One-way crushing theory

[Heiwa]

If you google on 'one-way crushing theory' you get no results!

This is quite amazing as the 'one-way crushing theory' is the official theory why WTC 1 and 2 collapsed on 9/11/

Is Google in on the conspiracy?

[PixyMisa]

Mu.

[TheRedWorm]

It's not even a coherent hypothesis, let alone a theory...

[Dave Rogers]

If you google "the official theory why WTC1 and 2 collapsed on 9/11", this too returns no results. Clearly, there is no "official theory why WTC1 and 2 collapsed on 9/11".

Also, googling "9/11 truth movement successes" returns no hits more recent than October 2006. Interesting, that.

Dave

[alex04]

If you google on 'one-way crushing theory' you get no results!

This is quite amazing as the 'one-way crushing theory' is the official theory why WTC 1 and 2 collapsed on 9/11/

Is Google in on the conspiracy?


So the point of your post is, the fact you get no matches searching those terms, then Google is in on the 9/11 conspiracy?

Do you realise how ridiculous this sounds?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

If you google on 'one-way crushing theory' you get no results!

Yeah, that's not the only thing. (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=Kow&q=%22women+anders+borkman+has+a+chance+with%22&btnG=Search&meta=)

[Holler Hoojer]

I just Googled "Why the USS Arizona was in Pearl Harbor" and got no results. I suppose you could do that sort of thing all day. Those of us who Google as part of our livelihood know better than to use such restrictive searches.

[TexasJack]

Hey, I did get some hits with truther and nutjob. This google investigation process is so scientific.

[Mince]

There's a real world outside the internet. Please stop this nonsense.

[MG1962]

There's a real world outside the internet. Please stop this nonsense.

When the hell did that happen? Why wasn't I told. How do I access this world you speak of?

[Mince]

When the hell did that happen? Why wasn't I told. How do I access this world you speak of?

Go to www.thereisarealworldnoreally.com (http://www.thereisarealworldnoreally.com) and download the drivers.

[Pinch]

I thought this place was for intelligent discussion of current events/items of interest related to 9/11 Conspiracies. It appears I'm wrong or I stumbled into the "Dull Witted and Slow Thinkers Post Your OP Here" section.

Seriously.

[Mince]

I thought this place was for intelligent discussion...

Duh-huh?

[NoZed Avenger]

Go to www.thereisarealworldnoreally.com (http://www.thereisarealworldnoreally.com) and download the drivers.


Link didn't work. Is there a mirror site?

[SteveAustin]

I thought this place was for intelligent discussion of current events/items of interest related to 9/11 Conspiracies. It appears I'm wrong or I stumbled into the "Dull Witted and Slow Thinkers Post Your OP Here" section.

Seriously.

Yes because responses like this one just goes to show how very intelligent the majority of JREF'ers actually are.

Heiwa was demonstrating a simple point that all of you simply decided to ignore so you could jump in with your trademark insults...how very...adult of you all

[Dave Rogers]

Heiwa was demonstrating a simple point that all of you simply decided to ignore so you could jump in with your trademark insults.

Unfortunately, that simple point was "If I google my own strawman argument, I don't get any hits". We don't need the simple point demonstrated that Heiwa dishonestly uses fallacious arguments to further his agenda; we've all read enough of his posts to be aware of that.

Dave

[X]

Yes because responses like this one just goes to show how very intelligent the majority of JREF'ers actually are.

Heiwa was demonstrating a simple point that all of you simply decided to ignore so you could jump in with your trademark insults...how very...adult of you all


Not quite.

While I agree that many of the responses in this thread are unhelpful (to put it mildly), Heiwa is not demonstrating any worthwhile point. So he couldn't find any Google results for his term for an explanation for the collapses. So what?

The explanation he is talking about, the one which so vexes his understanding of physics, has been explained to him many times.

He either can not understand it or will not understand it.

The simple fact is that this thread itself serves no purpose other than to rehash his one of Heiwa's ages-old arguments from incredulity/ignorance.

[TjW]

Link didn't work. Is there a mirror site?
Yes, there is, but it's not much use. If your machine is Big Endian, it will give the drivers to you in Little Endian, and vice versa.

[Mince]

Yes because responses like this one just goes to show how very intelligent the majority of JREF'ers actually are.

Heiwa was demonstrating a simple point that all of you simply decided to ignore so you could jump in with your trademark insults...how very...adult of you all

Could you use your bionic brain to tell me precisely what point he was demonstrating? As it looks, he just wasted a bunch of 1's and 0's posting an OP with a ridiculous premise. Unless he's not trying to be ridiculous and really does believe Google is "in on the conspiracy" (whatever that is), in which case he has utterly failed to demonstrate anything in the OP.

[nicepants]

If you google on 'one-way crushing theory' you get no results!

This is quite amazing as the 'one-way crushing theory' is the official theory why WTC 1 and 2 collapsed on 9/11/

Is Google in on the conspiracy?


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1418949d25669b328c.jpg

[tsig]

Yes because responses like this one just goes to show how very intelligent the majority of JREF'ers actually are.

Heiwa was demonstrating a simple point that all of you simply decided to ignore so you could jump in with your trademark insults...how very...adult of you all


So you decide to jump in with insults of your own. How...very...mature...of...you.

[Mr.Herbert]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1418949d25669b328c.jpg


:dl: :dl:

[Brainster]

Nobody says the crushing went in one direction. The point that Heiwa seems unable to grasp is that even after the top part is crushed it has tremendous weight and momentum, so that it continues to crush what's below it.

[Shrinker]

If you google on 'one-way crushing theory' you get no results!

Considering you've spend all your time here debunking this 'theory' you must be quite embarrassed to discover it doesn't exist. Perhaps you should have checked first....:D

[Heiwa]

Nobody says the crushing went in one direction. The point that Heiwa seems unable to grasp is that even after the top part is crushed it has tremendous weight and momentum, so that it continues to crush what's below it.

The One-way crushing theory is just a one-dimensional solid mechanics theory with point masses connected by spaghetti columns that are broken, so the masses pile up - Bazant suggests that the point masses then become point rubble masses 4X more dense, &c. Pure nonsense. Maybe Google consider that?

Do a proper 3-D structural damage analysis and you'll understand. Learn from ship collisions! :)

[tsig]

Considering you've spend all your time here debunking this 'theory' you must be quite embarrassed to discover it doesn't exist. Perhaps you should have checked first....:D

It's leap first, lie later.

[leftysergeant]

The One-way crushing theory is just a one-dimensional solid mechanics theory with point masses connected by spaghetti columns that are broken, so the masses pile up - Bazant suggests that the point masses then become point rubble masses 4X more dense, &c. Pure nonsense.

If a loose construct of mass becomes broken and compact, is it not, then, at the point at which it accumulates and becomes compacted, much more dense than it was in it's original state?

Your comment makes no sense to me.

[Bobert]

Heiwa,
I googled, "sushi tower" and a delicious sushi recipe was number 1.
I just wanted to take a minute to thank you!

[beachnut]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1418949d25669b328c.jpg
Yes; google is ...

...
Do a proper 3-D structural damage analysis and you'll understand. Learn from ship collisions! :)
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/shipskyscraper.jpg
In the z-plane?

[MIKILLINI]

If you google on 'one-way crushing theory' you get no results!

This is quite amazing as the 'one-way crushing theory' is the official theory why WTC 1 and 2 collapsed on 9/11/

Is Google in on the conspiracy?

You have to be more intelligent than the tool you're using; Or, as in this case, the search engine (Me thinks you're just being disingenuous).

Why don't you try "One-way Building Crushing Theory" and see what happens?

[X]

If a loose construct of mass becomes broken and compact, is it not, then, at the point at which it accumulates and becomes compacted, much more dense than it was in it's original state?

Your comment makes no sense to me.


Maybe he think the volume remains constant?

That's the only way I can figure his remark.

[MIKILLINI]

I thought this place was for intelligent discussion of current events/items of interest related to 9/11 Conspiracies. It appears I'm wrong or I stumbled into the "Dull Witted and Slow Thinkers Post Your OP Here" section.

Seriously.

Comprehension is the first phase of understanding anything.
Perhaps you've become to open-minded?

[SRW]

I goggled "Hiewa is a smart man" and it cam back with an answerer:

Hiewa is an (http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare)

[leftysergeant]

Do a proper 3-D structural damage analysis and you'll understand. Learn from ship collisions! :)

There is nothing relevant to be learned from ship collisions that applies to more thasn the first half-second or so of the collapses of the towers, and that strictly about the failure of steel joints.

When two ships collide, they tend to bounce of each other.

There is nothing to continue driving them at each other.

Crap from the top piled up on the lower parts of the tower, and continued to do so, progressively.

Doesn't happen in a ship collison.

Stick to building davits on cruise ships.

[TheDaver]

If you google on 'one-way crushing theory' you get no results!

This is quite amazing as the 'one-way crushing theory' is the official theory why WTC 1 and 2 collapsed on 9/11/

Is Google in on the conspiracy?
So because I can put ridiculous words in your mouth, that makes you an idiot?

[Heiwa]

Crap from the top piled up on the lower parts ... , and continued to do so, progressively.



You mean the White House? Or Dick C's office?

[leftysergeant]

When the upper floors of a building collapse, they strike or sit on the lower floors of the building, stressing that part of the building, in the case of the towers, to the breaking point.

When ships coillide, anything that comes loose or breaks rtends to sink into the ocean and play no further part in the destruction of the structures.

Do you even bother to read what anyone else writes if it disagrees with your ear crickets? There is no parallel between ship collisions and building collapses beyond a few fractions of a second, the time it takes for joints to fail. Once the joints have failed, the energy budget is pretty well expended. and arresting mechanisms take over.

Stick to building davits.

[alex04]

Yes because responses like this one just goes to show how very intelligent the majority of JREF'ers actually are.

Heiwa was demonstrating a simple point that all of you simply decided to ignore so you could jump in with your trademark insults...how very...adult of you all

What a load of BS.

It was a particularly dumb comment, and my comment would have been no different if anyone else here had made it.

[Heiwa]

When the upper floors of a building collapse, they strike or sit on the lower floors of the building, stressing that part of the building, in the case of the towers, to the breaking point.

When ships coillide, anything that comes loose or breaks rtends to sink into the ocean and play no further part in the destruction of the structures.



Aha, so the only difference between (A) a one-way crush down of a tower structure due to gravity only and (B) a ship collision is that in (A) loose rubble builds up and overload the structure while in (B) the loose rubble falls to the bottom of the sea.

So the WTC1 collapsed not due to the top part impacting on the lower part but because rubble built up and overloaded the structure.

Well, I am just suggesting that rubble does not collapse structures.

[X]

So the WTC1 collapsed not due to the top part impacting on the lower part but because rubble built up and overloaded the structure.

Well, I am just suggesting that rubble does not collapse structures.




The upper section (whether intact, rubble, or a mixture of both) has mass, and is moving.

This gives it kinetic energy.

Specifically, it has Ek = 0.5mv2 Joules of kinetig energy.
where Ek is kinetic energy, in Joules;
m is mass, in kilograms;
v is velocity, in meters per second

The motion is important.


It is the moving mass that is important, not what the mass consists of.
An equal weight of water, sand, feathers or neutrons, moving at the same velocity and covering the same planform area, would have had the same effect.

[Heiwa]

The upper section (whether intact, rubble, or a mixture of both) has mass, and is moving.

This gives it kinetic energy.

Specifically, it has Ek = 0.5mv2 Joules of kinetig energy.
where Ek is kinetic energy, in Joules;
m is mass, in kilograms;
v is velocity, in meters per second

The motion is important.


It is the moving mass that is important, not what the mass consists of.
An equal weight of water, sand, feathers or neutrons, moving at the same velocity and covering the same planform area, would have had the same effect.

Same energy PE, yes, but same effect? It depends on the structure and contact interface and what the dynamic contact forces produce at this interface. Remember that lower part A (fixed on ground) previously carried upper part C, so part A need only to stop dropping part C and then static equilibrium is reinstated. How does A stop C?
First by elastic compression! It can result in a bounce, if PE is less than the energy that A can absorb as elastic compression.
And then by plastic deformation and finally by fractures in the elements or their connections. In the latter case, you can be sure that also part C is affected by plastic deformation and fractures,&c. PE is transformed into plastic deformations and failures.
And as C is smaller than A (same structure), A will always stop C. It is my axiom. Easy to prove for particular structures.
That's why I am willing to offer $1M to anybody finding a structure that does not follow the axiom. I really wonder what it looks like?

It doesn't look like ten solid steel plates stowed on top of each other and where you remove the top plate and drop it on the other nine steel plates. It will just bounce.
It doesn't look like 100 steel plates connected to one another by some elements (columns) and where you disconnect the top ten plates and drop them on the 90 plates assembly below. It may still bounce or some elements or plates may fail locally, but no one way down crushing of the 90 plates below followed by a one way up crushing of the 10 plates will ever take place. In any scale, size.

[240-185]

Don't bother with kinetic energy, other people already raised that a humptieth of times... And Heiwa seems to discover it.

[edit] here we go again: the upper part should bounce over the lower part...

[leftysergeant]

Same energy PE, yes, but same effect? It depends on the structure and contact interface and what the dynamic contact forces produce at this interface.

Yes, the same bloody effect. It matters not a gnat's conscience whether the mass was rubble or complete slabs. It delivered more kinetic energy to the next floor in line than they were designed to resist.

And as C is smaller than A (same structure), A will always stop C. It is my axiom. Easy to prove for particular structures.

By your reasoning, a human skull should unfailingly stop a cotton bullet without structural failure.

What parts of the towers are you saying were compressed and capable of holding up the falling floor slabs? In case you missed it, there were no columns under the floor slabs to hold them up. You springs are not there.

That's why I am willing to offer $1M to anybody finding a structure that does not follow the axiom. I really wonder what it looks like?

It would look lioke WTC 1 and 2. Now give me the money in small bills. I will send you my lawyer's address on Monday.

It doesn't look like ten solid steel plates stowed on top of each other and where you remove the top plate and drop it on the other nine steel plates. It will just bounce.

The floors of the WTC in no way reesembled steel plates, ergo, your entire arguement is distilled stupidity.

They were concrete poured over relatively flimsy sheet metal. Thus, their ability to rebound was closer to that of concrete than to steel, which is to say, for all practical purposes, zero.
It doesn't look like 100 steel plates connected to one another by some elements (columns) and where you disconnect the top ten plates and drop them on the 90 plates assembly below.[/QUOTE]

Another big "Well, DUH!"

It looks like a stack of concrete slabs sort of tacked onto two walls of columns, with many hundreds of times the weight they were supposed to withstand galloping a free fall speed on collision course, with enough energy to rip those concrete slabs loose from the columns to which they were attached.

News flash, dude. The parts that failed and caused the collapse never did hold up other parts of the building. They held the perimeter columns at a set distance from the core columns. So compressibility in the vertical is not even a factor. There was nothing under the floor slabs to arrest them once set into motion. No columns to squish down like springs. Just more concrete slabs waiting to be torn loose from their brackets. Little bitty shelves a few inches wide do not have any appreciable elastic properties that would interfere with the march of the slabs downward.

The only thing holding the weight of anything vertically were the columns, which held the next columns up away from the ground. They did just fine until the floors were ripped away and all the debris that couldn't get down the interior space pushed them out away from the cores.

To make any of your drivel relevant, you need to prove that there was no way that ten floor slabs falling on the floor below would not provide sufficient energy to tear the slabs loose from those little bity brackets by which they were attached to the perimeter columns.

Is it really that hard to grasp the concept I am addressing?

[Heiwa]

Yes, the same bloody effect. It matters not a gnat's conscience whether the mass was rubble or complete slabs. It delivered more kinetic energy to the next floor in line than they were designed to resist.

...

To make any of your drivel relevant, you need to prove that there was no way that ten floor slabs falling on the floor below would not provide sufficient energy to tear the slabs loose from those little bity brackets by which they were attached to the perimeter columns.

Is it really that hard to grasp the concept I am addressing?

It's a bit unscientific! You see the lower structure can resist much more energy than the little part above can apply under any circumstances. First lower structure will try to bounce off the upper part, then it will start to plastically deform the upper part and finally it will tear the upper part into pieces. And the pieces of the upper part cannot damage what's left of the lower structure. One-way crushing cannot take plac.

[leftysergeant]

It's a bit unscientific! You see the lower structure can resist much more energy than the little part above can apply under any circumstances.

Skip the twaddle about bouncing. Are you reasdy to prove that the brackets holding the floors to the perimeter columns could hold a dynamic weight at least ten times greater than the static weight they were intended to support?

If you cannot, you have proven nothing about the ability of WTC 1 and 2 to withstand partial collapse.

[leftysergeant]

Come to think of it, maybe you are right in that one way crushing did not occur.

One-way SHEARING of the floor mounting brackets occurred, all the way to the ground.

Makes you and Bazant both look silly, though Bazant less so, because he recognizes and obviously unstoppable force bearing down on a surface wehith no supporting elements under it.

[Heiwa]

Come to think of it, maybe you are right in that one way crushing did not occur.

One-way SHEARING of the floor mounting brackets occurred, all the way to the ground.

Makes you and Bazant both look silly, though Bazant less so, because he recognizes and obviously unstoppable force bearing down on a surface wehith no supporting elements under it.

One-way shearing!? Just produce a structure A where it happens when a similar structure C drops on it! (C=1/10 A).

[X]

And as C is smaller than A (same structure), A will always stop C. It is my axiom. Easy to prove for particular structures.
That's why I am willing to offer $1M to anybody finding a structure that does not follow the axiom. I really wonder what it looks like?


ho6DCYggFKo



Pay up.


Yes, I'm being a smartass. But until Heiwa crunches the numbers ("Which numbers?", you ask? Read leftysergeant's posts.), there really isn't anything else to say.

[leftysergeant]

One-way shearing!? Just produce a structure A where it happens when a similar structure C drops on it! (C=1/10 A).

Pay attention, will you?

Three floor slabs, in motion equal a hell of a lot more than the one floor slab that the brackets were intented to support and, I have been given to understand, would be more than enough to pull the bolts right out of the brackets. We now have four floor slabs in motion and headed for the next floor slab.

Where is the arresting mechanism?

[leftysergeant]

While we are at it, why did the top of the Balzac building not bounce off the lower part? Until you can expalin that, your blather about the mass of one part of the twin towers is flatulence fighting the wind.

[Heiwa]

While we are at it, why did the top of the Balzac building not bounce off the lower part? Until you can expalin that, your blather about the mass of one part of the twin towers is flatulence fighting the wind.

The Balzac bottom part A was not elastic enough and upper part C quite weak. Of course, here part C = part A size wise, but it is quite visible that part C is severly damaged when contacting part A, &c. No one-way crush down! Just normal CD!

[ozeco41]

Come to think of it, maybe you are right in that one way crushing did not occur.

One-way SHEARING of the floor mounting brackets occurred, all the way to the ground.....yes - leaving the outer tube columns unbraced and free to fall after taking essentially no part in resisting the collapse.
..and the core very similar except some would get bent and some simply bypassed and the cloud of dust means we cannot see what the proportions were.
...Makes you and Bazant both look silly, though Bazant less so, because he recognizes and obviously unstoppable force bearing down on a surface wehith no supporting elements under it.
Seffen and Szamboti both post reams of complicated looking calculations all of which is obscurely written but rests on the same false premise that a "homogeneous top block" fell on a "homogeneous lower structure". So "Garbage in - garbage out". Much of Bazant's stuff is similarly obscure.

The bulk of the falling mass landed on the floors impacting those floors essentially one at a time. So one floor DYNAMICALLY impacted by up to 10 storeys not simply of floor but of total buliding weight.

It was "overwhelming" and you don't need any complicated calculations to work that out.

[Heiwa]

Pay attention, will you?

Three floor slabs, in motion equal a hell of a lot more than the one floor slab that the brackets were intented to support and, I have been given to understand, would be more than enough to pull the bolts right out of the brackets. We now have four floor slabs in motion and headed for the next floor slab.

Where is the arresting mechanism?

Pls, supply a sketch how three floor slabs contact one floor slab and what bolts are being pulled out ... and I will explain where the arresting mechanism is!

[Dave Rogers]

Seffen and Szamboti both post reams of complicated looking calculations all of which is obscurely written but rests on the same false premise that a "homogeneous top block" fell on a "homogeneous lower structure". So "Garbage in - garbage out". Much of Bazant's stuff is similarly obscure.

There's one key difference between Szamboti's approach and that of Seffen and Bazant, though. Seffen and Bazant are using a limiting case biased in favour of survival to demonstrate that collapse is expected. Szamboti is trying to use the same limiting case biased in favour of survival to demonstrate that survival is expected. It's maybe a point too subtle for conspiracy theorists, but Szamboti (and Ross, and Kuttler, and the rest) isn't biasing his scenario in the right direction to falsify his conclusion.

Dave