <30% yield at every floor level.

The maximum combined stress in any horizontal beam is also <30% yield. The dimensions of the beams (adjusted for span) are similar everywhere as they only carry local loads.

In figure right we see that an inner column is removed between floors 11 and 13 adjacent to two wall columns. It is similar to Column no. 79 in WTC7.

The load carried by that inner column above floor 13 is, say, 6.800 tons and evidently the adjacent inner columns carry exactly the same load - 6 800 tons. The adjacent wall columns carry half that load - 3 400 tons.

The load - 6 800 tons - in the removed inner column is then transmitted to adjacent columns - 1 700 tons to each adjacent inner column and 850 tons to each adjacent wall column via the horizontal beams above the removed part.



The result is as follows:

The load in an adjacent inner column increases from 6 800 to 8 500 tons and the load in an adjacent wall column increases from 3.400 tons to 4 250 tons or the local compressive stresses increase 25%. As the stresses in the adjacent columns were <30% yield before removal of the column, the stresses are now still only <37.5% yield, i.e. well below any critical value. The stresses in the horizontal beams above the removed column part may increase 50%, which is still <60% yield. It means that nothing will really happen to the complete structure except that some adjacent parts become a little more stressed. There will be no vertical progression of failures due to removing one part of a column!

It can be noted that the load at ground of the inner columns carrying the extra load of the removed column increases from 9 400 to

11 100 tons or only 18%. Same happens to the adjacent wall columns.

This effect, that you can remove a part of a structure, e.g. a piece of column, without, e.g. collapse following is called redundancy; the structure functions without that part; the part was superfluous and not really needed.

None of the structural parts of the structure, columns and horizontal beams, will be subject to critical overload leading to any failure or buckling, when one part is removed.

The NIST suggestion that "the collapse sequence demonstrated a vertical and horizontal progression of failure upon removal of the Column 79 section, followed by buckling of exterior columns, which led to the collapse of the entire building" is simply not true. It is in fact ridiculous to suggest that columns and beams remote from a removed part will be critically affected at all.

Re the soft ware used to conclude the above NIST refers to two soft wares: LS-DYNA and ANSYS, and makes two models (one only of the bottom 16 floors, the latter of the complete structure) and copy/paste results (failures!) from the first (locally damaged) model floors 0-16 to the other. The soft wares used are just simple design soft wares that can only do static analysis and cannot do structural damage analysis as suggested in the report with loose parts flying around and alleged debris re-loading the structure continuously.

What is real structural damage analysis to simulate a collapse (or for that matter, a high energy ship collision)? It is 1000's of (static) analysises, where each phase of damages/failures development is analysed separately with the modified input of structural arrangements and loads applied due to damages of the previous stage. You evidently start with an intact structure, then identify the first failure, then redo the analysis of the complete structure with that failure and modified loads to identify the second failure, etc. At each stage the energy consumed to produce the failure is calculated and is deducted from the energy available to drive the collapse. Released energy due to failures or still applied from outside is evidently added.

NIST might have tried to do just that, e.g. divided the structural 'collapse' into say 6500 of 1/1000 seconds intervals and run 6500 static models, each one representing the status of the structure during the alleged 6.5 seconds collapse with failed parts, modified load patterns, modified structure, etc, and uploaded and included it in the new model at every stage, but there is no indication that they did it. There are too much manual manipulations involved unless you have a clever software to do it ... which as far as this writer is informed NIST does not have as it does not exist!

This is confirmed by correspondence 14-15 January 2009 between Mr. Geoffrey Walter Ritchey and NIST:

I respectfully request copies of the following NIST records:

Instructions for running the NIST simulation of the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 on my own hardware including required software, required hardware, and any parameters to the program. ...

Geoffrey Walter Ritchey

The response from UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology was simple:

NIST has no documents that are responsive to your request.

So NIST has no evidence for the following:



The report includes figures 3.10-13 showing the collapse below floor 16 at 0.5, 2.5 (shown above), 4.5 and 6.5 seconds. Apparently everything above Column 79 drops down due to vertical failures' progression - there are free-flying parts! But the remainder of the structure below floor 16 is just locally damaged during 6.5 seconds. Nothing drops down from below = there is no free debris there. The horizontal failures' progression is not clear. What energy is required to produce all these failures? NIST does not provide any data.

Then there is the whole part above floor 16 - the upper intact part of WTC7 above floor 16. How to handle it?

NIST has agreed/confirmed the finding that the upper part of WTC7 free falls (acceleration 9.82 m/s²) for 2.25 seconds during the collapse, i.e. there is no support/resistance of the upper part above floor 16, when it displaces downward abt 32 meters. See e.g. figure 3.15 in the report (also below)

What a free fall drop is, is explained here! According NIST the constant acceleration of the roofline is 32.196 feet/s² or 9.814 m/s² between time 1.75 and 4 seconds when the roofline velocity increases from 11.57 to 84.01 feet/s or 3.52 to 25.61 m/s! This acceleration is equivalent to gravity acceleration = 100% free fall. The average speed during this time is 14.56 m/s and the total free fall displacement is 32.77 meters.



NIST suggests that this free fall displacement was initiated by failure of column 79 between floors 11/13 followed by a vertical and horizontal progression of failures (no details of course except some strange figures) below floor 16 that apparently removed all support/resistance of the upper part for 32.77 meters vertically down at one side only and the complete structure horizontally.

If WTC7 is represented by three parts A, B and C, where part A is floors 8-16, part B is floors 8-16 (24 meters tall) and part C is floors 16-47 (see picture left), free fall of part C is only possible if, e.g. part B (or more!) is suddenly and totally removed! Then part C free falls on part A.

Free falling upper part C of WTC7 (above floor 16) does not apply any loads at all on the structure below floor 16! A free falling part C does not apply any forces or loads on anything until it contacts part A! So how can the upper part C above floor 16 damage the lower part below floor 16 as suggested by NIST during these 2.25 seconds? What kind of structural analysis is done ... when no loads are applied?

Furthermore - NIST suggests that the upper part C deforms itself during these 2.25 seconds ... when no forces at all are applied to it (all masses of the upper part are in free fall!). Same question ... how can a free fall upper part A deform?

NIST has been asked these questions ... and could not reply!
The NIST statement on page 57 - "Computer simulations of … the structural collapse can be used to predict a complex degradation and collapse of a building", has no foundation in the case of WTC7. NIST has not done a correct job! The WTC 7 structure does not collapse as shown in figures 3.10-14 due to removing a part of Column no. 79 as a local failure. Quite easy for anybody with basic knowledge of structural analysis to verify!

How to destroy WTC7

An explanation how the 24 core columns below floor 16 could suddenly 'disappear' simultaneously to produce the confirmed 32.77 meters free fall of the structure above is given here. The core columns between floors 8-16 (or more!) simply 'evaporated' due to a compound sprayed on them that burnt extremely quickly! It explains the complete lack of these lower core columns in the rubble and also the presence of molten steel there and very strange looking pieces of junk! Further thoughts about this matter can be found here.

I wonder why professional engineers at NIST like Richard Kayser and Shyam Sunder and there colleagues are making up false structural damage analysis reports? What would their mothers say? Their sons becoming part of a criminal conspiracy!

Actually, every essential piece of information in the NIST WTC7 report is false and misleading. NIST does not explain the collapse at all! The report is just a description of a massive amount of local failures that would not occur in the first place (due to lack of potential energy produced by gravity alone) and no global total collapse at any speed would or could follow as suggested by NIST.

The only conclusion is that WTC7 was destroyed by clever controlled demolition of say floors 8-16!

Han skriver här så du kan kontakta honom genom pm där om du vill http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=134938

Här är en sida som han bla har sitt CV på: http://heiwaco.tripod.com/cv.htm

Här är hans sida på ae911trugh.org: http://www.ae911truth.org/info/46

Är han svensk eller?

Quote:

japp

AEtruth är petiga med att bekräfta att man faktiskt har belägg för de titlar man anger. Man får skanna in sitt examensbevis/leg och maila till dem som bevis.

Man måste dock inte vara diplomerad eller legitimerad ingenjör eller arkitetkt för att skriva på. Vem som helst som stödjer deras önskan om en ny oberoende utredning kan göra det.