Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

[Heiwa]

Heiwa, From your site:


This is your diagram of WTC1 (notice the antenna on top):
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/WTC1slicea.gif

The diagram does not show telescoping nor does it show the upper part shortening itself in any of the figures.

You are right. My diagram shows the worst case when upper part C drops (it cannot drop but that's the assumption) and is sliced apart by lower part A (that is also locally damaged). I should add that, when lower part A starts to slice upper part C apart, there should be a visible jolt of part C.

On all videos of WTC 1 - I have described plenty in my papers - we clearly see part C telescoping into itself! Or the lower section of part C is blown apart and the roof drops. And lower part A remains intact. Thus something else than my diagram (two parts colliding).

If you read on my paper you find clear evidence that WTC 1 was not one-way crushed down (C crushing A) as suggested by Bazant, Seffen and NIST. That's my contribution to 911! I also add that controlled demolition is a very likely cause of destruction of both C and A. Thus it should be properly investigated.

[Heiwa]

Tell you what Heiwa. Please draw me a diagram of WTC1 showing how you think the positioning/location of all the elements of part C (you can show just the bottom floor area), compared to the positioning/location of all the elements of part A (you can show just the top floor) as they impacted together? Because the videos I see do not match your simple diagram of WTC1. You use words like telescoping, but show something completely different in your simple WTC1 diagram.

Good idea! Read first http://heiwaco.tripod.com/funnym.htm to get a feel for the WTC 1 structure. Then we can discuss further.

[alienentity]

If you read on my paper you find clear evidence that WTC 1 was not one-way crushed down (C crushing A) as suggested by Bazant, Seffen and NIST. That's my contribution to 911! I also add that controlled demolition is a very likely cause of destruction of both C and A. Thus it should be properly investigated.

Heiwa, your analysis is too weak to warrant another investigation, even though your persistence is noted.

I think you're out of your depth in this pursuit - you simply do not have the analytical skills to make a convincing engineering argument, so will not succeed.

Please note that a recent analysis of Tony Szamboti's 'missing jolt' paper showed that, when you remove the sampling method errors and other artifacts, there is good evidence of sharp changes in velocity.
Thanks to Moorea34
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4880046#post4880046

Add to this the simple fact that David Chandler's own acceleration analysis showed that the upper block of WTC1 started to fall at approx 64% of freefall!
This is clear proof that structure was being destroyed/accelerated, according to conservation of momentum.

Mr. Bjorkman, perhaps you are indeed a well qualified marine engineer, but you are letting your infatuation with conspiracy theories override your better judgment, IMHO. That's a shame.

Maybe stick to your area of expertise?

[alienentity]

I think it is being taken out of context. One of the people involved in the design (maybe Robertson himself) said that their operating assumption was a jet low on fuel after a long trip, flying low and lost in the fog or the dark. They figured that would be the most likely impact scenario: A jet whose pilots were trying to find the runway, were configured for landing, and just happened to be off course. No one at all envisioned the scenario that actually happened.

So did they account for "the fuel"? Well, I'd need to know the context of the truther claim, because to the best of my knowledge, when fuel from a jet impacting was considered, it was presumed to be a small amount.

Furthermore, as others have pointed out, computing nowadays has made modeling a completely different ballgame. Hypothetically, someone back in the 60s when the tower was being designed could have been ordered to model a scenario like what actually happened, fuel and all, and still not have gotten it right through no fault of their own because such an event would be difficult to model on paper.

Anyway, if we're talking 9/11 Mysteries here, presume everything outside of the date is either misrepresented, divorced from context, or inaccurate to some degree. You won't be too far off with that presumption.

ETA: Ah, I see the context above. Mr. Szamboti is citing 9/11 Mysteries. Ok. Yes, I'm on topic then. The explanation is as I said above. This has been mentioned (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3144955#post3144955) several (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3032318#post3032318) times (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3058192#post3058192) before (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1866338#post1866338).

When I looked into that subject a while ago, I discovered (from original news reports in the 1960's) that there was quite a lot of consternation about the height of the proposed WTC towers, and the possibility that a jet approaching the airport might hit them.
Quite understandable since the Empire State Building had suffered exactly such a collision..

It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if some proponent of the WTC project were to exaggerate the engineering safety margins built into them, esp when talking to the press.
I believe this may be where the 600mph figure originated.

I'll try to find the links when I have time.

[FineWine]

Good idea! Read first http://heiwaco.tripod.com/funnym.htm to get a feel for the WTC 1 structure. Then we can discuss further.


Take the advice of Mike Newman of NIST and read an elementary physics text. To get a feel for engineering, take a few basic courses. To understand something about the twin towers, try looking at the NIST reports.

Who am I kidding? You'd never get past the elementary physics text.

[Heiwa]

Heiwa, your analysis is too weak to warrant another investigation, even though your persistence is noted.


Mr. Bjorkman, perhaps you are indeed a well qualified marine engineer, but you are letting your infatuation with conspiracy theories override your better judgment, IMHO. That's a shame.

Maybe stick to your area of expertise?

Read first http://heiwaco.tripod.com/funnym.htm to get a feel for the WTC 1 structure. Then we can discuss further.

[HyJinX]

Stop the madness!

[bill smith]

This is a goood video if you want to see the top block of WTC1 explode into dust. Also the behaviour of th core remnants is interesting.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6005900343263850613&hl=en

[beachnut]

This is a goood video if you want to see the top block of WTC1 explode into dust. Also the behaviour of th core remnants is interesting.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6005900343263850613&hl=en
"WTC1 explode into dust" is a failed moronic statement. Great post in the failed proved wrong OP since 911. Where is your steel turning to dust equations? Where is your evidence the top turns to dust? Do you include people turning to dust?

[Grizzly Bear]

Stop the madness!

more like people need to stop responding to Heiwa... he's made so many wrong assertions it makes my head spin... I know it's generally repetitive with all of these CT's but Heiwa hasn't changed his basic argument since I joined last year... and he's been here twice as long as me...


This is a goood video if you want to see the top block of WTC1 explode into dust. Also the behaviour of th core remnants is interesting.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6005900343263850613&hl=en
You're trying to inject extravagance into something that just doesn't need it... perhaps if you had a qualified background in discussing this material it'd be more interesting but it gets boring repeating the same (right) explanations to you over and over when you've demonstrated past & present your unwillingness or inability to accept those explanations. These are personal issues that you're responsible for resolving...

[FineWine]

This is a goood video if you want to see the top block of WTC1 explode into dust. Also the behaviour of th core remnants is interesting.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6005900343263850613&hl=en



You've been caught lying again. The top block of WTC 1 did not "explode into dust." Nobody sane thinks it did. Please stop telling these foolish lies.

[bill smith]

more like people need to stop responding to Heiwa... he's made so many wrong assertions it makes my head spin... I know it's generally repetitive with all of these CT's but Heiwa hasn't changed his basic argument since I joined last year... and he's been here twice as long as me...



You're trying to inject extravagance into something that just doesn't need it... perhaps if you had a qualified background in discussing this material it'd be more interesting but it gets boring repeating the same (right) explanations to you over and over when you've demonstrated past & present your unwillingness or inability to accept those explanations. These are personal issues that you're responsible for resolving...

Grizzly you talk as if your explanations and those of your fellows were even marginally convincing. Let me tell you they are not for the most part. You will never show that the one-way crush down of WTC1 is possible by gravity alone for the simple reason that it is not possible. End of story.

[Grizzly Bear]

Grizzly you talk as if your explanations and those of your fellows were even marginally convincing. Let me tell you they are not for the most part. You will never show that the one-way crush down of WTC1 is possible by gravity alone for the simple reason that it is not possible. End of story.
You're unqualified opinion isn't particularly valuable to me... sorry. I said it already; that you're either incapable or unwilling to understand the material is solely the responsibly of you to resolve. I can't teach a brick wall...

[FineWine]

Grizzly you talk as if your explanations and those of your fellows were even marginally convincing. Let me tell you they are not for the most part. You will never show that the one-way crush down of WTC1 is possible by gravity alone for the simple reason that it is not possible. End of story.


The explanations are not intended for you. You are far too obtuse to understand them, and too dishonest to admit error. You are hopelessly wedded to your idiocies by your bizarre political agenda. Stop using the incompetent fraud Heiwa's terminology. He doesn't have have the slightest idea of what he's trying to claim.

[bill smith]

The explanations are not intended for you. You are far too obtuse to understand them, and too dishonest to admit error. You are hopelessly wedded to your idiocies by your bizarre political agenda. Stop using the incompetent fraud Heiwa's terminology. He doesn't have have the slightest idea of what he's trying to claim.


You are soley a propagandist FineWine. I don't think there has been any serious attempt at input in arguments from you in a month or more. ' Shouting from the sidelines ' covers it nicely.

[bill smith]

You're unqualified opinion isn't particularly valuable to me... sorry. I said it already; that you're either incapable or unwilling to understand the material is solely the responsibly of you to resolve. I can't teach a brick wall...

No sweat. You do your thing and I'll do mine and we'll see what happens.

[aggle-rithm]

Pls, copy paste anything from my papers and show any mistake, etc. I look forward to it.

Here is where you fail:


This is all in accordance with the Björkman Axiom regarding structures: You cannot crush an isotropic or composite 3-D structure A by a part C of itself (C = 1/10 A) by dropping part C on A using gravity. Part C either bounces on A or gets damaged in contact with A and is stopped by A that is also damaged a little. It is quite basic and all due to forces. Materials, size and particulars of the elements of the structure A doesn't matter the least. Part C of A cannot destroy A.

Thus no structures, 1, 2 or 5 meters tall, or 100, 200 or 500 meters tall exist that will one-way crush down, when a small part C is dropped on the remainder part A.



All of your arguments are based on this so-called "axiom" that is neither self-evident nor intellectually supported in any way, shape, or form.

Therefore, all your arguments fail in a spectacular fashion.

Enjoy.

[Oscar]

alien to Heiwa:
Maybe stick to your area of expertise?

If anyone actually knows Heiwa's area of expertise it would be a first.

[alienentity]

alien to Heiwa:


If anyone actually knows Heiwa's area of expertise it would be a first.

According to Mr. Bjorkman's CV

'M.Sc. Naval Architect and Marine Engineer, with more than 35 years experience of tanker and ferry design, construction and operations worldwide. Mr Bjorkman has been a delegate to the IMO for various national administrations and one NGO and has been a speaker at various Safety at Sea conferences. Mr Bjorkman holds several patents concerned with ship safety.'

Tanker and Ferry design, not steelframe building construction
Tanker and Ferry design, not explosive demolition
Tanker and Ferry design, not military research into nanothermites

None of the areas Heiwa is haunting are related to his expertise........I guess this is just a coincidence?

Just asking questions! :rolleyes:

[GlennB]

According to Mr. Bjorkman's CV

'M.Sc. Naval Architect and Marine Engineer, with more than 35 years experience of tanker and ferry design, construction and operations worldwide. Mr Bjorkman has been a delegate to the IMO for various national administrations and one NGO and has been a speaker at various Safety at Sea conferences. Mr Bjorkman holds several patents concerned with ship safety.'

Tanker and Ferry design, not steelframe building construction
Tanker and Ferry design, not explosive demolition
Tanker and Ferry design, not military research into nanothermites

None of the areas Heiwa is haunting are related to his expertise........I guess this is just a coincidence?

Just asking questions! :rolleyes:

You really, really don't want to dig too deep into Heiwa's CV ;)
It claims "several" patents, but lists only one.
Emails I sent to the journals where he claims to have published result in ... er ... well, you wouldn't want to put their comments in your CV.
He was refused entry prior to at least one of those conferences he lists, by his own admission. Tracking others results in only self-referential Heiwaco stuff.
When you make 100 insurance adjustments in one year, what could you be investigating exactly? Quayside scrapes? Minor galley fires? Certainly not in-depth engineering investigation of serious mishaps.
His "European Agency for Safety at Sea" is illegally named and does not live under the EU umbrella. The EU told me so. Heiwa refuses to alter the name or remove the EU logo.

He is a fraud.

[alienentity]

You really, really don't want to dig too deep into Heiwa's CV ;)
It claims "several" patents, but lists only one.
Emails I sent to the journals where he claims to have published result in ... er ... well, you wouldn't want to put their comments in your CV.
He was refused entry prior to at least one of those conferences he lists, by his own admission. Tracking others results in only self-referential Heiwaco stuff.
When you make 100 insurance adjustments in one year, what could you be investigating exactly? Quayside scrapes? Minor galley fires? Certainly not in-depth engineering investigation of serious mishaps.
His "European Agency for Safety at Sea" is illegally named and does not live under the EU umbrella. The EU told me so. Heiwa refuses to alter the name or remove the EU logo.

He is a fraud.

I find it very difficult to believe that Heiwa would misrepresent anything....(dripping sarcasm)

[FineWine]

You are soley a propagandist FineWine. I don't think there has been any serious attempt at input in arguments from you in a month or more. ' Shouting from the sidelines ' covers it nicely.


You are dishonest and obtuse. You have run from every concrete question I have put to you. I raise very specific points and you either respond with stupid insults or you ignore me. Here is a sampling of the concrete issues you avoid like the plague:

Your insane movement has been wrong about all of its predictions. What does that say about the premises it argues from?

Your muddle-headed guru contends, absurdly, that only the bottom one of thirteen collapsing floors hits the floor immediately below. The top twelve floors float harmlessly in midair, through some form of magic. Where does the mass of these twelve top floors go exactly? Why don't they add to the momentum with which the lowest falling floor hits the next one in line?

No evidence whatever for demolition was ever discovered anywhere in the WTC complex. You remain blind to the bankruptcy of your agenda-driven myths. What compels you to cling so desperately to beliefs that have been exposed as false on so many levels?

You posit a gigantic conspiracy whose members derived enormous benefits from America's invasion of Afghanistan. Who are these people and what could they possibly have gained?

So, how does the collapse of WTC 7 fit into your imaginary conspiracy's scheme to conquer the world?

Was any money actually missing from the Pentagon?

Bill, I can, as you know, keep going and going. But, you're going to run away again, aren't you? Here's my input. You've heard the questions before. You've never come close to a serious attempt at addressing them. Will this time be any different.

[Heiwa]

Here is where you fail:



All of your arguments are based on this so-called "axiom" that is neither self-evident nor intellectually supported in any way, shape, or form.

Therefore, all your arguments fail in a spectacular fashion.

Enjoy.

Or the other way around! All observations and calculations show after proper analysis that a one-way crush down is not possible. So I made an axiom out of it. Purpose of this thread is to discuss the result in a friendly and lively way.

[Homeland Insurgency]

You are soley a propagandist FineWine. I don't think there has been any serious attempt at input in arguments from you in a month or more. ' Shouting from the sidelines ' covers it nicely.

Tell me about it. sheeez I couldn't have said that better myself. Thank You.

[Oscar]

Heiwa:
Purpose of this thread is to discuss the result in a friendly and lively way.

Nonsense. Your purpose for this thread is to keep posting again and again your stupid and debunked ideas.

God knows why. In fact I should think even God is rolling his eyes.

[Heiwa]

Heiwa:


Nonsense. Your purpose for this thread is to keep posting again and again your stupid and debunked ideas.

God knows why. In fact I should think even God is rolling his eyes.

Well, read the link in post #1 and try to debunk it. It is the famous Ryan Mackey model, where Mackey suggests that upper part C one-way crushes lower part A ... but Mackey cannot explain why! Of course the model is modified a little. Upper part C is not one mass M as suggested by Mackey but 14 small masses m, which is more realistic. And then upper part C cannot possibly one-way crush down part A only assisted by gravity.

If you believe otherwise, you are kindly requested to demonstrate that.

[Oscar]

Heiwa:
Nonsense. Your purpose for this thread is to keep posting again and again your stupid and debunked ideas.

God knows why. In fact I should think even God is rolling his eyes.
Well, read the link in post #1 and try to debunk it. It is the famous Ryan Mackey model, where Mackey suggests that upper part C one-way crushes lower part A ... but Mackey cannot explain why! Of course the model is modified a little. Upper part C is not one mass M as suggested by Mackey but 14 small masses m, which is more realistic. And then upper part C cannot possibly one-way crush down part A only assisted by gravity.

If you believe otherwise, you are kindly requested to demonstrate that.


Exhibit 1, in the far-fetched case that anyone would need any more evidence.

[bill smith]

Heiwa:



Exhibit 1, in the far-fetched case that anyone would need any more evidence.

We do not believe that a one-way crush down of a structure by one tenth of itself is possible using gravity alone. It has never happened in the entire world history of construction on the Planet Earth and nobody is able to reproduce a similar event. Empirically that says that our claim is not far fetched at all. On the ontrary it says that your claim is wildly far fetched.

[aggle-rithm]

Or the other way around! All observations and calculations show after proper analysis that a one-way crush down is not possible. So I made an axiom out of it.

You may want to avoid using words you don't know the meaning of.

An axiom is something that is assumed to be true without proof, because it is self-evident. If it was arrived at by observations and calculations, then it is a theorem or a theory.

This really doesn't help your case.

[aggle-rithm]

God knows why. In fact I should think even God is rolling his eyes.

Even if God doesn't exist, this thread is enough to make him spontaneously pop into existence and roll his eyes.

[aggle-rithm]

Well, read the link in post #1 and try to debunk it. It is the famous Ryan Mackey model, where Mackey suggests that upper part C one-way crushes lower part A ... but Mackey cannot explain why!

...in any way that you can understand.

[twinstead]

Yea. I was curious, so I showed Mackey's posts to some engineer friends I have. To a man they had no major issues with it. Now of course to Heiwa this means nothing because I'm just some guy on the internet, but I just can't understand why he insists on implying the majority of the world's experts are totally wrong.

It smacks of total arrogance.

[aggle-rithm]

Heiwa:

Please tell me if this is an accurate representation of the ideas from your web site:

Support C begins to fall at mass 14m.

When part C impacts part C, support elements move through the elastic phase and, if they deform enough, will break.

There are two possibilities: Supports in section C will break first, in which the mass of C is now 13m, or supports in section A will break first, in which the mass of C is now 15m.

Because this is a virtual model, broken supports are assumed to disappear.

Weaker supports cannot crush stronger supports. Crush-down is arrested when all supports in C are broken.

[Heiwa]

An axiom is something that is assumed to be true without proof, because it is self-evident. If it was arrived at by observations and calculations, then it is a theorem or a theory.



So let's settle for that a one-way Crush down (of a big part A by a small part C of same A by gravity alone - C is dropped on A) is not possible without observations and calculations. It is an axiom. The Björkman Axiom.

Actually, this is taught at every university of structura design andl analysis when crush-worthyness of structures are considered. The car industry is involved but also the ship building industry - my case. I can provide plenty of examples. Objective is to ensure that energy applied at impact is absorbed by the weak elements, friction, etc, etc.

The United Nations International Maritime Organization, IMO, thought for many years that when a ship A was hit by another ship C in collision, C always sliced A from bilge to deck, and the rules were based on that ignorant assumption. Nowadays (since say 1992), thanks to the better informed people including me, IMO has changed its opinion. Result? Better safety at sea. My business.

[Heiwa]

Heiwa:

Please tell me if this is an accurate representation of the ideas from your web site:

1. Support C begins to fall at mass 14m.

2. When part C impacts part C, support elements move through the elastic phase and, if they deform enough, will break.

3. There are two possibilities: Supports in section C will break first, in which the mass of C is now 13m, or supports in section A will break first, in which the mass of C is now 15m.

4. Because this is a virtual model, broken supports are assumed to disappear.

5. Weaker supports cannot crush stronger supports. Crush-down is arrested when all supports in C are broken.

1. Yes, I assume, for the benefit of Bazant & Co, that C begins to fall = all supports between C and A are removed. It cannot happen, but I assume it in my paper.

2. So part C impacts part A (not C). Yes, elements of C and A in contact will deform and some may break.

3. ??? Not relevant. Just consider what element/connection is broken next.

4. Yes, you can assume that as long as you consider the associated energy that is "disappearing".

5. ??? Stronger elements will damage weaker elements at impact! Yes, a sledge hammer will easily crush a hen egg! Consider WTC 1 upper part C as a hen egg and the lower part A as something "stronger" than a hen egg and you are on your way to better understanding reality!

Please study my web page again and copy/paste anything you don't understand ... and I will explain.

[FineWine]

Tell me about it. sheeez I couldn't have said that better myself. Thank You.


Check out post # 2272. Bill has, of course, run away. You will too.

[FineWine]

1. Yes, I assume, for the benefit of Bazant & Co, that C begins to fall = all supports between C and A are removed. It cannot happen, but I assume it in my paper.

2. So part C impacts part A (not C). Yes, elements of C and A in contact will deform and some may break.

3. ??? Not relevant. Just consider what element/connection is broken next.

4. Yes, you can assume that as long as you consider the associated energy that is "disappearing".

5. ??? Stronger elements will damage weaker elements at impact! Yes, a sledge hammer will easily crush a hen egg! Consider WTC 1 upper part C as a hen egg and the lower part A as something "stronger" than a hen egg and you are on your way to better understanding reality!

Please study my web page again and copy/paste anything you don't understand ... and I will explain.


Stop lying. You never explain because you are a dishonest incompetent.

Tell us why floor 97, the one with 13 floors falling on top of it, is the "stronger" element.

[FineWine]

Yea. I was curious, so I showed Mackey's posts to some engineer friends I have. To a man they had no major issues with it. Now of course to Heiwa this means nothing because I'm just some guy on the internet, but I just can't understand why he insists on implying the majority of the world's experts are totally wrong.

It smacks of total arrogance.


It's more than just arrogance and stupidity.

[FineWine]

We do not believe that a one-way crush down of a structure by one tenth of itself is possible using gravity alone. It has never happened in the entire world history of construction on the Planet Earth and nobody is able to reproduce a similar event. Empirically that says that our claim is not far fetched at all. On the ontrary it says that your claim is wildly far fetched.

Time to send you running again. Your bubble-headed guru claims that only the bottom floor of thirteen collapsing floors hits the floor below. Why don't the top twelve floors add their mass and momentum to the impact? Do they really float harmlessly in midair?

Bye-bye, sucker.

[Heiwa]

Stop lying. You never explain because you are a dishonest incompetent.

Tell us why floor 97, the one with 13 floors falling on top of it, is the "stronger" element.

You still have not understood? The part A columns, undamaged, between floors 96-97 would first damage floor 98 of the upper part C, then floor 99, then floor 100, etc. in a collision. This upper part C - thin floors 98-110 - has no chance versus the columns of of lower part A (floors 1-97).

It is quite simple - the stronger elements always destroy the weaker ones in a collision. That's why a one-way crush down of A by C assisted by gravity is not possible. A has stronger columns. Most C columns just miss A, if a collision really took place. But it didn't. C was blown apart before any 'impact'. You see it clearly on all videos. I explain it in my papers.

No need to get personal about this. It simply is like that. Why add personal insults to a friendly and lively discussion about a technical matter. You lack technical knowledge?!

[FineWine]

You still have not understood? The part A columns, undamaged, between floors 96-97 would first damage floor 98 of the upper part C, then floor 99, then floor 100, etc. in a collision. This upper part C - thin floors 98-110 - has no chance versus the columns of of lower part A (floors 1-97).

It is quite simple - the stronger elements always destroy the weaker ones in a collision. That's why a one-way crush down of A by C assisted by gravity is not possible. A has stronger columns. Most C columns just miss A, if a collision really took place. But it didn't. C was blown apart before any 'impact'. You see it clearly on all videos. I explain it in my papers.

No need to get personal about this. It simply is like that. Why add personal insults to a friendly and lively discussion about a technical matter. You lack technical knowledge?!


You are a remarkably obtuse liar. The collapsing floors were not "blown away." They are clearly visible. Your papers are worthless, incompetent trash.

[aggle-rithm]

There are two possibilities: Supports in section C will break first, in which the mass of C is now 13m, or supports in section A will break first, in which the mass of C is now 15m.



3. ??? Not relevant. Just consider what element/connection is broken next.


Then why did you write this:


There are thus two possibilities:

i) weaker support elements fail between floors #98/99 above impact, or

ii) stronger support elements fail between floors #96/97 below impact.

Note that the supports are virtual and broken supports just disappear at no time.

Let's assume that these failures initiate a second free fall drop.

In case i) it will be a reduced section C of mass 13 m that drops and impacts floor #98.

In case ii) it will be an increased section C of mass 15 m that drops and impacts floor #96.



Next:


5. Weaker supports cannot crush stronger supports. Crush-down is arrested when all supports in C are broken.



5. ??? Stronger elements will damage weaker elements at impact! Yes, a sledge hammer will easily crush a hen egg! Consider WTC 1 upper part C as a hen egg and the lower part A as something "stronger" than a hen egg and you are on your way to better understanding reality!


Do the question marks mean you disagree? If so, why did you write this:


In the real world the weaker supports above in a structure cannot crush the stronger supports below. The worst case is that all supports in upper section C are broken and then any crush-down is arrested.


Finally:


Please study my web page again and copy/paste anything you don't understand ... and I will explain.

I don't see how. You don't appear to understand it yourself.

[bill smith]

You still have not understood? The part A columns, undamaged, between floors 96-97 would first damage floor 98 of the upper part C, then floor 99, then floor 100, etc. in a collision. This upper part C - thin floors 98-110 - has no chance versus the columns of of lower part A (floors 1-97).

It is quite simple - the stronger elements always destroy the weaker ones in a collision. That's why a one-way crush down of A by C assisted by gravity is not possible. A has stronger columns. Most C columns just miss A, if a collision really took place. But it didn't. C was blown apart before any 'impact'. You see it clearly on all videos. I explain it in my papers.

No need to get personal about this. It simply is like that. Why add personal insults to a friendly and lively discussion about a technical matter. You lack technical knowledge?!


A metaphysical question Heiwa.
Do you think a layman can have enough innate technical knowledge to be able to be able to hold his own with a trained engineer in the 9/11 context ?

[FineWine]

A metaphysical question Heiwa.
Do you think a layman can have enough innate technical knowledge to be able to be able to hold his own with a trained engineer in the 9/11 context ?

The answer is simple. A layman can easily hold his own with Heiwa because Heiwa is an obtuse incompetent flogging a mad political agenda. A layman doesn't know enough to discuss engineering with real engineers for the same reason a layman can't play chess with a grandmaster. Experts have hard-won knowledge that conduces to technical mastery. There are no shortcuts.

Your question reveals much, not that you or your muddle-headed guru would have any idea of what I'm alluding to. You used the oxymoronic phrase, "innate technical knowledge." There can be, of course, no such thing. Technical knowledge is acquired. Becoming an engineer requires hard work and, let's face it, the requisite intelligence level. You refuse to put any effort at all into learning, and by your own admission, you are extremely unintelligent.

[bill smith]

The answer is simple. A layman can easily hold his own with Heiwa because Heiwa is an obtuse incompetent flogging a mad political agenda. A layman doesn't know enough to discuss engineering with real engineers for the same reason a layman can't play chess with a grandmaster. Experts have hard-won knowledge that conduces to technical mastery. There are no shortcuts.

Your question reveals much, not that you or your muddle-headed guru would have any idea of what I'm alluding to. You used the oxymoronic phrase, "innate technical knowledge." There can be, of course, no such thing. Technical knowledge is acquired. Becoming an engineer requires hard work and, let's face it, the requisite intelligence level. You refuse to put any effort at all into learning, and by your own admission, you are extremely unintelligent.

You know what I meant.

[FineWine]

You know what I meant.

Yes, but you didn't.

Still running from posts #2272 and 2289, eh, Bill?

[Oscar]

The answer is simple. A layman can easily hold his own with Heiwa because Heiwa is an obtuse incompetent flogging a mad political agenda. A layman doesn't know enough to discuss engineering with real engineers for the same reason a layman can't play chess with a grandmaster. Experts have hard-won knowledge that conduces to technical mastery. There are no shortcuts.

That chess analogy is a good one. I play reasonable club level chess. I've even won a couple of prizes in local competitions. But a Grandmaster could thrash me with his eyes closed and I wouldn't even know what happened. We're not even playing the same game. I played in a simultaneous display against an International Master (a level below a GM) and he crushed me. I hadn't got a clue my position was so bad until it suddenly collapsed, rather like....The World Trade centre.

It's the same for all incompetents. We're full of ourselves, like Heiwa and co, and think we're holding our own, maybe even impressing a few people, all the while unaware of what total arses we're making of ourselves.

[Heiwa]

A metaphysical question Heiwa.
Do you think a layman can have enough innate technical knowledge to be able to be able to hold his own with a trained engineer in the 9/11 context ?

Yes! Anyone that for any reason believes that structures self-destruct from top down, e.g. because a government says so, will soon understand that it is not possible, when just explained what happens, when a part C drops on a part A of same structure = purpose of this thread.

It is quite interesting to note that none of the OCTists are capable to explain why a one-way crush down by gravity alone is not only possible but a normal event.

[Oscar]

Heiwa:
It is quite interesting to note that none of the OCTists are capable to explain why a one-way crush down by gravity alone is not only possible but a normal event.

Oh, for heaven's sake. You don't take anything in. Do you have a reading disability. It's been explained to you over and over and over.

What's wrong with you?

[UNLoVedRebel]

Yes! Anyone that for any reason believes that structures self-destruct from top down, e.g. because a government says so, will soon understand that it is not possible, when just explained what happens, when a part C drops on a part A of same structure = purpose of this thread.

It is quite interesting to note that none of the OCTists are capable to explain why a one-way crush down by gravity alone is not only possible but a normal event.
Part C one-way crushed down part A!
http://i625.photobucket.com/albums/tt332/JREFImages/Hewiaisamoron.jpg

[bio]

Yes! Anyone that for any reason believes that structures self-destruct from top down, e.g. because a government says so, will soon understand that it is not possible, when just explained what happens, when a part C drops on a part A of same structure = purpose of this thread.

It is quite interesting to note that none of the OCTists are capable to explain why a one-way crush down by gravity alone is not only possible but a normal event.

The OCTists are in the majority here and support each other in their thinking. So it could be, that laymen get the impression, it is "normal", about what they are talking. Best example for that is in fact the top-down "crush" of WTC 1, 2, which was a unique event in the history of high-rise, steel framed buildings.

[Oscar]

Bio:
So it could be, that laymen get the impression, it is "normal", about what they are talking.

You've just defined a truther. Experts are rather thicker on the ground here than truther sites. Truther forums seem to specialise in the Bill Smiths of this world.

[bio]

Part C one-way crushed down part A!
http://i625.photobucket.com/albums/tt332/JREFImages/Hewiaisamoron.jpg

interesting - what happened there? It looks like a controlled demolition.

[bio]

Bio:


You've just defined a truther. Experts are rather thicker on the ground here than truther sites. Truther forums seem to specialise in the Bill Smiths of this world.

the craziest conspiracy theory is the official one: The government was surprised. :o

[Oscar]

bio:
The government was surprised.

Wasn't everyone?

[Heiwa]

Heiwa:


Oh, for heaven's sake. You don't take anything in. Do you have a reading disability. It's been explained to you over and over and over.



Link, please.

[Oscar]

Heiwa:
Link, please.

Try every thread you've posted on that you've ignored responses to.

[Oscar]

Typical Heiwa post:

ignores complete demolition of argument

Block X does something to block Y that has been explained to me a million times is wrong.

ignores 12 other posts explaining this to him again

Please read my incredibly boring and stupid articles detailing again why I'm an idiot.

That's a pretty accurate quote of at least a 1000 of your totally pointless posts.

[Heiwa]

Typical Heiwa post:



That's a pretty accurate quote of at least a 1000 of your totally pointless posts.

Thanks. It s noted that you cannot provide any link disqualifing my suggestion and papers why a one-way crush down is not possible.

[bill smith]

Thanks. It s noted that you cannot provide any link disqualifing my suggestion and papers why a one-way crush down is not possible.

I know in my bones that most of the guys we encounter here KNOW that a one way crush down of a body by one tenth of itself is impossible using gravity alone. It has never happened in he world history of contruction on the planet Earth and nobody has been able to reproduce a similar scenario. They KNOW this. It's almost as if most of them are professional deniers.

[triforcharity]

Bill, Just like you just knew it "in your bones" that there were miles of steel comuns missing from Ground Zero, untill I pointed them out very specifically to you. Do you remember the thread, "Count the missing Steel"? Yeah, i thought so.

[Oscar]

Heiwa:
Thanks. It s noted that you cannot provide any link disqualifing my suggestion and papers why a one-way crush down is not possible.

And you can still write that with a straight face? Are you OK in the head?

[bill smith]

Heiwa:


And you can still write that with a straight face? Are you OK in the head?

But he's right- you can't produce any such link.

[Oscar]

Bill:
But he's right- you can't produce any link.

Did you actually read what I wrote? I'd have to link to every thread Heiwa's written nonsense on.

You are either both idiots or trolls.

Good grief.

[BigAl]

But he's right- you can't produce any such link.

I can't find any link that shows that elves didn't bring down the towers, either.

[bill smith]

Bill:


Did you actually read what I wrote? I'd have to link to every thread Heiwa's written nonsense on.

You are either both idiots or trolls.

Good grief.

A weak and unconvincing response if you don't mind my saying so.

[Heiwa]

Bill:


Did you actually read what I wrote? I'd have to link to every thread Heiwa's written nonsense on.

You are either both idiots or trolls.

Good grief.

You are supposed to link to somebody that can prove that a one-way crush down of a structure A by a part C of A is possible by gravity alone and why and how! Then we can discuss that.

[Oscar]

Heiwa:
You are supposed to link to somebody that can prove that a one-way crush down of a structure A by a part C of A is possible by gravity alone and why and how! Then we can discuss that.

You mean in the same way you have in the last 2300 odd posts on this ridiculous thread when you've repeatedly failed to respond to people cleverer than you telling you why your theories are flawed?

Oh yes, I can see that discussion happening.

You're boring.

[twinstead]

I'm confused. Heiwa. This thread is FILLED to the brim with people who have in very specific ways shown you (and just about everybody reading the thread) that you don't know what you are talking about. Now they're just frustrated and simply telling you that you don't know what you're talking about in short, irritated snippets, which of course means the thread is probably soon to die.

[tsig]

I know in my bones that most of the guys we encounter here KNOW that a one way crush down of a body by one tenth of itself is impossible using gravity alone. It has never happened in he world history of contruction on the planet Earth and nobody has been able to reproduce a similar scenario. They KNOW this. It's almost as if most of them are professional deniers.


Are you admitting you are a bone-head?

[bill smith]

Heiwa:


You mean in the same way you have in the last 2300 odd posts on this ridiculous thread when you've repeatedly failed to respond to people cleverer than you telling you why your theories are flawed?

Oh yes, I can see that discussion happening.

You're boring.

Why not select the post from anywhere in this thread that you think Heiwa could not answer ? If you cannot do this we will have to assume that there is no such post. Then we can guess why none of the resident engineers engage .

[jhunter1163]

Apt filename for that pic, Rebel.

[Heiwa]

I'm confused. Heiwa. This thread is FILLED to the brim with people who have in very specific ways shown you (and just about everybody reading the thread) that you don't know what you are talking about. Now they're just frustrated and simply telling you that you don't know what you're talking about in short, irritated snippets, which of course means the thread is probably soon to die.

Please study my web page again and copy/paste anything you don't understand ... and I will explain.

[FineWine]

the craziest conspiracy theory is the official one: The government was surprised. :o


Yes, we all know that governments, particularly authoritarian ones, can never be surprised. Stalin was, of course, expecting Hitler's invasion. He engineered the whole thing so he could lose several armies, get major cities and industrial centers reduced to rubble, and take over twenty million casualties.
Maybe he just wanted to make it exciting, huh?

[FineWine]

Please study my web page again and copy/paste anything you don't understand ... and I will explain.


We notice that your web page contains your incompetent ravings, but fails to explain why real engineers regard you as a laughingstock. Answer the question your fellow frauds always run from: what do you know that the experts don't, and how did you learn it?

[Oscar]

Heiwa:
Please study my web page again and copy/paste anything you don't understand ... and I will explain.

Translated as 'please look up my rectum again and see if you can see ********'.

You're trying to get people banned here when you should have been kicked out months ago.

Discussing things in a reasonable, civilised way? Don't make me laugh. You should have been turfed out of here with a boot up your backside months ago, as you were at some conference I read about when you made a prat of yourself.

You're a troll. Peddle your dung to those flies who like the smell.

[newton3376]

Part C one-way crushed down part A!
http://i625.photobucket.com/albums/tt332/JREFImages/Hewiaisamoron.jpg

Do you have a link where that pic is from?

I seem to remember a video of a CD showing a buliding that had the supports removed somewhere near the middle of the building and the upper half "one way crushed" the lower half....

Is that where your picture is from?

What thread was that post in?

[FineWine]

Why not select the post from anywhere in this thread that you think Heiwa could not answer ? If you cannot do this we will have to assume that there is no such post. Then we can guess why none of the resident engineers engage .


No need to guess. The real engineers have torn Heiwa's idiocy to shreds. They have done it repeatedly, ringing all the changes. They have busted him from top to bottom, from left to right, from here to next month.

They are tired of slapping him around. He is one of those inflatable punching bags we played with as children. Hit it as hard as you like, and instantly it springs back for more punishment, the silly face on the front never losing its moronic grin.

[aggle-rithm]

So let's settle for that a one-way Crush down (of a big part A by a small part C of same A by gravity alone - C is dropped on A) is not possible without observations and calculations. It is an axiom. The Björkman Axiom.

Actually, this is taught at every university of structura design andl analysis when crush-worthyness of structures are considered.

Link, please.

[FineWine]

But he's right- you can't produce any such link.


Gee, Bill, some of us have noticed that THIS THREAD is the sort of thing one would link to if WE WEREN'T ALREADY IN IT!


Hey, how about posts # 2272 and 2289? Still running, aren't you?

[FineWine]

So let's settle for that a one-way Crush down (of a big part A by a small part C of same A by gravity alone - C is dropped on A) is not possible without observations and calculations. It is an axiom. The Björkman Axiom.

Actually, this is taught at every university of structura design andl analysis when crush-worthyness of structures are considered. The car industry is involved but also the ship building industry - my case. I can provide plenty of examples. Objective is to ensure that energy applied at impact is absorbed by the weak elements, friction, etc, etc.

The United Nations International Maritime Organization, IMO, thought for many years that when a ship A was hit by another ship C in collision, C always sliced A from bilge to deck, and the rules were based on that ignorant assumption. Nowadays (since say 1992), thanks to the better informed people including me, IMO has changed its opinion. Result? Better safety at sea. My business.


Your web page, which fraudulently and illegally claims that you are connected with the EU, doesn't explain why there is an axiom named after an incompetent fool who gets everything wrong. Ugly rumors are circulating that the fool in question invented the nonsensical "axiom" and named it himself.

[Heiwa]

Your web page, which fraudulently and illegally claims that you are connected with the EU, doesn't explain why there is an axiom named after an incompetent fool who gets everything wrong. Ugly rumors are circulating that the fool in question invented the nonsensical "axiom" and named it himself.

Hm, all information on my web page is correct. I am based in the EU and blessed by its institutions. EU has even approved my innovative tanker design as equivalent to less safe alternatives. EU is quite good; I can be a citizen of one member state (S), live, work, vote and pay taxes in another member state (F) and do further work in a third (Saxony, part of D) as my qualifications are accepted there.

Please study my web page again and copy/paste anything you don't understand about WTC 1 ... and I will explain. The axiom? Well, I created it and thought I would name it ... after me. Are you jealous? In retrospect I should have named the innovative tanker design after me, too.

Why can't you stay on topic? What's the need of obnoxious, personal insults? Lack of education? What does your mother say? Are you a religious, unhappy, depressed fundamentalist?

[aggle-rithm]

Heiwa has taken the unusual, but not particularly surprising, tactic of declaring information from his own web site as being "irrelevant". So it looks like I will have to continue without his help. Doubtless, he will claim that I don't understand his web site and will offer to explain it to me.

Here is the first serious gaffe from his website:

There are 280+ support elements between any floor; only two are indicated in the model.


This invalidates the model immediately, because it fails to acknowledge that there is a major difference between the core columns and perimeter columns in modern skyscrapers. It is the core columns that provide the vertical support that becomes stronger the closer to the ground it gets. This is the part of the structure that is key to Heiwa's theory. The perimeter columns, which are the only ones he shows in his model, serve the function of providing stiffness and transmitting load to the core column through the floors. Since the core columns aren't even there in his model, it becomes nonsensical.

There are thus two possibilities:

i) weaker support elements fail between floors #98/99 above impact, or

ii) stronger support elements fail between floors #96/97 below impact.

Note that the supports are virtual and broken supports just disappear at no time.

Let's assume that these failures initiate a second free fall drop.

In case i) it will be a reduced section C of mass 13 m that drops and impacts floor #98.

In case ii) it will be an increased section C of mass 15 m that drops and impacts floor #96.


Here we see that Heiwa's theory lacks internal consistency. He claims that if the stronger section breaks first, then the moving section increases in mass by one unit, while if the weaker section breaks first, then the moving section decreases in mass by one unit.

Something about the properties of a stronger section allows it to continue to apply force after it fails, while the properties of a weaker section are fundamentally different: Failed supports "disappear" and no longer apply any force at all.

How? He doesn't say. We just have to take his word for it.


At this second impact and high pressure between two elements the structure compresses elastically again and once more the question is - what support elements will break, if any? The ones below or the ones above? Or none.

The ones below are getting stronger and stronger relative to any undamaged supports above. So sooner or later the weaker supports above will start to fail!

In the real world the weaker supports above in a structure cannot crush the stronger supports below. The worst case is that all supports in upper section C are broken and then any crush-down is arrested.


This implies two things: That the supports in one section or another will fail, but not both, and that a failed column is unable to exert any force.

The former is a false dichotomy. The latter is a physical impossibility.

How would the stationary section "know" whether the mass crushing down on it is composed of failed or intact supports? The only difference is that, once the "weaker" elements become crushed, they actually exert more force because they can no longer absorb energy by deforming.

Heiwa has not shown that a "one-way crush-down" (whatever he means by that) is not possible. Of course, he will simply counter, once again, that his theory is not understood.

Perhaps he should learn to communicate clearly.

[Heiwa]

Heiwa has taken the unusual, but not particularly surprising, tactic of declaring information from his own web site as being "irrelevant". So it looks like I will have to continue without his help. Doubtless, he will claim that I don't understand his web site and will offer to explain it to me.

Here is the first serious gaffe from his website:



This invalidates the model immediately, because it fails to acknowledge that there is a major difference between the core columns and perimeter columns in modern skyscrapers. It is the core columns that provide the vertical support that becomes stronger the closer to the ground it gets. This is the part of the structure that is key to Heiwa's theory. The perimeter columns, which are the only ones he shows in his model, serve the function of providing stiffness and transmitting load to the core column through the floors. Since the core columns aren't even there in his model, it becomes nonsensical.



Here we see that Heiwa's theory lacks internal consistency. He claims that if the stronger section breaks first, then the moving section increases in mass by one unit, while if the weaker section breaks first, then the moving section decreases in mass by one unit.

Something about the properties of a stronger section allows it to continue to apply force after it fails, while the properties of a weaker section are fundamentally different: Failed supports "disappear" and no longer apply any force at all.

How? He doesn't say. We just have to take his word for it.



This implies two things: That the supports in one section or another will fail, but not both, and that a failed column is unable to exert any force.

The former is a false dichotomy. The latter is a physical impossibility.

How would the stationary section "know" whether the mass crushing down on it is composed of failed or intact supports? The only difference is that, once the "weaker" elements become crushed, they actually exert more force because they can no longer absorb energy by deforming.

Heiwa has not shown that a "one-way crush-down" (whatever he means by that) is not possible. Of course, he will simply counter, once again, that his theory is not understood.

Perhaps he should learn to communicate clearly.

Full text is available at web page http://heiwaco.tripod.com/mac5.htm (one of 100's on my web site). It is evidently an analysis of Ryan Mackey's famous Hardfire model (only two supports/floor) where upper, solid part M crushes anything weak in its way down. In my analysis it doesn't happen.

[aggle-rithm]

Full text is available at web page http://heiwaco.tripod.com/mac5.htm (one of 100's on my web site). It is evidently an analysis of Ryan Mackey's famous Hardfire model (only two supports/floor) where upper, solid part M crushes anything weak in its way down. In my analysis it doesn't happen.

So your response is to point me to the same web page I was referencing?

That's all you've got?

(PS, Mackey's model is irrelevant because it was not trying to show that structures get stronger as they get closer to the ground and therefore cannot collapse.)

[FineWine]

Hm, all information on my web page is correct. I am based in the EU and blessed by its institutions.


What a shameless, baldfaced liar you are.




EU has even approved my innovative tanker design as equivalent to less safe alternatives. EU is quite good; I can be a citizen of one member state (S), live, work, vote and pay taxes in another member state (F) and do further work in a third (Saxony, part of D) as my qualifications are accepted there.

Please study my web page again and copy/paste anything you don't understand about WTC 1 ... and I will explain. The axiom? Well, I created it and thought I would name it ... after me. Are you jealous? In retrospect I should have named the innovative tanker design after me, too.


Why should I be jealous of obstinate, arrogant, impenetrable stupidity? You created and named your own bogus axiom because everyone else regards your position as utterly mad.



Why can't you stay on topic? What's the need of obnoxious, personal insults? Lack of education? What does your mother say? Are you a religious, unhappy, depressed fundamentalist?


My mother suggests avoiding arguments with idiots.

[Bluesky]

Originally Posted by Bluesky ... I agree that nobody seems to be able to explain to you, "why a one-way crush is possible".

God save us.!


Yes, it is impossible to explain a one-way crush of a structure by gravity as such a process cannot take place. But plenty of people still believe it is possible. Halleluja.


Thank you Heiwa,

Your misquote of my comment is a perfect example of how the ae911truth movement cherry pick comments and twist the truth.

The full comment is below

For each of your 2800 posts on the issue there have been at least 5 to 10 responses, that explain why your paper is neither relevant to the failures of the WTC towers or to structural collapse analysis. And I agree that nobody seems to be able to explain to you, "why a one-way crush is possible".

But I think you have helped many people understand why your theory about the WTC collapse is not possible. You have also demonstrated how the ae911truth movement would like to form the debate, and how they would interface with the engineers who design these buildings and the structural pathologists who analyzed the collapse.

God save us.!

[Bluesky]

Skilling made a number of comments to the Seattle Times in 1993 which you can find on-line.

Robertson making the fuel comment can be seen on 911 Mysteries. I think it was from an interview for the show How the Towers Fell.

He also made comments in 1984/85 along the lines of no matter how the buildings were attacked that a collapse would be very unlikely.

Come on guys ...grow up.!
The twin tower were designed in the early 60's, so please do not think that the technology that we have today was available with the designers of the towers.

1962 - First trans-Atlantic satellite broadcast via the Telstar satellite
1964 - The programming language BASIC was created
1964 - The compact Ford Mustang was launched
1967 - The first ATM is opened in Barclays Bank, London
1967 - The Beatles release,album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
1968 - First humans to leave Earth's gravity influence and orbit another celestial body: Apollo 8.

And you think that Skillings did a comprehensive fire and structures analysis with technology that would be invented 40 years later.

Any comment in the 1990s would surely be a bit of post-rationalisation at the best. The best they could have done is shown that the wind forces were much much larger than the forces caused by a plane impact.

[UNLoVedRebel]

interesting - what happened there? It looks like a controlled demolition.

I keep this in my personal notepad and use it for only the stupidest of posts. You earned this one.

http://i472.photobucket.com/albums/rr89/Masamune_Shin/facepalm.gif

[UNLoVedRebel]

Do you have a link where that pic is from?

I seem to remember a video of a CD showing a buliding that had the supports removed somewhere near the middle of the building and the upper half "one way crushed" the lower half....

Is that where your picture is from?

What thread was that post in?

p22OkclAU3o

[Heiwa]

So your response is to point me to the same web page I was referencing?

That's all you've got?

(PS, Mackey's model is irrelevant because it was not trying to show that structures get stronger as they get closer to the ground and therefore cannot collapse.)

Yes - when you read the whole web page about the Mackey model, it makes sense. And yes - the Mackey model is irrelevant ... and I show why.

No - copy/paste anything you do not understand from the other web pages about WTC 1 and 7 with due note where it comes from and I will explain.

[aggle-rithm]

Come on guys ...grow up.!
The twin tower were designed in the early 60's, so please do not think that the technology that we have today was available with the designers of the towers.

1962 - First trans-Atlantic satellite broadcast via the Telstar satellite
1964 - The programming language BASIC was created
1964 - The compact Ford Mustang was launched
1967 - The first ATM is opened in Barclays Bank, London
1967 - The Beatles release,album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
1968 - First humans to leave Earth's gravity influence and orbit another celestial body: Apollo 8.

And you think that Skillings did a comprehensive fire and structures analysis with technology that would be invented 40 years later.

Any comment in the 1990s would surely be a bit of post-rationalisation at the best. The best they could have done is shown that the wind forces were much much larger than the forces caused by a plane impact.

As I mentioned earlier, there are issues that come up in the real world that all the careful design in the world can't take into account.

You can say, "If A happens, then B will be the result," but that will only take you so far. In real life there are side effects to side effects to side effects that feed back into the system and cause more side effects. The only way to anticipate that is with a computer model, and then it only works as well as the data that is fed into it.

Such computer models didn't exist back then. Only in the late sixties were mainframes even powerful enough to crunch numbers this way, and most design firms didn't have access to this type of resource.

[aggle-rithm]

And yes - the Mackey model is irrelevant ... and I show why.


You use an irrelevant model to state your case? And then from the conclusion you generate an axiom?

I think you're very, very confused.

[newton3376]

p22OkclAU3o

That's not the one I was thinking of...but thanks for the link :)

[GlennB]

Hm, all information on my web page is correct.

Wrong. To use a name such as "European Agency for..." while displaying the EU emblem is illegal.

And you hold several patents? Please quote the numbers and country where registered.

There is rather a lot on your web page that is incorrect.

[Grizzly Bear]

As I mentioned earlier, there are issues that come up in the real world that all the careful design in the world can't take into account.

You can say, "If A happens, then B will be the result," but that will only take you so far. In real life there are side effects to side effects to side effects that feed back into the system and cause more side effects. The only way to anticipate that is with a computer model, and then it only works as well as the data that is fed into it.

Exactly right, but this is something Heiwa either doesn't care for or doesn't understand. A quick glance at the 6th edition of the steel designers manual where they talk about accidental loading condition also goes into this briefly. However, I would waste time trying explain this to him -- more than 2 years on this forum and not a dent in his "faith" means he's unlikely to ever be convinced, and moreover it'd be pointless to carry on with him. He genuinely thinks of himself as being correct regardless of whether in actuality he isn't.

[alienentity]

That's not the one I was thinking of...but thanks for the link :)

I believe this is the one you're looking for: Balzac a Vitry in France, 1994. Method was by hydraulic removal of supports.

http://syzKBBB_THE

Note to loony marine engineers: this type of controlled demolition can't happen, it was an inside/inside job. Silent explosives (French military versions of hush-a-boom technology) were employed secretly so the collapse didn't stop, and special suction devices prevented the upper block from 'bouncing'.

Note that the French hush-a-boom devices were not developed until 2005, 10 years after this demolition. That means the French government had access to time-travel technology in order to pull this deception off!!

I also heard that the demolition company had several Jewish people connected with it. Say no more, say no more!

[alienentity]

Grizzly Bear 'He genuinely thinks of himself as being correct regardless of whether in actuality he isn't.'

Show me a truther theorist who doesn't operate this way, and you can have the million dollars sitting in my back pocket (I think that's where Heiwa is keeping his million dollars):D

[Heiwa]

You use an irrelevant model to state your case? And then from the conclusion you generate an axiom?

I think you're very, very confused.

Sorry, you got it wrong ... again. My case + axiom are stated in my papers on my web site since long. Then this Mackey pops up with a model on Hardfire and JREF and suggests it can one-way crush down.
So I copied/pasted Mackey's model on one of my web pages and showed that it was irrelevant nonsense ... according my axiom. Mackey didn't like it of course. Mackey's model proves me right ... as usual.

Now, back to topic! Can you show anything that one-way crushes down by a piece of anything being dropped on anything?

Or (off topic) are you like all these AIG sales persons selling insurance against any risk (with no capital to back it) and then just collecting the fees and running away. If you are an American you are now owner/shareholder of AIG. Congratulations! You are being ripped off ... again.

If, again, you are an American, you are now also a proud owner/shareholder of GM! Congratulations! Again, you are being ripped off. (end of off topic).

[Oscar]

Heiwa:
My case + axiom are stated in my papers on my web site since long.
We know. And however many times you state it does not stop the contents of your drivelling rubbish being just that.

Were you dropped on your head as a baby?

[newton3376]

I believe this is the one you're looking for: Balzac a Vitry in France, 1994. Method was by hydraulic removal of supports.

http://syzKBBB_THE

Note to loony marine engineers: this type of controlled demolition can't happen, it was an inside/inside job. Silent explosives (French military versions of hush-a-boom technology) were employed secretly so the collapse didn't stop, and special suction devices prevented the upper block from 'bouncing'.

Note that the French hush-a-boom devices were not developed until 2005, 10 years after this demolition. That means the French government had access to time-travel technology in order to pull this deception off!!

I also heard that the demolition company had several Jewish people connected with it. Say no more, say no more!

Yes thats the one....thanks.

I couldn't open the link within the window but the youtube video is the one you referenced.

I'll just answer the "no way can der be a one way crush down of C on A" crap with the youtube link...

[newton3376]

Now, back to topic! Can you show anything that one-way crushes down by a piece of anything being dropped on anything?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syzKBBB_THE&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fforums%2Erandi%2Eorg%2Fshowthrea d%2Ephp%3Ft%3D140639%26page%3D9&feature=player_embedded

[Heiwa]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syzKBBB_THE&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fforums%2Erandi%2Eorg%2Fshowthrea d%2Ephp%3Ft%3D140639%26page%3D9&feature=player_embedded

Well, it is a French controlled demolition of a building at Vitry. No one-way crush down of A by C + gravity ... as explained many times.

[tsig]

Well, it is a French controlled demolition of a building at Vitry. No one-way crush down of A by C + gravity ... as explained many times.

What crushed A then?

[aggle-rithm]

Now, back to topic! Can you show anything that one-way crushes down by a piece of anything being dropped on anything?



It wouldn't be chivalrous to continue beating this dead horse.

[aggle-rithm]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syzKBBB_THE&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fforums%2Erandi%2Eorg%2Fshowthrea d%2Ephp%3Ft%3D140639%26page%3D9&feature=player_embedded

Great video. It brings up an important point: If "Bjoerkman's Axiom" were true, then demolition companies would be out of business. The only way to bring down a building would be to demolish each and every floor independent of the others.

I imagine that would be prohibitively expensive. Fortunately, there's no evidence that this is necessary, and plenty of evidence that it isn't.

[FineWine]

Great video. It brings up an important point: If "Bjoerkman's Axiom" were true, then demolition companies would be out of business. The only way to bring down a building would be to demolish each and every floor independent of the others.

I imagine that would be prohibitively expensive. Fortunately, there's no evidence that this is necessary, and plenty of evidence that it isn't.


You make a great point. Why aren't all gravity-driven collapses "arrested"?

[newton3376]

Well, it is a French controlled demolition of a building at Vitry.

Correct...

No one-way crush down of A by C + gravity ... as explained many times.

Incorrect...please see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syzKBBB_THE&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fforums%2Erandi%2Eorg%2Fshowthrea d%2Ephp%3Ft%3D140639%26page%3D9&feature=player_embedded for further details.

[newton3376]

It wouldn't be chivalrous to continue beating this dead horse.

Agreed....

[Heiwa]

Great video. It brings up an important point: If "Bjoerkman's Axiom" were true, then demolition companies would be out of business. The only way to bring down a building would be to demolish each and every floor independent of the others.

I imagine that would be prohibitively expensive. Fortunately, there's no evidence that this is necessary, and plenty of evidence that it isn't.

It seems you haven't understood the difference between controlled demolition, CD, and a one-way crush down of A by a piece C of A being dropped by gravity.

In CD you destroy plenty of supports in the building by various means in a controlled fashion - normally at the lower parts, e.g. WTC 7; in the WTC 1, 2 cases is was done from top down.

Reason for this is that you cannot crush down the building A by dropping a part C of A on it. NIST of course suggets otherwise. PE > SE = global collapse ensues (no CD required). NIST is like the AIG insurance sales people! Selling insurance with no capital to back up the risks and running away with the premium.

[FineWine]

It seems you haven't understood the difference between controlled demolition, CD, and a one-way crush down of A by a piece C of A being dropped by gravity.

In CD you destroy plenty of supports in the building by various means in a controlled fashion - normally at the lower parts, e.g. WTC 7; in the WTC 1, 2 cases is was done from top down.

Reason for this is that you cannot crush down the building A by dropping a part C of A on it. NIST of course suggets otherwise. PE > SE = global collapse ensues (no CD required). NIST is like the AIG insurance sales people! Selling insurance with no capital to back up the risks and running away with the premium.


Tell us why every demolition expert in the world rejects the idiocy you peddle.

[aggle-rithm]

It seems you haven't understood the difference between controlled demolition, CD, and a one-way crush down of A by a piece C of A being dropped by gravity.


You are correct, I don't know the difference between controlled demolition and CD. What does CD stand for, besides "compact disc" or "certificate of deposit"?

And what does "one-way-crush-down" mean, exactly? I'm still waiting for an answer to that question.


In CD you destroy plenty of supports in the building by various means in a controlled fashion - normally at the lower parts, e.g. WTC 7; in the WTC 1, 2 cases is was done from top down.



So if supports are destroyed in an uncontrolled fashion, the building is safe?

This is sounding more and more insane.

[deep]

Tell us why every demolition expert in the world rejects the idiocy you peddle.


How do you know what every demolition expert in the world believes? Can you please provide your source?

[FineWine]

How do you know what every demolition expert in the world believes? Can you please provide your source?


Sorry, this ain't the schoolyard, "truther." Many demolition experts have pointed out that your insane movement's myths about explosives in the towers are completely absurd; those myths reflect total ignorance of the subject. The absence of any voiced disagreement by demolition professionals indicates a consensus. Your side makes the extravagant, wildly implausible claims. The onus is on YOU to produce a demolition expert who swallows your snake oil.

I can write that everybody understands that the North won the Civil War, while acknowledging that are undoubtedly a few delusional nuts running around who would disagree. And they, like "truthers," could never be persuaded to change their minds.

[aggle-rithm]

Heiwa, may I suggest a revision to your "axiom"?


You cannot crush an isotropic or composite 3-D structure A by a part C of itself (C = 1/10 A) by dropping part C on A using gravity, unless C is dropped on A by means of controlled demolition removing part of A. Part C either bounces on A or gets damaged in contact with A and is stopped by A that is also damaged a little, unless, of course, the initiating event is controlled demolition. It is quite basic and all due to forces, which, for some reason, behave differently when controlled demolition is involved. Materials, size and particulars of the elements of the structure A doesn't matter the least. Part C of A cannot destroy A unless controlled demolition is involved.


Thus no structures, 1, 2 or 5 meters tall, or 100, 200 or 500 meters tall exist that will one-way crush down, when a small part C is dropped on the remainder part A, unless controlled demolition is involved.


Now all you have to do is explain how part A "knows" that C is falling because of controlled demolition rather than from some other event.

[Oscar]

Heiwa:
Why can't you stay on topic? What's the need of obnoxious, personal insults? Lack of education? What does your mother say? Are you a religious, unhappy, depressed fundamentalist?

The moon is made of cheese. I've called this Oscar's axiom. Prove me wrong and win a million pounds. This is supposed to be a friendly debate about the subject. Every time you give genuine evidence that the moon isn't made of cheese I will ignore it and repeat Oscar's axiom and ask you to read my incredibly moronic paper explaining why the moon actually is made of cheese. (This paper might have slightly more entertainment value than anything Heiwa has written.)

After several thousand posts where I sidestep and move the goalposts over whether the moon is made of Brie or Edam, and after being shown in humiliating ways why my opinions are those of a retarded newt, even though I claim to be an expert on cheese, a claim that is false, and has been shown again and again to be an outright lie, I will repost a link to Oscar's axiom and sit back with a stupid, gormless grin on my silly face.

[SteveAustin]

Sorry, this ain't the schoolyard, "truther."

Classic disinfo tactic right there off the start of his post! Nicely done

Many demolition experts have pointed out

So you have already backpedaled from "every demolition expert" to now just "many".

Tell us why every demolition expert in the world rejects the idiocy you peddle.

So then you can post right here every demolition expert that endorses the OCT? Please post them all or link to a list of every demolition expert that endorses the OCT and let's see how many is "every demolition expert in the world" actually is.

that your insane movement's myths about explosives in the towers are completely absurd; those myths reflect total ignorance of the subject.

Again, classic disinfo tactic and zero relevant argument.

The absence of any voiced disagreement by demolition professionals indicates a consensus.

Should I aks all the "debunkers" here what type of fallacy that is just to see if anyone will call a fellow "debunker" on his lies? I'm not holding my breath

Your side makes the extravagant, wildly implausible claims.

LOL that's funny, the OCT is all extravagant and wildly implausible claims.

The onus is on YOU to produce a demolition expert who swallows your snake oil.

LOL, again (and as always) disinfo tactic thrown in. The OCT has not proven it's conspiracy theory. What they have put out has been debunked quite thoroughly by many people around the world and no amount of trying to claim in a round-a-bout way that no one disbelieves the OCT is going to cut it when so many have come forward and are easy to find.

I can write that everybody understands that the North won the Civil War, while acknowledging that are undoubtedly a few delusional nuts running around who would disagree. And they, like "truthers," could never be persuaded to change their minds.

And again the same classic disinfo tactic used throughout this post and most of JREF.

Deep44's question still stands unanswered as you deftly dodged it...

How do you know what every demolition expert in the world believes? Can you please provide your source?

So can you please provide your source? Or you can instead dodge it again and jump on any other statement I've made here in this post, be sure to pick what you think is the weak link to attack. Don't forget to make it personal and insult me and all 9/11 truth activists any way possible.

[Oscar]

Steve, answering your question about demolition experts opinions I'd advise you to do some homework first.

[SteveAustin]

Steve, in order to answer your question about demolition experts opinions I'd advise you to do some homework first.

Is that a dodge I smell?

Come on post all the demolition experts that endorse the Official Conspiracy Theory!

Or was that the other disinfo tactic of trying to label me as uneducated when it comes to this topic so no one pay attention.

Are you also trying to claim that anyone who has not come out against the Official Conspiracy Theory is by default for it?

[Oscar]

Come on post all the demolition experts that endorse the Official Conspiracy Theory!

Post the ones who don't (edit later for typo) endorse it. All of them. Every single one. Both of them. (And even they don't agree now.)

Or was that the other disinfo tactic of trying to label me as uneducated when it comes to this topic so no one pay attention.

Are you also trying to claim that anyone who has not come out against the Official Conspiracy Theory is by default for it?

Uneducated? I've no idea.

Not coming out against what we all know happened on 9/11 isn't proof of them claiming anything. Standing up and saying we have proof that contradicts what we all know happened would be something.

Unfortunately, the few who have made these claims have proved to be either frauds, liars, or idiots.

Pick that side if you want to.

[deep]

The absence of any voiced disagreement by demolition professionals indicates a consensus.


No, it doesn't. The absence of voiced disagreement (or voiced agreement) means that we don't know what they think.

As for the burden of proof - you're the one making the claim, so the burden of proof is on you. When I start telling you what every (expert on something) in the world believes, I'll be delighted to provide you with my source.

[Oscar]

Deep44
you're the one making the claim, so the burden of proof is on you.
Actually, you're the one making the claim. We all saw and know what happened. You're claiming something else did, without a shred of evidence. But, hey, don't let that worry you.

When I start telling you what every (expert on something) in the world believes, I'll be delighted to provide you with my source.

*cough* How do you people write this stuff?

[Justin39640]

No, it doesn't. The absence of voiced disagreement (or voiced agreement) means that we don't know what they think.

As for the burden of proof - you're the one making the claim, so the burden of proof is on you. When I start telling you what every (expert on something) in the world believes, I'll be delighted to provide you with my source.

if you want to refute a claim
cite evidence to the contrary

the burden of proof is on you to prove hes wrong
seeing theres no outpouring of experts from the CD field means 1 thing:
they dont have an issue with the official version

link some CD experts who refute my claim
please

im sure youve read implosionworld's PDF (http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf)
theres 1 for us

your turn

[SteveAustin]

Post the ones who do endorse it. All of them. Every single one. Both of them. (And even they don't agree now.)

So there were only 2 demolition experts who endorsed the Official Conspiracy theory and even they don't agree now? That's a far cry from finewine's "every demolition expert in the world". Seems you "debunkers" can't even agree on simple things like this.

Uneducated? I've no idea.

Well you said...

Steve, answering your question about demolition experts opinions I'd advise you to do some homework first.

By which you mean I have not bothered to educate myself on the topic.

So why are you now claiming you have no idea if I'm educated on the topic when you first claimed I was not?

Not coming out against what we all know happened on 9/11 isn't proof of them claiming anything. Standing up and saying we have proof that contradicts what we all know happened would be something.

You are in disagreement with finewine who claims that anyone who has not come out against the Official Conspiracy Theory by default agrees with it. Here...

The absence of any voiced disagreement by demolition professionals indicates a consensus.




Unfortunately, the few who have made these claims have proved to be either frauds, liars, or idiots.

Only to shills and braindead zombies who do not want to admit the truth that is staring them in the face.

Maybe instead of claiming they are frauds, liars and idiots you could get an article published in a peer reviewed journal somewhere that proves they are frauds, liars and idiots? Yes? Maybe? Good luck with that.

[Grizzly Bear]

I think this (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4897984&postcount=169) bears repeating:



Under no circumstances can a competent architect/engineer ever disagree with you - right?

Incorrect, just eight years later they haven't made a competent argument that had me reconsider. I don't know what gratification they get out supporting their tripe, but unlike you I don't really care what the membership numbers are. If their claims don't stand up to scrutiny then the numbers are really a moot point in the end.

The minority population of conspiracy theorists is only a bonus...

LOL that's funny, the OCT is all extravagant and wildly implausible claims.

LOL, again (and as always) disinfo tactic thrown in. The OCT has not proven it's conspiracy theory. What they have put out has been debunked quite thoroughly by many people around the world and no amount of trying to claim in a round-a-bout way that no one disbelieves the OCT is going to cut it when so many have come forward and are easy to find.

Since you have entered in the discussion perhaps you can supply the relevant links. Who knows? Perhaps there's a claim I haven't seen or heard yet. Would you mind satisfying my curiosity by linking to the information you feel is most credible as it relates to the specific subject this thread focuses on?

Also you said:
"The OCT has not proven it's conspiracy theory."

Would you mind filling me in on the details here? What is conspiratorial about a progressive collapse?

[SteveAustin]

if you want to refute a claim
cite evidence to the contrary

It's an unsubstantiated claim, an outrageous one at that, he has not proved his claim, so why is it up to us to prove he's wrong when he hasn't proven he's right?

the burden of proof is on you to prove hes wrong
seeing theres no outpouring of experts from the CD field means 1 thing:
they dont have an issue with the official version

link some CD experts who refute my claim
please

im sure youve read implosionworld's PDF (http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf)
theres 1 for us

your turn

1 is a far cry from "every demolition expert in the world", so how does that back up the claim?

Deep44

Actually, you're the one making the claim. We all saw and know what happened. You're claiming something else did, without a shred of evidence. But, hey, don't let that worry you.



*cough* How do you people write this stuff?

Wrong guys, finewine made the claim that every demolition expert in the world agrees with the Official Conspiracy Theory, and he made this claim without backing it up with anything.

Tell us why every demolition expert in the world rejects the idiocy you peddle.

Deep44 simply asked finewine to prove his claim, but you all have done a wonderful job at dodging it and even turning it around on him (and me). Both classic disinfo tactics.

[Oscar]

Steve:
So there were only 2 demolition experts who endorsed the Official Conspiracy theory and even they don't agree now? That's a far cry from finewine's "every demolition expert in the world". Seems you "debunkers" can't even agree on simple things like this.

So I did a typo, so shoot me. What I meant were that only a couple of demolition guys, who when shown the collapse of the twin towers, thought it looked like a controlled demolition. And they changed their minds later. Every other demolition expert thought the idea was insane.

I'm kind of glad I did that typo, it reinforces the point. (I was rushing out for supplies of ice cream and beer, so you can see what happened.)

[twinstead]

Oh. I get it. Steve's hung up on semantics, the last refuge of one who doesn't have a valid argument. It of course is FineWine's fault, because he said EVERY, which of course is a mistake because now no matter how much evidence Steve is given, no matter how many experts in CD think his delightful little movement is a bunch of morons, it won't be EVERY CD expert, so he can ignore it.

Nice debate mojo, Steve.

[SteveAustin]

Since you have entered in the discussion perhaps you can supply the relevant links. Who knows? Perhaps there's a claim I haven't seen or heard yet. Would you mind satisfying my curiosity by linking to the information you feel is most credible as it relates to the specific subject this thread focuses on?

Also you said:
"The OCT has not proven it's conspiracy theory."

Would you mind filling me in on the details here? What is conspiratorial about a progressive collapse?

I would love to, so how about you come over to a neutral discussion forum (or blog in this case) over at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/10/caught_up_in_a_conspiracy_theo.html?page=1#comment s and join the debate there, you should of course read all 3200+ posts before posting there so that no one needs to repeat themselves. I have asked all of you to step outside of JREF before but have yet to have anyone brave enough to do so.

Or if you don't like the BBC blog page then how about coming over to http://truthaction.org/forum/index.php and discussing this there. Granted it's not a neutral place but the mods will allow any civil discussion in the proper forums.

Discussing anything on JREF leads nowhere because all you get is hate, vitriol and insults thrown at you 9 posts out of 10. So come on over to a pleasant forum where a real discussion can take place without all the interference from irrelevant nonsense.

[bill smith]

Tell us why every demolition expert in the world rejects the idiocy you peddle.

Here's one who doesn't reject the controlled demolition certainty and coincidentally hhe also explains why demolitions experts especially in America do not speak out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QajDxF9uEf4

[beachnut]

...
Maybe instead of claiming they are frauds, liars and idiots you could get an article published in a peer reviewed journal somewhere that proves they are frauds, liars and idiots? Yes? Maybe? Good luck with that.
As usual your failed movement is missing the big clue on this topic. WTC towers fell on 911 and they prove Heiwa is wrong, a fraud, and not capable of understanding large structures due to his shallow experience based on marine safety.

Case was closed on this failed concept on 911 and before if you had any experience or knowledge in engineering. Got some engineering skills? A degree? Anything besides your some hearsay, failed ideas and moronic conclusions on 911? When Heiwa states this failed concept he proves he is a fraud; now you have to step up and present some engineering concepts to show us why we are wrong and you can't do anything but post talk and whine about why you have to engineering when you can't even understand any of the concepts needed to understand why Heiwa is wrong.

[SteveAustin]

Steve:


So I did a typo, so shoot me. What I meant were that only a couple of demolition guys, who when shown the collapse of the twin towers, thought it looked like a controlled demolition. And they changed their minds later. Every other demolition expert thought the idea was insane.

Who is "every other demolition expert"? Is that another like finewines statement of "every single demolition expert in the world" type thing? Because you need to source your claims, and no I do not need to prove you wrong when you have not even proven you are right.

And mmm, you sure they changed their minds? I mean lol...

"Telephone interview with Jeff Hill 2/22/07:

Jeff Hill: I was just wondering real quickly, I know you had commented on World Trade Center Building 7 before.

Danny Jowenko: Yes, that's right.

Jeff Hill: And I've come to my conclusions, too, that it couldn't have came down by fire.

Danny Jowenko: No, it -- absolutely not.

Jeff Hill: Are you still sticking by your comments where you say it must have been a controlled demolition?

Danny Jowenko: Absolutely.

Jeff Hill: Yes? So, you as being a controlled demolitions expert, you've looked at the building, you've looked at the video and you've determined with your expertise that --

Danny Jowenko: I looked at the drawings, the construction and it couldn't be done by fire. So, no, absolutely not.

Jeff Hill: OK, 'cause I was reading on the Internet, people were asking about you and they said, I wonder -- I heard something that Danny Jowenko retracted his statement of what he said earlier about World Trade Center 7 now saying that it came down by fire. I said, "There's no way that's true."

Danny Jowenko: No, no, no, absolutely not.

Jeff Hill: 'Cause if anybody was -- Like when I called Controlled Demolition here in North America, they tell me that , "Oh, it's possible it came down from fire" and this and that and stuff like that --.

Danny Jowenko: When the FEMA makes a report that it came down by fire, and you have to earn your money in the States as a controlled demolition company and you say, "No, it was a controlled demolition", you're gone. You know?

Jeff Hill: Yeah, exactly, you'll be in a lot of trouble if you say that, right?

Danny Jowenko: Of course, of course. That's the end of your -- the end of the story.

Jeff Hill: Yeah, 'cause I was calling demolitions companies just to ask them if they used the term, "Pull it" in demolition terms and even Controlled Demolitions, Incorporated said they did. But the other people wouldn't -- didn't want to talk to me about Building 7 really because obviously 'cause they knew what happened and they didn't want to say it.

Danny Jowenko: Exactly . http://www.pumpitout.com "

[BigAl]

Here's one who doesn't reject the controlled demolition certainty and coincidentally hhe also explains why demolitions experts especially in America do not speak out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QajDxF9uEf4

There were no explosions consistent with man-made demolition at WTC for WTC7 of any other building.

Jowenko wasn't an eyewitness to WTC. Nobody that was an eyewitness agrees with him.

[deep]

Actually, you're the one making the claim. We all saw and know what happened. You're claiming something else did, without a shred of evidence. But, hey, don't let that worry you.


Hmm, nope, I'm not making any claims. Please quote whatever it is you're referring to.

[twinstead]

What does Jowenko think about the WTC 1 and 2?

[SteveAustin]

As usual your failed movement is missing the big clue on this topic. WTC towers fell on 911 and they prove Heiwa is wrong, a fraud, and not capable of understanding large structures due to his shallow experience based on marine safety.

Case was closed on this failed concept on 911 and before if you had any experience or knowledge in engineering. Got some engineering skills? A degree? Anything besides your some hearsay, failed ideas and moronic conclusions on 911? When Heiwa states this failed concept he proves he is a fraud; now you have to step up and present some engineering concepts to show us why we are wrong and you can't do anything but post talk and whine about why you have to engineering when you can't even understand any of the concepts needed to understand why Heiwa is wrong.

You are really starting to sound desperate, especially when your entire post is nothing more than smoke and mirrors, well and the usual insult at every opportunity.

[Grizzly Bear]

I would love to, so how about you come over to a neutral discussion forum (or blog in this case) over at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/10/caught_up_in_a_conspiracy_theo.html?page=1#comment s and join the debate there, you should of course read all 3200+ posts before posting there so that no one needs to repeat themselves. I have asked all of you to step outside of JREF before but have yet to have anyone brave enough to do so.

Or if you don't like the BBC blog page then how about coming over to http://truthaction.org/forum/index.php and discussing this there. Granted it's not a neutral place but the mods will allow any civil discussion in the proper forums.

Discussing anything on JREF leads nowhere because all you get is hate, vitriol and insults thrown at you 9 posts out of 10. So come on over to a pleasant forum where a real discussion can take place without all the interference from irrelevant nonsense.
Or alternatively if you don't feel comfortable with maintaining your argument here out of fear of getting hammered with insults you can supply any links you have via the private messaging system. All I'm requesting is links to the sources you used to derive your position, not for you to repeat verbatim whatever argument it is you hold. If I know what points you're considering factual then I'll either agree with them on the basis that they follow common architectural principals or I'll disagree and link you to/cite sources which specialize in talking about the relevant material. your choice but if you're entering this discussion by saying that the "OCT is extravagantly flawed" then I would usually expect you to either elaborate or link to posts you've made in the past that elaborated on your points.

[twinstead]

So what is it Steve? Is Jowenko wrong about WTC7 or wrong about WTC1 and 2?

[SteveAustin]

Oh. I get it. Steve's hung up on semantics, the last refuge of one who doesn't have a valid argument. It of course is FineWine's fault, because he said EVERY, which of course is a mistake because now no matter how much evidence Steve is given, no matter how many experts in CD think his delightful little movement is a bunch of morons, it won't be EVERY CD expert, so he can ignore it.

Nice debate mojo, Steve.

I'd be happy if he could show "many" have come forward to support the Official Conspiracy Theory, but nice try at discrediting me by your little rant there, nice try to make me look like what exactly?

Exactly how many have come forward to endorse the Official Conspiracy Theory twinstead?

finewine's use of the words "every demolition expert in the world" was not a mistake of semantics, it was intentional, and it's a simple disinfo trick that if you repeat something like this often enough people will end up believing it.

Regardless, he backtracked from his "every" to "many" but still has not bothered to back up his claim of "many" with any evidence.

Can you supply that evidence for him?

[beachnut]

You are really starting to sound desperate, especially when your entire post is nothing more than smoke and mirrors, well and the usual insult at every opportunity.
You are in a thread about engineering and you are talking about other topics. Present your engineering work to support the moronic failed ideas of Heiwa. You are also making a big mistake supporting Jowenko failed ideas on WTC7 as he support the WTC towers were a gravity collapse. So you have failed to support your moronic conclusion on the WTC towers by supporting Jowenko's failed ideas on WTC7. Do you try to use some logic as you are now stuck with a 1/3 wrong, or 2/3 right expert? Seems you lack the engineering skills to pick the right expert! You support the pizza box engineering of Heiwa and the 2/3 right CD expert Jowenko.

But you personally have zero engineering skills so how can you make a rational decision on the delusions of Heiwa? You have only posted some talk and no engineering support in the thread as you post off topic tripe.

[SteveAustin]

Or alternatively if you don't feel comfortable with maintaining your argument here out of fear of getting hammered with insults you can supply any links you have via the private messaging system. All I'm requesting is links to the sources you used to derive your position, not for you to repeat verbatim whatever argument it is you hold. If I know what points you're considering factual then I'll either agree with them on the basis that they follow common architectural principals or I'll disagree and link you to/cite sources which specialize in talking about the relevant material. your choice but if you're entering this discussion by saying that the "OCT is extravagantly flawed" then I would usually expect you to either elaborate or link to posts you've made in the past that elaborated on your points.

Go read that BBC blog (the 3200+ post one I just linked above). I did not enter that blog till about post 750 but if you want to see some of my arguments and some of my links they are all listed there. This is of course only a small portion of it but I think there is enough of it there for you to get a good general picture, especially with the copious links throughout.

There's no reason why I should have to relink every link and every report and and every source simply because you want me to. Check out the BBC blog, spend some time reading the arguments and checking the links (some of which I'm sure you are already familiar with), and then reply on the BBC blog.

[SteveAustin]

You are in a thread about engineering and you are talking about other topics. Present your engineering work to support the moronic failed ideas of Heiwa. You are also making a big mistake supporting Jowenko failed ideas on WTC7 as he support the WTC towers were a gravity collapse. So you have failed to support your moronic conclusion on the WTC towers by supporting Jowenko's failed ideas on WTC7. Do you try to use some logic as you are now stuck with a 1/3 wrong, or 2/3 right expert? Seems you lack the engineering skills to pick the right expert! You support the pizza box engineering of Heiwa and the 2/3 right CD expert Jowenko.

But you personally have zero engineering skills so how can you make a rational decision on the delusions of Heiwa? You have only posted some talk and no engineering support in the thread as you post off topic tripe.

ROFL, so because I posted a phone interview of Jowenko that shows that he did not retract his initial statement that it was a controlled demolition I have to automatically agree with every single thing he says?

Lurkers take note of that tactic, as it is often used on these forums. Every single post you make, and every single word you type is misinterpreted and turned around any which way they can in order to try and discredit the arguer instead of sticking to the arguments.

Also note the "beachnut mantra", which is the repeated use of insults, repeated so often it makes his sentences seem really disjointed.

[aggle-rithm]

No, it doesn't. The absence of voiced disagreement (or voiced agreement) means that we don't know what they think.


That makes sense. Since we don't know what the controlled demolition professionals think, then it's perfectly logical that they are aware that 9/11 was an inside job, and just don't feel like saying anything.

I mean, if they don't SPECIFICALLY say otherwise, then it's not only logical for a building to be demolished using magical explosives that make no sound, can be deployed in a busy office building without anyone knowing, and leave absolutely no trace in the aftermath, it's MOST LIKELY that this is what happened!

Suddenly it's all clear! Their silence speaks volumes! By not saying anything at all, they are really shouting "YES! WE BELIEVE IN BAT-CRAP CRAZY CONSPIRACY THEORIES THAT MAKE NO SENSE!!! JUST BECAUSE IT'S NOT POSSIBLE FOR ANYONE IN OUR FIELD TO DO IT, DOESN'T MEAN THERE AREN'T SOOPER-SECRET GOVERNMENT CIA TYPES THAT HAVE SOOPER-DOOPER HI-TECH CAPABILITIES THAT NO ONE EVER HEARD OF!! YES-SIR-REE BOB!!!"

[deep]

Since we don't know what the controlled demolition professionals think, then it's perfectly logical that they are aware that 9/11 was an inside job, and just don't feel like saying anything.


The absence of voiced disagreement (or voiced agreement) means that we don't know what they think.

[aggle-rithm]

The absence of voiced disagreement (or voiced agreement) means that we don't know what they think.

And the fact that you're arguing semantics means that you've got nothing and you're just stalling for time until someone comes along who has something.

FYI, you're going to be waiting a very, very long time.

[aggle-rithm]

ROFL, so because I posted a phone interview of Jowenko that shows that he did not retract his initial statement that it was a controlled demolition I have to automatically agree with every single thing he says?

Lurkers take note of that tactic, as it is often used on these forums. Every single post you make, and every single word you type is misinterpreted and turned around any which way they can in order to try and discredit the arguer instead of sticking to the arguments.

Also note the "beachnut mantra", which is the repeated use of insults, repeated so often it makes his sentences seem really disjointed.

Way to bail out Heiwa! Did he ask for your help, or was your Spidey sense tingling?

[Grizzly Bear]

There's no reason why I should have to relink every link and every report and and every source simply because you want me to.
I was never asking you to provide them all... only what you thought brought up the most significant points. I don't have any particular expectations other than if you're entering this thread and you say something is wrong, then give me two examples, and one or two links that talk substantiate it. I've had a look at some of your older responses but there's not much new to them. The impression I got was that you lack a fundamental appreciation for how buildings are designed, and it got reflected in the posts you made.

this:
Were the fires hot enough to melt steel, all the steel in the towers? Or even just the steel in the area of the fires?
Old... look up visceoelastic creep.

How did the towers collapse symmetrically and not topple over on the side of the damage?
If you read any publication concerning column design you'd quickly find out how dumb this claim is...

and freefall with sudden onset:
What happened is the plane impacted and then for the next hour (give or take) the towers stood then suddenly at the rate of free fall the towers quite suddenly came down.
Old again... but an hour to an hour and a half of deteriorating integrity ain't sudden... Components failed and the structures continued standing because there was some margin left for remaining components to carry the loads. Then one final piece snapped and then there was no margin left. Thing have a breaking point.


and this:
(if you look at the videos what actually happens is not that the towers collapse but that each floor, one by one turns to dust, so there is nothing falling on the floor below it)


where I'm seeing you mirror bill smith's claim that the entire top section got pulverized to fine dust, which incidentally I recall you having done in the past on this forum.

Then nevermind providing links... your demonstration on the blog told me everything I needed to know. Thanks for for pointing it out though for future reference. If you have any questions concerning these you're more than free to do so. I won't mind thoughtfully pointing out your errors, so long as you're interested in taking the time to listen and then read any literature I recommend to you in the process.

[GlennB]

"Telephone interview with Jeff Hill 2/22/07:



I always wondered why Jowenko himself picked up the phone. Does he have no secretary? Was it his home number? Is the identity of the recipient of the call verified or verifiable in any way?

[twinstead]

I'd be happy if he could show "many" have come forward to support the Official Conspiracy Theory, but nice try at discrediting me by your little rant there, nice try to make me look like what exactly?

Exactly how many have come forward to endorse the Official Conspiracy Theory twinstead?

finewine's use of the words "every demolition expert in the world" was not a mistake of semantics, it was intentional, and it's a simple disinfo trick that if you repeat something like this often enough people will end up believing it.

Regardless, he backtracked from his "every" to "many" but still has not bothered to back up his claim of "many" with any evidence.

Can you supply that evidence for him?

How about you call all the CD companies you can find and ask them? I believe that if any real CD experts had a problem with the "OCT" they'd be coming out in droves, but that's just me. You can demand they implicitly come out in favor of the "official story" before you believe it all you want.

All you have is Jowenko who has openly said he thinks the WTC7 was CD, but he doesn't even think 1 and 2 were CD. You may think he's wrong about 1 and 2, but I think he's wrong about 7. Implosionworld has thrown its two cents in in my favor. Even that by itself is fine for me. It isn't for you? Tough. The ball's in your court then. Perhaps your delightful little movement can actually get something accomplished and get some people who can actually DO SOMETHING about things.

Jesus. If the "official story" was as full of holes as you folks claim it is, and the science is SO good that the collapse as described was impossible, you should have real experts, main-stream media, and law enforcement people coming out of the woodwork supporting you.

Until then you can gesticulate wildly as much as you want.

[deep]

How about you call all the CD companies you can find and ask them?


Because it's not his responsibility to provide evidence for other people's arguments.

[FineWine]

No, it doesn't. The absence of voiced disagreement (or voiced agreement) means that we don't know what they think.

As for the burden of proof - you're the one making the claim, so the burden of proof is on you. When I start telling you what every (expert on something) in the world believes, I'll be delighted to provide you with my source.


You are wrong. (You are a "truther"--you are ALWAYS wrong.) When claims are being made by a representative member of a group, as the Loizeaux family is unquestionably representative of the demolition industry, the claims stand unless challenged. Nobody who works in demolition swallows the snake oil your insane movement peddles. There isn't demolition expert alive who thinks it would have feasible to smuggle tons of charges into the towers and then place them without anyone noticing. That you can't see your claims for the idiocy they are says something about you, not about sane people who don't share your problem.

[beachnut]

ROFL, so because I posted a phone interview of Jowenko that shows that he did not retract his initial statement that it was a controlled demolition I have to automatically agree with every single thing he says?

Lurkers take note of that tactic, as it is often used on these forums. Every single post you make, and every single word you type is misinterpreted and turned around any which way they can in order to try and discredit the arguer instead of sticking to the arguments.

Also note the "beachnut mantra", which is the repeated use of insults, repeated so often it makes his sentences seem really disjointed.

Does this mean there will be no engineering support from you for Jowenko or Heiwa? Jowenko has no clue how WTC7 was unique and neither do you.

Without engineering to go with the failed moronic conclusions you support your post are what exactly what you say about me. It would help if you knew some engineering to save your failed ideas on 911; but you have avoided posting substantive reasons Heiwa and Jowenko are correct. If you support Jowenko on WTC7 then you must support him on WTC 1 and 2 since he is using his same CD expertise to make his conclusion. Please explain why you can use an expert who gets 2/3 of your delusion correct; can you do that?

Jowenko is impeached by his own ideas and fails to be consistent as an expert and worse he never studied the collapses past a visual inspection. Total failure and the kind of stuff you like to use; claptrap. Heiwa is proved wrong on 911. Too bad you only have 0.0087 percent of all engineers supporting versions of your delusions on 911.

[FineWine]

I would love to, so how about you come over to a neutral discussion forum (or blog in this case) over at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/10/caught_up_in_a_conspiracy_theo.html?page=1#comment s and join the debate there, you should of course read all 3200+ posts before posting there so that no one needs to repeat themselves. I have asked all of you to step outside of JREF before but have yet to have anyone brave enough to do so.

Or if you don't like the BBC blog page then how about coming over to http://truthaction.org/forum/index.php and discussing this there. Granted it's not a neutral place but the mods will allow any civil discussion in the proper forums.

Discussing anything on JREF leads nowhere because all you get is hate, vitriol and insults thrown at you 9 posts out of 10. So come on over to a pleasant forum where a real discussion can take place without all the interference from irrelevant nonsense.


Give us an example of ONE claim made by your insane movement that can stand scrutiny.

[FineWine]

Here's one who doesn't reject the controlled demolition certainty and coincidentally hhe also explains why demolitions experts especially in America do not speak out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QajDxF9uEf4


See the old thread "Is Danny Jowenko Echt Woo-Woo?" Jeff Hill is out of his mind. He is a no-planer who ambushes aeronautical engineers and twists himself into knots to get them to say that a Boeing 767 could not travel as fast as the ones that hit the towers. A very sick nut, and an extremely dishonest one.
Jowenko believes that the collapses of the towers do not resemble controlled demolitions. But, he has never demolished a large building, so who cares what he thinks.

[FineWine]

I'd be happy if he could show "many" have come forward to support the Official Conspiracy Theory, but nice try at discrediting me by your little rant there, nice try to make me look like what exactly?

Exactly how many have come forward to endorse the Official Conspiracy Theory twinstead?

finewine's use of the words "every demolition expert in the world" was not a mistake of semantics, it was intentional, and it's a simple disinfo trick that if you repeat something like this often enough people will end up believing it.

Regardless, he backtracked from his "every" to "many" but still has not bothered to back up his claim of "many" with any evidence.

Can you supply that evidence for him?


You've been caught lying again. I most certainly did not "backtrack" on anything. I slammed my claim across your face like a dead flounder and you had nothing in reply.
We're still waiting for you frauds to produce a single demolition expert who thinks the towers were demolished. You can't, "truther"--there are none.

[newton3376]

So then you can post right here every demolition expert that endorses the OCT? Please post them all or link to a list of every demolition expert that endorses the OCT and let's see how many is "every demolition expert in the world" actually is....

[MIKILLINI]

Because it's not his responsibility to provide evidence for other people's arguments.

Even though Austin provides nothing of significance to refute what is already out there.

[twinstead]

Because it's not his responsibility to provide evidence for other people's arguments.

It's his argument that the collapses were CD. It is his responsibility to find evidence to support it. That would include finding some CD experts who agree with him, no?

Personally, I'm not making a claim. I'm not saying that the majority of CD experts agree with the 'official story'. The ones who have come out, implosionworld for example, are enough for me. Let's imagine for a moment that NO cd expert has come out one way or the other. What would YOU do to gather evidence for CD?

[deep]

It's his argument that the collapses were CD. It is his responsibility to find evidence to support it. That would include finding some CD experts who agree with him, no?


His beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with FineWine's claim about what every demolition expert in the world believes.

This really shouldn't be all that difficult to understand.

[aggle-rithm]

His beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with FineWine's claim about what every demolition expert in the world believes.

This really shouldn't be all that difficult to understand.

It isn't. It's clear that you're trying to avoid the issue by focusing on semantics.

[tfk]

That chess analogy is a good one. I play reasonable club level chess. I've even won a couple of prizes in local competitions. But a Grandmaster could thrash me with his eyes closed and I wouldn't even know what happened. We're not even playing the same game. I played in a simultaneous display against an International Master (a level below a GM) and he crushed me. I hadn't got a clue my position was so bad until it suddenly collapsed, rather like....The World Trade centre.

It's the same for all incompetents. We're full of ourselves, like Heiwa and co, and think we're holding our own, maybe even impressing a few people, all the while unaware of what total arses we're making of ourselves.

Howdy Oscar,

I would respectfully take exception to this analogy.

In chess, if you make a lousy move, you may be able recover and beat your opponent.. Because a lot of your effectiveness comes from parallel stength (multiple pieces). And because your opponent might make a mistake.

Mother Nature is an International Grand Master. (Or maybe, "Deep Blue".) She NEVER makes a mistake. And she's a cast iron witch.

Engineering analysis (and their conclusions) are absolutely intolerant of out-and-out blunders. They are much more like a linear chains, limited by their weakest links.

Heiwa's nonsense is a classic example.

A bunch of the individual things that he says are right. But each has multiple errors buried in the details. This sloppiness results in a bunch of useless chains.

Here's a perfect example:

The World According to Heiwa:

The part A columns, undamaged, between floors 96-97 ...

.

Just one little phrase that you might gloss over as a "reasonable approximation". Nothing could be further from the truth.

I've pointed this out to him a dozen times. Dozens of others have as well.

With his oft-repeated statement "part A columns, undamged" and in his silly graphics on his home page, this is what he portrays the interface between the floors above & below floor 98 immediately after the initiation of global failure:

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=176&pictureid=1314

Fig 1. Heiwa's Fantasy Portrayal of the Interface between Floor 99 & Floor 97

The above erroneous presentation applies to anyone who models the columns as one story high. I've seen Tony Szamboti express it in the same terms.

.
Below is what the external columns of the lower block looks like in reality, IF just ONE column assembly "popped". It's a Snaggletooth. In this 3D graphic, I've shown the outer columns, and the damaged floors of Floors 97 and below.


http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=176&pictureid=1313
Fig. 2: Real configuration of lower columns after failure initiation

On the 97th floor, ONLY ONE out of every 18 cross trusses will remain intact and supported at both the peripheral and core columns, simply as a result of popping ONE column assembly all the way around the building.

I've removed the floors where the a peripheral or core columns have been popped. In reality, the open spaces would be spanned by the rebar embedded in the concrete. But the floors (especially on Floor 97) would have virtually zero ability to support any load.

Note that this is the state of the 97th & 96th floors BEFORE the upper block strikes the floor.
____

In order to show what the impact of this stagger has on the stability of the top end of the remaining columns, I've tallied the constraints that the columns had before & after the collapse.

In the graphic below, I've shown the missing columns above and below the 98th floor with black dots.

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=176&pictureid=1315

Fig. 3. Missing connections

In the graphic below, I've shown the constraints that are remaining for the top most columns. In this graphic, all the linear connections are shown. In a fully constrained point, there would be a total of 6 connections (2 each in x, y & z axes).

In addition, I've tallied the moment constraints. In a completely constrained point, there would be 3 moment constraints, one around each axis.


http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=176&pictureid=1316

Fig. 4. Column constraints


Prior to collapse, all the column-to-truss connections had 5 linear and 3 moment constraints. The top & bottom splice had 2 linear and 3 moment constraints.

After the start of collapse, the top of the column has lost all constraints. The other locations have variable constraints remaining, as listed.

Note that this constraints table tallies all the constraints for 9 side-by-side columns. All the missing columns have lost all constraints, of course.

The end result of losing all of these constraints is that the columns are far, far less capable of supporting loads than they were prior to the collapse initiation.

In other words, Heiwa's reference to "Part A columns, undamaged, between Floors 97 and 99" is utter, unmitigated nonsense.
___

Probability of a "One Column Failure Mode".

Finally, note that the "one popped assembly" is not the most probable failure. A 3 point kink, with each knuckle at a column splice joint is. A perfect example of this failure mode can be seen in this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGAofwkAOlo

Watch the left 1/3rd of the building at 2:11 seconds as the collapse begins. There is a "slab" of 6 assemblies wide by 2 assemblies high group (36 total columns that span 8 full stories) that all lets go at once. The left 9 columns in this group seems to buckle inward in the middle, while the right 9 columns buckles outward in the middle.

___

Again, in engineering, the devil IS in the details. All of the above comes out of just one of Heiwa's sloppy phrases. Conclusions that follow from such sloppy assumptions are junk.

Tom

[Humanzee]

...nice. A lurker thanks you, tfk.

[tfk]

...nice. A lurker thanks you, tfk.

Human-Z,

You're welcome.


Tom

[tfk]

Is that a dodge I smell?

Come on post all the demolition experts that endorse the Official Conspiracy Theory!

Or was that the other disinfo tactic of trying to label me as uneducated when it comes to this topic so no one pay attention.

Are you also trying to claim that anyone who has not come out against the Official Conspiracy Theory is by default for it?
.
Steve,

What is your profession?

There are perhaps 30 different professions that have a role in the events of 9/11. Structural engineering, computer modeling, corrosion, aviation, etc.

Mine is mechanical engineering.

Even tho I post here and one other 9/11 thread, I haven't come out to anyone and said "NIST is right". Even tho I believe that to be the case. (To the 98th percentile.) Because the things that I think that they got wrong are trivial and inconsequential to their conclusions.

But if I found something that violated some mechanical engineering principle (say they said the steel lost strength at 150°C), you can bet your ass that I'd point it out. Loudly. And there would be no ignoring it on the part of NIST. Because every mechanical engineer in the country would be demading an explanation just as vocally.

So, in that respect, I believe that it IS valid to say that, in a case that is SO momentous, silence does indicate assent.

It certainly does in my case.

Tom

[deep]

.So, in that respect, I believe that it IS valid to say that, in a case that is SO momentous, silence does indicate assent.


As long as you don't confuse beliefs with established facts, there's nothing wrong with that.

[Justin39640]

As long as you don't confuse beliefs with established facts, there's nothing wrong with that.

dont confuse yourself with TFK

[tfk]

As long as you don't confuse beliefs with established facts, there's nothing wrong with that.
.

Tell ya what. I believe that at least 90% of all engineers, if they found something grossly wrong in their field, would scream bloody murder.

I'm stretching to come up with 10% that might not.

There are many hundreds to low thousands of engineers pouring thru the analysis. If even a few of them found something flawed, they would bring others' attention to that particular issue. And an growing mass would recognize the flaw, and an uproar would gather.

That hasn't happened.

And it is impossible for me to believe that over 500 (very conservatively) engineers who know that there is something fishy going on, but have remained silent.

My opinion. But I think a very defensible one.

Tom

[alienentity]

I was merely lurking on the thread, having no interest in getting sucked into yet another pointless debate with recalcitrant truthers, but I want to comment on the terribly ironic post by Steve Austin.
(For the record, the phrase 'every demolition expert' is an obvious exaggeration of the truth, and not particularly helpful, IMHO)
It has to do with the reference to Mr. Jowenko, who is the sole demolition expert quoted by the 'truth' movement.
But while some conspiracy theories are internally consistent, the use of Mr. Jowenko's opinion is obviously not, since he specifically opined that WTC 1 and 2 were not CD's, while he believed (on apparently fairly cursory examination of video evidence only) that WTC 7 was a CD.

The irony is of course that Steve Austin used Mr. Jowenko on the endless Heiwa 'one-way Crush down' thread, which is focused on... WTC 1 and 2 being controlled demolitions.

So Steve is actually, inadvertently undermining Heiwa's pet theories.

Blissfully ignorant of this predicament, the ever-indignant Steve probably still thinks he's fighting the evil NWO debunkers and helping the 'truth' movement.

It's now time for a Steve-Austinesque LOL! and ROFLMAO! to cap off this post.

Truthers and their expressions....LOL.:p

[alienentity]

What truthers don't want to hear from top American demolition experts:

Isn't this obvious? They don't want to hear that these top experts think the WTC collapses were not controlled demolitions. But unfortunately, that's what they think. No exceptions that I'm aware of.

Let's just recap and reference the executive of one of the world's leading demolition firms, Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition. He goes into considerable detail as to why they weren't CD's.

Here's one reference for you truthers and others, if you haven't already seen it:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=3C7JSfnMsbIC&pg=PA47-IA14&lpg=PA47-IA14&dq=mark+loizeaux+interview+wtc&source=bl&ots=udTpo2bu__&sig=dHaJrw2hzXesjaAU-uymMOdWSAA&hl=en&ei=Xf5bStLDOYOOsgP_h9WeCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9

Yeah yeah, of course Mr. Loizeaux has to be discredited for various reasons by the 'truth' movement, since his opinion is clearly unacceptable and antithetical to truther dogma.

Oh well. If you can't handle the truth, just ignore it (truther maxim).

And yet another major expert in American demolitions, Brent Blanchard, has even written a paper outlining why the WTC collapses weren't controlled demolitions.

Now, what are Mr. Blanchard's credentials? Well, he unfortunately isn't a PhD in Theology, like David Ray Griffin, and he's not an associate professor of Chemistry like Niels Harrit, nor is he a High-school physics teacher like truther hero David Chandler.

Sadly, his only qualifications related to controlled demolitions are that he edits 'ImplosionWorld.com, a demolition industry website.' And he also is director of field operations for Protec Documentation Services, Inc., a company specializing in monitoring construction-related demolitions.

Too bad for him, he actually knows what he's talking about, and he doesn't agree with the truther mantra 'controlled demolition' and 'inside job'. Damn! He's gotta go! Must be a shill for the NWO and Bush, right?

So much for the 'truth' in 9/11 'truth'........ it's Missing In Action, AWOL, running scared...

Here's his report
http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf

Now, even comparing Mr. Jowenko's opinion with those of Messrs. Blanchard and Loizeaux, one must (if one is honest about it) realize that out of the three, Mr. Jowenko never set foot at GZ on 9/11 or shortly thereafter to see for himself.

His knowledge of the collapses is not as thorough, in all fairness. What's wrong with the American experts? Err....nothing except that truthers don't like them. That's what. At a time when you'd think Americans would support their own homegrown experts, nope - not the 9/11 'truth' guys - not good enough, even if they're world-renowned experts, and especially not if they were actually there to view the collapse wreckage in person.
Definitely gotta go with the less-informed European guy.
Nice.

[alienentity]

And more strange truth from 9/11 'truth'.....the reverse-world universe of truthers:

David Chandler, the unstoppable high school teacher, in his WTC tower video, opines about things such as 'squibs' he claims to see shooting out, 'proving' that the collapses were actually controlled demolitions.

The problem? Chandler has no qualifications at all in this area. Zero. He has never worked in the demolitions industry, he isn't an explosives expert, he's not even a structural engineer. And to cap it off, he didn't bother to consult the top American experts in those fields before producing his latest video masterpiece...Too bad, because he's out to lunch when it comes to the important things...like squbs, and controlled demolition.

Devil's in the details, they say. Chandler's a good case study on how to get it very, very wrong every time. With such lack of expertise, you'd expect him to be.....yup, a leader of the 9/11 'truth' movement.

[Oscar]

Twin:
Jesus. If the "official story" was as full of holes as you folks claim it is, and the science is SO good that the collapse as described was impossible, you should have real experts, main-stream media, and law enforcement people coming out of the woodwork supporting you.

Until then you can gesticulate wildly as much as you want.

Hear hear. Or here here.

Whatever the correct term is I agree wholeheartedly.

[Heiwa]

Prior to collapse, all the column-to-truss connections had 5 linear and 3 moment constraints. The top & bottom splice had 2 linear and 3 moment constraints.

After the start of collapse, the top of the column has lost all constraints. The other locations have variable constraints remaining, as listed.

Note that this constraints table tallies all the constraints for 9 side-by-side columns. All the missing columns have lost all constraints, of course.

The end result of losing all of these constraints is that the columns are far, far less capable of supporting loads than they were prior to the collapse initiation.

In other words, Heiwa's reference to "Part A columns, undamaged, between Floors 97 and 99" is utter, unmitigated nonsense.

Tom


I thought I suggested that all part A columns below, say floor 97, were undamaged prior part C impacting part A, but it could also be floor 96.

The perimeter columns consisted of welded assemblies of three columns and three spandrels (abt 11 x 3 m big - three floors) and then these assemblies were simply bolted together at the joints; four bolts between columns, eight bolts between spandrels. Thus about 20 assemblies each side and 4 in the corners. So 84 assemblies of bolted perimeter columns formed a square (side 60 m - the outer tube) around the core; the latter was of different design - 46 columns and many beams welded and rivetted together. The floors were then just hanging/bolted on the columns between core and perimeter.

If an upper part C was disconnected from the structure and dropped down on part A below, plenty of columns had to fail in between, say floors 97-98 or 96-99. Completely unrealistic, but let's assume it. Thus then part C is displacing down and contacting A.

Let's look at the outer tube! How can a square ring of perimeter assemblies in part C, side 60 m, contact the same ring in part A? Are the two rings aligned or off set a little. Probably the latter and in that case two C sides contact nothing and the other two sides contact an A floor, 96 or 97 at your choice.

Similar happens to the four A sides! Two A sides are outside part C and two A sides contact a C floor, say it is floor 98.

The contact is thus unsymmetric and the local failures that would follow, if such a collision took place, are also unsymmetric. One thing is sure. The lowest part C floor is going to get locally damaged by some A columns.

And that's the start of part A arresting part C in its decent.

It's like chess. White attacking the king's side and Black the queen's side.

[bill smith]

This is the official government position regarding the demolitions of the Twin Towers and Building seven. Somebody should write up a motivated tebuttal to most oftheir reasoning. It's sure nice to have it under their signature as of may 5th 2009.

'' Numerous unfounded conspiracy theories about the September 11 attacks continue to circulate, especially on the Internet. Some of the most popular myths are:

1) The World Trade Center (WTC) twin towers were destroyed by controlled demolitions.

This is how the collapses may have appeared to non-experts, but demolition experts point out many differences:

• Demolition professionals always blow the bottom floors of a structure first, but the WTC tower collapses began at the upper levels, where the planes hit the buildings.

• Non-experts claim that debris seen blowing out of windows was evidence of explosive charges, but experts identify this as air and light office contents (paper, pulverized concrete, etc.) being forced out of windows as floors collapsed on each other.

• Demolition firms had very sensitive seismographs operating at other sites in Manhattan on September 11. None recorded signs of any explosions prior to the tower collapses. Instead, seismic spikes were noted when debris began hitting the ground.

• Cutting away walls, insulation, plumbing, and electrical conduits to place numerous charges on the towers’ structural columns in advance would not have gone unnoticed.

• Clean-up crews found none of the telltale signs of controlled demolitions that would have existed if explosive charges had been used.

• For more information, see ImplosionWorld’s article (PDF, 56 K) on the WTC collapses, the March 2005 Popular Mechanics, parts 4 and 5, “The Attack on the World Trade Center Towers,” and the video 9/11 Debunked: Controlled Demolition Not Possible.''
http://www.america.gov/st/webchat-english/2009/May/20060828133846esnamfuaK0.2676355.html

[aggle-rithm]

This is the official government position regarding the demolitions of the Twin Towers and Building seven.

...snip...

• For more information, see ImplosionWorld’s article (PDF, 56 K) on the WTC collapses, the March 2005 Popular Mechanics, parts 4 and 5, “The Attack on the World Trade Center Towers,” and the video 9/11 Debunked: Controlled Demolition Not Possible.''
http://www.america.gov/st/webchat-english/2009/May/20060828133846esnamfuaK0.2676355.html

Implosion World and Popular Mechanics are part of the US government?

[twinstead]

Implosion World and Popular Mechanics are part of the US government?

Of course they are. Any group or individual who disagrees with the truthers is "part of the US government".

[ElMondoHummus]

.
Steve,

What is your profession?

There are perhaps 30 different professions that have a role in the events of 9/11. Structural engineering, computer modeling, corrosion, aviation, etc.

Mine is mechanical engineering.

Even tho I post here and one other 9/11 thread, I haven't come out to anyone and said "NIST is right". Even tho I believe that to be the case. (To the 98th percentile.) Because the things that I think that they got wrong are trivial and inconsequential to their conclusions.

But if I found something that violated some mechanical engineering principle (say they said the steel lost strength at 150°C), you can bet your ass that I'd point it out. Loudly. And there would be no ignoring it on the part of NIST. Because every mechanical engineer in the country would be demading an explanation just as vocally.

So, in that respect, I believe that it IS valid to say that, in a case that is SO momentous, silence does indicate assent.

It certainly does in my case.

Tom

Tom is probably already aware of this, but for non-participating readers, there is information unsaid that might escape you if you haven't been keeping up to date on the myth peddling by the "Truth" movement. And it is this: As far as the engineering, building safety, fire engineering, and architectural professions are concerned, there is actually zero silence on the issue of the NIST report's veracity. As I and others have pointed out before (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=145828&page=9), the ICC has not only accepted NISTs findings, but is already in process of integrating that knowledge into future building codes. Some of the findings - for example, the issue of fireproofing bonding, as well as an increase in the fire resistance rating of structural components and assemblies - directly address issues highlighted in the NIST report. Other changes are still being studied. But my point is that, while Tom is 100% correct about individuals not speaking up and signing petitions, creating groups, etc. regarding their acceptance of the NIST report, there's context here that someone who hasn't studied 9/11 might be missing, and that's that their professional bodies have indeed sounded off on the issue. And they unquestioningly accept NISTs findings. The ICC modifications to code prove that. And buildings built to codes developed with that knowledge, like the Beijing Mandarin (which by the way burnt down back in February), are further proof.

The bottom line is that there is indeed widespread acceptance of the NIST report. And it's not just rhetorical, it's actually practical acceptance.

[SteveAustin]

You've been caught lying again. I most certainly did not "backtrack" on anything. I slammed my claim across your face like a dead flounder and you had nothing in reply.
We're still waiting for you frauds to produce a single demolition expert who thinks the towers were demolished. You can't, "truther"--there are none.

Tell us why every demolition expert in the world rejects the idiocy you peddle.
Many demolition experts have pointed out that your insane movement's myths about explosives in the towers are completely absurd

So you go from "every demolition expert in the world" to "many". You lurkers notice how "truthers" are always being called liars even when the proof we were telling the truth is right there in front of your face. You see you are not supposed to scroll back up and look, you are simply supposed to believe what he says.

Now it seems like you are jumping back to "every". Can't make up your mind?

Someone listed 1 demolition expert that endorses the Official Conspiracy Theory, you have any others? I mean 1 is still a far cry from "every demolition expert in the world".

YOU MADE THE CLAIM, YOU NEED TO BACK IT UP

[tfk]

I thought I suggested that all part A columns below, say floor 97, were undamaged prior part C impacting part A, but it could also be floor 96.


Since you seem to suffer from a raging case of ADD, let's take one thing at a time.

You seem to be getting a glimmer of the real picture with this statement. Do you agree with the damage assessment to the columns, floors and cross trusses of the 97th & 96th, as I have described it, when the THREE STORY HIGH 98th floor column assemblies buckle or pop free (i.e., connections fail)?

I agree with you that similar (virtually symmetrical) damage will get done to 99th & 100th floors of the upper Part C.

Answer this please, and then I will address the rest of your question.

Tom

[aggle-rithm]

So you go from "every demolition expert in the world" to "many". You lurkers notice how "truthers" are always being called liars even when the proof we were telling the truth is right there in front of your face. You see you are not supposed to scroll back up and look, you are simply supposed to believe what he says.

Now it seems like you are jumping back to "every". Can't make up your mind?

Someone listed 1 demolition expert that endorses the Official Conspiracy Theory, you have any others? I mean 1 is still a far cry from "every demolition expert in the world".

YOU MADE THE CLAIM, YOU NEED TO BACK IT UP

You're arguing semantics again.

Do you have ANY evidence of this controlled demolition you so desperately want to believe in?

[tfk]

Tom is probably already aware of this, but for non-participating readers, there is information unsaid that might escape you if you haven't been keeping up to date on the myth peddling by the "Truth" movement. And it is this: As far as the engineering, building safety, fire engineering, and architectural professions are concerned, there is actually zero silence on the issue of the NIST report's veracity. As I and others have pointed out before (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=145828&page=9), the ICC has not only accepted NISTs findings, but is already in process of integrating that knowledge into future building codes. Some of the findings - for example, the issue of fireproofing bonding, as well as an increase in the fire resistance rating of structural components and assemblies - directly address issues highlighted in the NIST report. Other changes are still being studied. But my point is that, while Tom is 100% correct about individuals not speaking up and signing petitions, creating groups, etc. regarding their acceptance of the NIST report, there's context here that someone who hasn't studied 9/11 might be missing, and that's that their professional bodies have indeed sounded off on the issue. And they unquestioningly accept NISTs findings. The ICC modifications to code prove that. And buildings built to codes developed with that knowledge, like the Beijing Mandarin (which by the way burnt down back in February), are further proof.

The bottom line is that there is indeed widespread acceptance of the NIST report. And it's not just rhetorical, it's actually practical acceptance.

EMH,

Nice catch.

I wouldn't want readers to be mislead, and as EMH points out, there is a huge, on-the-record consensus amongst the impacted fields that NIST got it right.

And that design procedures need to be adjusted to consider what was an unanticipated failure mode (the WTC7 collapse mechanism) and several changes (i.e., better thermal protection & more robust stairwells) for towers-type design.

I have not heard a single competent engineering group that has come up with a serious hole in the NIST report. The closest is Dr. Quintierre, who believes that the trusses played a larger role than NIST attributes to them.

And no competent engineers feel the need to invoke explosives to explain any of those buildings' collapses.

In my reply to SteveAustin, I was discussing only those engineers who have not published their agreement "on the record".

Tom

[SteveAustin]

You are wrong. (You are a "truther"--you are ALWAYS wrong.)

I hope everyone is paying attention, because this is the attitude from the vast majority of "debunkers" here. They are so convinced that "truthers" are ALWAYS wrong that they will always claim "truthers" are wrong no matter what.

This attitude. This stance does not allow for free debate, how can you debate with someone who comes into the debate saying you are wrong and you are always wrong.

They don't care about evidence, or facts, or science... "truthers are wrong and they are always wrong" is enough for them.

When claims are being made by a representative member of a group, as the Loizeaux family is unquestionably representative of the demolition industry, the claims stand unless challenged.

That is completely different than what you said up above, here let's get those 2 statements together so everyone can see it plainly...

The absence of any voiced disagreement by demolition professionals indicates a consensus.
When claims are being made by a representative member of a group, as the Loizeaux family is unquestionably representative of the demolition industry, the claims stand unless challenged.

You see, they are not the same thing. You are having a very difficult time trying to defend your absurd statement that an absence of voiced disagreement indicates consensus.

Why do you "debunkers" have to always be right at all costs even when it's so obvious you are wrong? I know, because that would allow that crack to appear and cast doubt in the eyes of some, and you cannot have anyone think you could be wrong about anything right? Problem for you is your tactic backfires, your defiant refusal to admit the obvious here shows people that if you do it for this obvious one then what else are you defiantly refusing to admit that might not be so obvious to some!!!



Nobody who works in demolition swallows the snake oil your insane movement peddles. There isn't demolition expert alive who thinks it would have feasible to smuggle tons of charges into the towers and then place them without anyone noticing. That you can't see your claims for the idiocy they are says something about you, not about sane people who don't share your problem.

Everyone again notice the constant slurs and insults? It's all part of the tactics, smear your opponent at every turn (this has the effect of scaring people off...usually subliminally...scaring people away from the topics and by default accepting the Official Conspiracy Theory, because most people are afraid to be labelled in this fashion)

OK so you again make a claim that you could not know is true. Tell me finewine, what is this the 5th time I ask you to provide proof of your claims here (not to mention deep44's and Bill's as well), are you ever going to prove that "every demolition expert in the world" endorses the Official Conspiracy Theory? Or are you simply going to repeat your statement like a mantra and hope that people will buy it?

[SteveAustin]

...

Hey newton, what was my original goal post that you claim I moved?

[bill smith]

Since you seem to suffer from a raging case of ADD, let's take one thing at a time.

You seem to be getting a glimmer of the real picture with this statement. Do you agree with the damage assessment to the columns, floors and cross trusses of the 97th & 96th, as I have described it, when the THREE STORY HIGH 98th floor column assemblies buckle or pop free (i.e., connections fail)?

I agree with you that similar (virtually symmetrical) damage will get done to 99th & 100th floors of the upper Part C.



Answer this please, and then I will address the rest of your question.

Tom

Part C fell directly down on part A. The only force on the upstanding giant core columns was therefore compressive. After a small amount of elastic absorence of the downward force these columns would have punctured any floor and stripped off any floor to column connection that they met. This would have ocurred before any plastic deformation of the upstanding columns was spossible seeing that the PE of the seperate descending components could never have overcome the general SE of the individual upstanding giant columns.

Furthermore as the upstanding columns buried themselves deeper in the descending body of part C that body would have provided lateral support for the upstanding columns.

[SteveAustin]

It's his argument that the collapses were CD. It is his responsibility to find evidence to support it. That would include finding some CD experts who agree with him, no?

Personally, I'm not making a claim. I'm not saying that the majority of CD experts agree with the 'official story'. The ones who have come out, implosionworld for example, are enough for me. Let's imagine for a moment that NO cd expert has come out one way or the other. What would YOU do to gather evidence for CD?

You guys are all very good at that little game. I have made no claim, I have asked finewine to prove HIS claim.

So NO, it is not MY argument. Nice try to deflect this back onto me however. Maybe next time it will even work.

BTW, you might want to talk to your buddy finewine and get him to realize what his 2 claims really are.

[tfk]

So you go from "every demolition expert in the world" to "many". You lurkers notice how "truthers" are always being called liars even when the proof we were telling the truth is right there in front of your face. You see you are not supposed to scroll back up and look, you are simply supposed to believe what he says.

Now it seems like you are jumping back to "every". Can't make up your mind?

Someone listed 1 demolition expert that endorses the Official Conspiracy Theory, you have any others? I mean 1 is still a far cry from "every demolition expert in the world".

YOU MADE THE CLAIM, YOU NEED TO BACK IT UP
.
So, let me see if I have this straight.

Your case is built upon the "rock solid" foundation that:

"Every expert in the field does not disagree with me. It's only ALMOST every expert in the field who disagrees with me."

Ever heard the expression "damned by faint praise"??

Perhaps you'd better get back to arguing the specifics and stop sifting thru haystacks looking for that "alternative experts" needle.

Tom

[SteveAustin]

His beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with FineWine's claim about what every demolition expert in the world believes.

This really shouldn't be all that difficult to understand.

Deep44, they all understand it perfectly, but finewine got himself into a fine pickle and the only way everyone sees to get out of it is to dodge and weave and try and turn everything around onto us "truthers"

They do this ALL THE TIME.

Edit:
It isn't. It's clear that you're trying to avoid the issue by focusing on semantics.

See what I mean. That's a perfect example.

[SteveAustin]

.
Steve,

What is your profession?

There are perhaps 30 different professions that have a role in the events of 9/11. Structural engineering, computer modeling, corrosion, aviation, etc.

Mine is mechanical engineering.

Even tho I post here and one other 9/11 thread, I haven't come out to anyone and said "NIST is right". Even tho I believe that to be the case. (To the 98th percentile.) Because the things that I think that they got wrong are trivial and inconsequential to their conclusions.

But if I found something that violated some mechanical engineering principle (say they said the steel lost strength at 150°C), you can bet your ass that I'd point it out. Loudly. And there would be no ignoring it on the part of NIST. Because every mechanical engineer in the country would be demading an explanation just as vocally.

So, in that respect, I believe that it IS valid to say that, in a case that is SO momentous, silence does indicate assent.

It certainly does in my case.

Tom

That's a well written and thought out response, and it is utter nonsense. Your belief that it is valid does not make it valid, regardless of how momentous an event it is.

In this case you are simplifying a complex issue into what you believe people would do in a certain situation.

But it's nice to know you are another one who believes that an absence of voiced dissent means they consent. This can discredit your critical thinking or that is your lack thereof.

The more of you who speak up like this the more people will see how very many of you here have skewed beliefs

[Grizzly Bear]

But it's nice to know you are another one who believes that an absence of voiced dissent means they consent.
Active changes in building codes aren't valid indications?

[tfk]

Bill, please...


Part C fell driectly down on part A.

.
Close.


The only force on the upstanding giant core columns was therefore compressive.

.
No.


After a small amount of elastic absorence of the downward force these colmns would have punctured any floor and stripped off any floor to column connection that hey met.

.
Even after translating this into actual, you know, "English"... No.


This would have ocurred before any plastic deformation of the upstanding columns was spossible seeing that the PE of the seperate descending components could never have overcome the general SE of the individual upstanding giant columns.

.
No.


Furthermore as the upstanding columns buried themselves deeper in the descending body of part C that body would have provided lateral support for the upstanding columns.

.
No.

If I wanted this sort of a technical conversation this morning, I would have engaged the Chihuahua. Even tho yappy, he is far less annoying than you are.

You see, the Chihuahua doesn't possess delusions of technical competence.

tom

[Gamolon]

Let's look at the outer tube! How can a square ring of perimeter assemblies in part C, side 60 m, contact the same ring in part A? Are the two rings aligned or off set a little. Probably the latter and in that case two C sides contact nothing and the other two sides contact an A floor, 96 or 97 at your choice.

Similar happens to the four A sides! Two A sides are outside part C and two A sides contact a C floor, say it is floor 98.

The contact is thus unsymmetric and the local failures that would follow, if such a collision took place, are also unsymmetric. One thing is sure. The lowest part C floor is going to get locally damaged by some A columns.

And that's the start of part A arresting part C in its decent.

Another contradiction.

You say two walls of perimeter columns will contact the floor.

Can you please explain why you have this drawing of WTC1/WTC2 showing the perimeter columns SPEARING the concrete floors and breaking them into nice long slabs? Why do you not show what you have claimed above?

http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/WTC1slicea.gif

Please. Explain why you show the perimeter columns spearing the concrete floor andn then say that two walls of perimeter columns would collide with the floor below creating LOCAL failures.

[SteveAustin]

.

Tell ya what. I believe that at least 90% of all engineers, if they found something grossly wrong in their field, would scream bloody murder.

I'm stretching to come up with 10% that might not.

Again your beliefs on what others would or would not do is totally irrelevant. No one has shown that "every demolition expert in the world" supports the Official Conspiracy Theory, and no one can. So you are left with trying to convince people that your beliefs that people would speak up if they didn't believe is actually true. IT'S NOT WORKING.

.There are many hundreds to low thousands of engineers pouring thru the analysis. If even a few of them found something flawed, they would bring others' attention to that particular issue. And an growing mass would recognize the flaw, and an uproar would gather.

That hasn't happened.

That's a lie and you know it Tom. Check out www.ae911truth.org and www.patriotsquestion911.com

Both of those sites lists hundreds of relevant experts (not just engineers) that have found many flaws in the Official Conspiracy Theory and are speaking out and are bringing this information to the attention of others. And it is growing.

The fact you try to make this claim pins you quite firmly in the camp of people who know the truth but are purposely trying to hide the facts so others do not see it.

Thank you Tom.

.And it is impossible for me to believe that over 500 (very conservatively) engineers who know that there is something fishy going on, but have remained silent.

My opinion. But I think a very defensible one.

Tom

[SteveAustin]

.
So, let me see if I have this straight.

Your case is built upon the "rock solid" foundation that:

"Every expert in the field does not disagree with me. It's only ALMOST every expert in the field who disagrees with me."

Ever heard the expression "damned by faint praise"??

Perhaps you'd better get back to arguing the specifics and stop sifting thru haystacks looking for that "alternative experts" needle.

Tom

What case Tom?

Is everyone still paying attention. I have made no case, I have made no argument. Finewine made a statement and has not been able to back it up. I have been asking him...repeatedly...to back up his claim, but he cannot do so.

So, like some of the other posts above, we have Tom here using a tactic of trying to turn things around and lay it all at my feet.

Again Tom, you will have to do much better than that to get finewine out of his mess.

[bill smith]

Bill, please...


.
Close.


.
No.


.
Even after translating this into actual, you know, "English"... No.


.
No.


.
No.

If I wanted this sort of a technical conversation this morning, I would have engaged the Chihuahua. Even tho yappy, he is far less annoying than you are.

You see, the Chihuahua doesn't possess delusions of technical competence.

tom

The relative lack of insults and the complete lack of any technical rebuttal makes your reply look weak T. As we all know you are a great believer in the power of perceptiion as are most propagandists. Perception is working against you here.

[ElMondoHummus]

I have not heard a single competent engineering group that has come up with a serious hole in the NIST report. The closest is Dr. Quintierre, who believes that the trusses played a larger role than NIST attributes to them.


Well, there's also Astaneh-Asl, and he's spoken up on what he sees are the issues surrounding the WTC's exemption from certain NYC building codes (http://lettrist.blogspot.com/2006/09/berkeley-engineer-searches-for-truth.html). I defer to experts about whether his complaint has merit or not, but to this layman, he at least seems to be making a professional argument based on facts. So even if he's wrong (and I'm not qualified to judge that) he's still in a way different ballpark than the truther heros.

And as an aside: I believe the gist of Dr. Quintierre's complaint was that he says NIST overestimates the ability of fireproofing to protect assemblies. I thought he also had a subcomplaint about NIST not properly estimating the fuel load on the fire engulfed floors, and therefore underestimated the severity of the fires. On this, too, I defer to experts in the relevant field, but that's how I understand it.

BTW Tom, don't mistake the above for being an attempt to correct. It's not. It's a clarification to what you said. Of course, the issue of fireproofing and fire fueling has an effect on how the floor trusses survive the fires.


And no competent engineers feel the need to invoke explosives to explain any of those buildings' collapses.


Amen. Everyone else: It's worth highlighting my previous point, and that's that the professionals who accept the NIST findings don't demonstrate their support with petitions or silly talks to gullible audiences. They demonstrate it by putting the knowledge to practical use. Again, the Beijing Mandarin was built to standards developed with the knowledge of the 9/11 structural failures in mind, and the fact that it did not suffer the same failure modes helps to demonstrate the accuracy of that knowledge.

[ElMondoHummus]

Oh, also:

EMH,

Nice catch.


:o Heh... thanks. I was actually just being a mite pedantic in order to clarify things for the casual reader. But I appreciate the compliment. :)

[Grizzly Bear]

What case Tom? I have made no case, I have made no argument.

You've been derailing the thread with this crap, so since you finally did make an argument:


That's a lie and you know it Tom. Check out www.ae911truth.org and www.patriotsquestion911.com

Both of those sites lists hundreds of relevant experts (not just engineers) that have found many flaws in the Official Conspiracy Theory and are speaking out and are bringing this information to the attention of others. And it is growing.


Let me introduce you to one of their members; he's an active poster here -- I'm sure you know him by now. His forum username is Heiwa, creator of this model:

http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/WTC1slicea.gif

Which he contends demonstrates that the collapse of the towers was impossible. Here's a quiz for you, what's wrong with this model? I could tell you now but I want to see what you're thoughts are first, afterall this wouldn't be much of a quiz if the answer were given on a silver platter. Also I'd like to know if you have any questions to any of the engineers participating in this thread on the areas I highlighted here: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4899847&postcount=2397

being that your knowledge base seems to derive from the result of AE911's malpractice.

[Gamolon]

You've been derailing the thread with this crap, so since you finally did make an argument:



Let me introduce you to one of their members; he's an active poster here -- I'm sure you know him by now. His forum username is Heiwa, creator of this model:

http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/WTC1slicea.gif

Which he contends demonstrates that the collapse of the towers was impossible. Here's a quiz for you, what's wrong with this model? I could tell you now but I want to see what you're thoughts are first, afterall this wouldn't be much of a quiz if the answer were given on a silver platter. Also I'd like to know if you have any questions to any of the engineers participating in this thread on the areas I highlighted here: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4899847&postcount=2397

being that your knowledge base seems to derive from the result of AE911's malpractice.

What I want to know, and Heiwa has not answered, is why he shows the perimeter columns spearing the red concrete floors and breaking them into nice slabs lengthwise. Either that or he is showing us that the "L" shaped floor truss connection brackets were strong enough to withstand the upper mass coming down onto the concrete floor and not shear or bend, but break the concrete floor.

Heiwa has yet to explain this diagram other than that fact that it is a diagram "of a structure", and not WTC1. Even WITH the antenna on top.

[Justin39640]

Another contradiction.

You say two walls of perimeter columns will contact the floor.

Can you please explain why you have this drawing of WTC1/WTC2 showing the perimeter columns SPEARING the concrete floors and breaking them into nice long slabs? Why do you not show what you have claimed above?

http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/WTC1slicea.gif

Please. Explain why you show the perimeter columns spearing the concrete floor andn then say that two walls of perimeter columns would collide with the floor below creating LOCAL failures.

its really like watching a lecture from the "Tom and Jerry School of Physics"

ETA:reading a paper

[ElMondoHummus]

http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/WTC1slicea.gif

... Here's a quiz for you, what's wrong with this model?

For the benefit of casual non-participants: Look at D and E in the above image. Given that the vertical columns require horizontal support from the floor to stay standing, what's supposed to keep them vertical when the elements that are supposed to keep them standing are taken away?

That's just one flaw. Grizzly and other posters can highlight other problems for you. The point is that many conspiracy peddlers here wholesale many excuses and "explanations" for their beliefs, but all of them fail under the light of scrutiny. Some require more explanation than others - as a topic completely separate from the structural engineering issues we're discussing here in this thread, do a search in this forum sometime for "PNAC" or "New Pearl Harbor", or as a chemical issue, "microspheres"; you'll see that those requires some detail to truly understand - but in the end, they all have failed.

That's a terrible track record. It's also why you see so much appeal to authority brought by the conspiracy peddlers. Yes, we all fall prey to it, but beyond the authority lies what they say, and it's the analsysis of that where we see who's authority speaks correctly, and who's speaks out of their... well... you know. Their:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1238649872cf356a46.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=15141)

[Justin39640]

For the benefit of casual non-participants: Look at D and E in the above image. Given that the vertical columns require horizontal support from the floor to stay standing, what's supposed to keep them vertical when the elements that are supposed to keep them standing are taken away?

That's just one flaw. Grizzly and other posters can highlight other problems for you. The point is that many conspiracy peddlers here wholesale many excuses and "explanations" for their beliefs, but all of them fail under the light of scrutiny. Some require more explanation than others - as a topic completely separate from the structural engineering issues we're discussing here in this thread, do a search in this forum sometime for "PNAC" or "New Pearl Harbor", or as a chemical issue, "microspheres"; you'll see that those requires some detail to truly understand - but in the end, they all have failed.

That's a terrible track record. It's also why you see so much appeal to authority brought by the conspiracy peddlers. Yes, we all fall prey to it, but beyond the authority lies what they say, and it's the analsysis of that where we see who's authority speaks correctly, and who's speaks out of their... well... you know. Their:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1238649872cf356a46.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=15141)

Gages cardboard box demonstration holds more water than this silly cartoon lol

[Justin39640]

and now H man is gonna come back with
"thats any building not the... blah"
even if it was a box type design
i read those have less redundancy than the towers did
so even for that this silliness is just wrong

any ETA on his paper?
i cant wait

[ElMondoHummus]

Gages cardboard box demonstration holds more water than this silly cartoon lol

Well, that's because those are 3 dimensional objects and they have volume.

:duck:

[/literal smartaleckiness] :D

[Gamolon]

I just noticed something. Hewia, trying to sidestep the errors shwon concerning his diagram, explained that the diagram below is "of a structure" and not of the WTC1 tower.
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/WTC1slicea.gif

If that is the case, then why does he say "TOWER" beneath figure A? Why is there an antenna on the "TOWER" like WTC1?

I also noticed the under figure C, Heiwa says that the "floors hinge down aroung the undamaged connection!". How is that possible?! Heiwa, are you claiming that 120 square tube columns, in two walls of 60 each, come down upon the edge of the concrete floors, and the "L" shaped truss connections were strong enough to resist that weight? Not only that, the "L" shape truss connections were strong enough to BREAK the concrete floor into nice slabs at each connection? How in the world did those truss connection on the perimeter columns do that?

[Grizzly Bear]

What I want to know, and Heiwa has not answered, is why he shows the perimeter columns spearing the red concrete floors and breaking them into nice slabs lengthwise. Either that or he is showing us that the "L" shaped floor truss connection brackets were strong enough to withstand the upper mass coming down onto the concrete floor and not shear or bend, but break the concrete floor.

Heiwa has yet to explain this diagram other than that fact that it is a diagram "of a structure", and not WTC1. Even WITH the antenna on top.
Last time I brought it up to him... months ago... his argument was that friction would cause everything to pack in and halt mid-collapse. Whatever that means... I'm not counting on a very substantial response to that question from him.


For the benefit of casual non-participants: Look at D and E in the above image. Given that the vertical columns require horizontal support from the floor to stay standing, what's supposed to keep them vertical when the elements that are supposed to keep them standing are taken away?
Silence!!!!

http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/7631/silence.png

No heeeents allowed in test!!!

On a more serious note... AE911's work contains more holes than the grains of sand on the planets' beaches. More than enough people have pointed out their inaccuracies, and I can name numerous ones without ever referencing the NIST report, or for that matter referencing to the WTC at all... If steve or deep were ever wondering why I said the minority numbers are "just a bonus" this would be why. Their errors don't just lie in their research of the WTC collapses, but also in their very procedure.

[bill smith]

Well, there's also Astaneh-Asl, and he's spoken up on what he sees are the issues surrounding the WTC's exemption from certain NYC building codes (http://lettrist.blogspot.com/2006/09/berkeley-engineer-searches-for-truth.html). I defer to experts about whether his complaint has merit or not, but to this layman, he at least seems to be making a professional argument based on facts. So even if he's wrong (and I'm not qualified to judge that) he's still in a way different ballpark than the truther heros.

And as an aside: I believe the gist of Dr. Quintierre's complaint was that he says NIST overestimates the ability of fireproofing to protect assemblies. I thought he also had a subcomplaint about NIST not properly estimating the fuel load on the fire engulfed floors, and therefore underestimated the severity of the fires. On this, too, I defer to experts in the relevant field, but that's how I understand it.

BTW Tom, don't mistake the above for being an attempt to correct. It's not. It's a clarification to what you said. Of course, the issue of fireproofing and fire fueling has an effect on how the floor trusses survive the fires.



Amen. Everyone else: It's worth highlighting my previous point, and that's that the professionals who accept the NIST findings don't demonstrate their support with petitions or silly talks to gullible audiences. They demonstrate it by putting the knowledge to practical use. Again, the Beijing Mandarin was built to standards developed with the knowledge of the 9/11 structural failures in mind, and the fact that it did not suffer the same failure modes helps to demonstrate the accuracy of that knowledge.

Do you know which specific changes were made to conform to lessons learnt from 9/11 ? Or are you talking out of your other end ?

[newton3376]

I have made no case, I have made no argument.

Couldn't have said it better myself....

I have been asking him...repeatedly...to back up his claim, but he cannot do so.

[Justin39640]

Do you know which specific changes were made to conform to lessons learnt from 9/11 ? Or are you talking out of your other end ?

yeah check out a post 9/11 design
built by our buddy les :)
Ejc4o4dDN3s

[Heiwa]

I just noticed something. Hewia, trying to sidestep the errors shwon concerning his diagram, explained that the diagram below is "of a structure" and not of the WTC1 tower.
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/WTC1slicea.gif

If that is the case, then why does he say "TOWER" beneath figure A? Why is there an antenna on the "TOWER" like WTC1?

I also noticed the under figure C, Heiwa says that the "floors hinge down aroung the undamaged connection!". How is that possible?! Heiwa, are you claiming that 120 square tube columns, in two walls of 60 each, come down upon the edge of the concrete floors, and the "L" shaped truss connections were strong enough to resist that weight? Not only that, the "L" shape truss connections were strong enough to BREAK the concrete floor into nice slabs at each connection? How in the world did those truss connection on the perimeter columns do that?

Thanks for copy/paste my figure from section 1.3 of may paper at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm about Help understanding the Destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Debunking the Conspiracy Theory of Prof. Bazant. It is quite simple! A piece cannot crush a bigger part of itself.

All your questions are answered in the paper. Please read it first ... and then we can discuss.

[deep]

Again, the Beijing Mandarin was built to standards developed with the knowledge of the 9/11 structural failures in mind, and the fact that it did not suffer the same failure modes helps to demonstrate the accuracy of that knowledge.


How did you determine that those new standards were the reason it did not suffer the same failure modes?

You're telling us that it helps to demonstrate the accuracy of that knowledge, but how did you arrive at that conclusion?

[FineWine]

.

Tell ya what. I believe that at least 90% of all engineers, if they found something grossly wrong in their field, would scream bloody murder.

I'm stretching to come up with 10% that might not.

There are many hundreds to low thousands of engineers pouring thru the analysis. If even a few of them found something flawed, they would bring others' attention to that particular issue. And an growing mass would recognize the flaw, and an uproar would gather.

That hasn't happened.

And it is impossible for me to believe that over 500 (very conservatively) engineers who know that there is something fishy going on, but have remained silent.

My opinion. But I think a very defensible one.

Tom


You are, as usual, quite correct. My assertion that ALL demolition experts reject the conspiracy rubbish was intended--obviously--to be provocative. I indicated as much by acknowledging that lunatics could be produced who would gleefully deny that the North won the Civil War. Predictably, desperate "truthers" are clinging to the deliberate exaggeration, trying to make some sort of point. Let's see what survives their typically disingenuous effort.

IT REMAINS A FACT THAT NO DEMOLITION EXPERTS HAVE CHALLENGED THE POSITION ESTABLISHED BY PROMINENT REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DEMOLITION INDUSTRY. NO--ZERO--DEMOLITION EXPERTS HAVE LENT ANY CREDENCE TO THE MYTH THAT EXPLOSIVES BROUGHT DOWN THE TWIN TOWERS.

That's what is left. "Truthers" make baseless, implausible claims about a subject that demolition professionals know more about than anyone else. Not a single demolition professional has sided with the "truthers."

[tfk]

That's a well written and thought out response, and it is utter nonsense. Your belief that it is valid does not make it valid, regardless of how momentous an event it is.

.
A major part of my response was telling you
a) what I would do if I found an egregious engineering error in the NIST report, and
b) what I would do if I heard that some other engineer (or anyone) found a significant flaw in NIST's arguments.

This is NOT "belief". It is not "speculation".


In this case you are simplifying a complex issue into what you believe people would do in a certain situation.

.
Once again, you are wrong. I am not speculating about what others would do under those circumstances. I am TELLING you what I would do.

And my extrapolation (what you disparagingly call "belief") is NOT "baseless speculation".

It is based on my 35 years interactions with other engineers.

In that time, I found out that engineers are curious, as patriotic as any other profession, diverse in their political persuasions, and, above all, LOVE finding mistakes in other engineers' work.

And especially because engineers are ornery contrarians, and NOBODY is gonna censor our commentary, especially not some pencil-neck bureaucrat, politician or lawyer.

Finally, MY job is easy. I've got to point out just a few engineers who will point out any existent flaws.
Your job is indefensible. You are suggesting that engineers who love justice & this country would remain silent.

Finally, as proof that the scientist & engineers will NOT stay silent, and that the gov't can NOT silence them:

The Global Warming debate.
The evolution debates (100s of them).
The evolution vs. creations debate.
The sociobiology debate.
Genetics debates.
Nuclear winter debates.
etc. etc. etc.

Sorry. Your proposition simply fails.

NOT from speculation. From experiment & experience.


But it's nice to know you are another one who believes that an absence of voiced dissent means they consent.

.
I believe that an absence of voiced dissent means an absence of unvoiced dissent.
I believe that the existence of real, unvoiced dissent lead INEXORABLY to the existence of voiced dissent.

There is NO informed, voiced dissent.
There is amateur, incompetent, voiced dissent. This is NOT the same thing.


This can discredit your critical thinking or that is your lack thereof.
The more of you who speak up like this the more people will see how very many of you here have skewed beliefs

.
A cornerstone of your contention is that there are thousands of engineers who know that the NIST report contains KNOWN gross errors or outright fraud.

The only "skewed belief" on display in that contention, Steve, is the snot-nosed, wet-behind-the-ears, acne enhanced, Young&Stupid but unshakable conviction that "WE (in this case, "truthers") are the only honest, honorable people on the planet".

Most folks grow out of this delusion long about the time the acne clears up.
.
.
As respectfully as I can muster at the moment,

Tom

[FineWine]

So you go from "every demolition expert in the world" to "many". You lurkers notice how "truthers" are always being called liars even when the proof we were telling the truth is right there in front of your face. You see you are not supposed to scroll back up and look, you are simply supposed to believe what he says.

Now it seems like you are jumping back to "every". Can't make up your mind?

Someone listed 1 demolition expert that endorses the Official Conspiracy Theory, you have any others? I mean 1 is still a far cry from "every demolition expert in the world".

YOU MADE THE CLAIM, YOU NEED TO BACK IT UP


You don't think very well, do you?

"Every expert accepts Theory A."
"Many of those experts have expressed their support for Theory A."

YOU see a contradiction here. Homeland Insurgency sees a contradiction when Stacey Loizeaux asserts that all demolition companies strive to use the minimum amount of explosives necessary to do the job, while she simultaneously asserts that "many tons" of explosives would have been necessary to bring down the towers.

It's really quite simple. There are no contradictions. Sorry.

Perhaps you really are stupid enough to be unable to reproduce the list of demolition companies that reject the "truther" lies that I posted after copying it from an old thread. That's your problem

Your biggest problem, however, is the one you are painfully aware of. It's finding ONE demolition expert who swallows your snake oil about the colllapses of the towers.

I suggest that you keep tap dancing. You will never produce that single elusive expert.

[FineWine]

I hope everyone is paying attention, because this is the attitude from the vast majority of "debunkers" here. They are so convinced that "truthers" are ALWAYS wrong that they will always claim "truthers" are wrong no matter what.

This attitude. This stance does not allow for free debate, how can you debate with someone who comes into the debate saying you are wrong and you are always wrong.

They don't care about evidence, or facts, or science... "truthers are wrong and they are always wrong" is enough for them.



That is completely different than what you said up above, here let's get those 2 statements together so everyone can see it plainly...




You see, they are not the same thing. You are having a very difficult time trying to defend your absurd statement that an absence of voiced disagreement indicates consensus.

Why do you "debunkers" have to always be right at all costs even when it's so obvious you are wrong? I know, because that would allow that crack to appear and cast doubt in the eyes of some, and you cannot have anyone think you could be wrong about anything right? Problem for you is your tactic backfires, your defiant refusal to admit the obvious here shows people that if you do it for this obvious one then what else are you defiantly refusing to admit that might not be so obvious to some!!!





Everyone again notice the constant slurs and insults? It's all part of the tactics, smear your opponent at every turn (this has the effect of scaring people off...usually subliminally...scaring people away from the topics and by default accepting the Official Conspiracy Theory, because most people are afraid to be labelled in this fashion)

OK so you again make a claim that you could not know is true. Tell me finewine, what is this the 5th time I ask you to provide proof of your claims here (not to mention deep44's and Bill's as well), are you ever going to prove that "every demolition expert in the world" endorses the Official Conspiracy Theory? Or are you simply going to repeat your statement like a mantra and hope that people will buy it?



As recognition of the dimensions of your defeat slowly creeps past the brick wall that encompasses your mind, you give away your game. You always do your best (and I gotta tell ya, it's real poor) to disguise the brute fact (as William James put it) that YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

When "truthers" devoid of critical thinking skills dishonestly fling around the label "absurd," we all know enough to prick up our ears. Those so-called absurdities will invariably prove to be inconvenient truths.

The assertion that the total absence of voiced disagreement indicates consensus is, of course, very far from being absurd: it is a truism. There are thousands of people in the demolition industry. Surely ONE of them could be expected to dissent from the consensus view. Where is that the solitary champion? Find him.

It is comical that you, a highly irrational person wedded to nonsense-beliefs for purely emotional reasons, should invoke science. The sane side has all the real science. Your side has bogus fabrications and outright falsehoods. Brent Blanchard's paper presents demolition science. With what do you oppose it? The mouth-breathing "truthers" here never get beyond calling Blanchard names. Show us your "science." In almost eight years, you have given us cynical theologians hustling drooling morons, failed architects earning a living by conning ignorant suckers, and obtuse, agenda-driven fools peddling pseudo-scientific crackpottery to true believers.

SHOW US ONE CLAIM MADE BY YOUR INSANE MOVEMENT THAT CAN STAND SCRUTINY.

[Gamolon]

Thanks for copy/paste my figure from section 1.3 of may paper at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm about Help understanding the Destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Debunking the Conspiracy Theory of Prof. Bazant. It is quite simple! A piece cannot crush a bigger part of itself.

All your questions are answered in the paper. Please read it first ... and then we can discuss.

No they are not. I am questioning your diagram and the captions beneath a couple of the figures. I am trying to understand your paper/website, but there are contradictions and wrong information contained in them that need to be corrected in order to make sense of it.

Why are you sidestepping my questions when all you have to do is answer them?

In your diagram, you show WTC1. You claim that the concrete floors "hinged" around the connections on the columns? Are you claiming that the "L" shaped truss connections of the floors were strong enough to cause the concrete floor slab to "hinge" around them when the 2 walls of perimeter columns, containing 60 square box columns per wall, came down upon 2 edges of the concrete floors?
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/WTC1slicea.gif

It says right there in figure C. You are claiming that the concrete floors would have hinged around the undamaged truss connections.

Explain how that is possible.

[FineWine]

You guys are all very good at that little game. I have made no claim, I have asked finewine to prove HIS claim.

So NO, it is not MY argument. Nice try to deflect this back onto me however. Maybe next time it will even work.

BTW, you might want to talk to your buddy finewine and get him to realize what his 2 claims really are.


My claim is that members of the demolition industry are united in rejecting the baseless lies about the collapses of the towers promoted by ignorant, agenda-driven "truthers."

Spare us your disingenuous prattle and find the demolition expert who disagrees.

[FineWine]

This is the official government position regarding the demolitions of the Twin Towers and Building seven. Somebody should write up a motivated tebuttal to most oftheir reasoning. It's sure nice to have it under their signature as of may 5th 2009.

'' Numerous unfounded conspiracy theories about the September 11 attacks continue to circulate, especially on the Internet. Some of the most popular myths are:

1) The World Trade Center (WTC) twin towers were destroyed by controlled demolitions.

This is how the collapses may have appeared to non-experts, but demolition experts point out many differences:

• Demolition professionals always blow the bottom floors of a structure first, but the WTC tower collapses began at the upper levels, where the planes hit the buildings.

• Non-experts claim that debris seen blowing out of windows was evidence of explosive charges, but experts identify this as air and light office contents (paper, pulverized concrete, etc.) being forced out of windows as floors collapsed on each other.

• Demolition firms had very sensitive seismographs operating at other sites in Manhattan on September 11. None recorded signs of any explosions prior to the tower collapses. Instead, seismic spikes were noted when debris began hitting the ground.

• Cutting away walls, insulation, plumbing, and electrical conduits to place numerous charges on the towers’ structural columns in advance would not have gone unnoticed.

• Clean-up crews found none of the telltale signs of controlled demolitions that would have existed if explosive charges had been used.

• For more information, see ImplosionWorld’s article (PDF, 56 K) on the WTC collapses, the March 2005 Popular Mechanics, parts 4 and 5, “The Attack on the World Trade Center Towers,” and the video 9/11 Debunked: Controlled Demolition Not Possible.''
http://www.america.gov/st/webchat-english/2009/May/20060828133846esnamfuaK0.2676355.html


Yeah, one of the frauds who lead you by the nose really should attempt to rebut those terribly inconvenient FACTS that you posted.

[FineWine]

Active changes in building codes aren't valid indications?


No, too reality-based, too indicative of the way real people think.

[alienentity]

Steve, I think you've made your point, which is that the phrase 'every demolitions expert' is an exaggeration, since we can't possibly know what every expert thinks (either way).

However, since you chose to bring up the example of Mr. Jowenko as an expert who believes that WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition, but who agrees with (as you put it) the 'official conspiracy theory' when it comes to the WTC towers, you still are missing any demolition expert who thinks otherwise!!

Here's a simple question for you then - since you apparently believe that the WTC tower collapses were due to explosive demolition, can you provide at least one leading or significant demolitions expert who backs up this claim?

If not, your theory is not supported by industry experts, which weakens it considerably.

You are in a paradoxical situation at the moment regarding demolition experts - you do realize this I hope... If you are going to take Mr. Jowenko at his word, then you must accept that the WTC towers did not collapse due to CD. It's that simple.
Otherwise you must reject his testimony altogether as useless.

You can't have it both ways and remain credible. Sorry.

[FineWine]

Deep44, they all understand it perfectly, but finewine got himself into a fine pickle and the only way everyone sees to get out of it is to dodge and weave and try and turn everything around onto us "truthers"

They do this ALL THE TIME.

Edit:


See what I mean. That's a perfect example.


My "pickle" stands rock-solid (call it, intellectual Viagra). Here comes that flounder across your face again:

NO ONE IN THE DEMOLITION INDUSTRY HAS DISSENTED FROM THE CONSENSUS THAT HOLDS THAT THE COLLAPSES OF THE TOWERS DID NOT RESEMBLE CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS.

Show us your elusive exception.

[alienentity]

To put it another way, using only part of Mr. Jowenko's testimony (quote mining) and ignoring or dismissing the other is not only intellectually dishonest, it is very foolish.

If scientific consensus says 'the moon is not made of cheese', but expert A says, 'the moon is not made of cheese, but Mars IS made of cheese' do you really want to go with expert A?

Your call, it's your choice if you want to be that stupid. I wouldn't recommend it.

And btw, it is not a conspiracy theory to hold that the towers collapsed due to plane impacts and fires. I think you are confusing the issues (perhaps deliberately).

[FineWine]

.

I believe that an absence of voiced dissent means an absence of unvoiced dissent.
I believe that the existence of real, unvoiced dissent lead INEXORABLY to the existence of voiced dissent.

There is NO informed, voiced dissent.
There is amateur, incompetent, voiced dissent. This is NOT the same thing.
.
A cornerstone of your contention is that there are thousands of engineers who know that the NIST report contains KNOWN gross errors or outright fraud.

The only "skewed belief" on display in that contention, Steve, is the snot-nosed, wet-behind-the-ears, acne enhanced, Young&Stupid but unshakable conviction that "WE (in this case, "truthers") are the only honest, honorable people on the planet".

Most folks grow out of this delusion long about the time the acne clears up.

As respectfully as I can muster at the moment,

Tom



Superb. Aggressive stupidity coupled with agenda-driven ignorance can't compete with respect for reason and long professional experience.

[FineWine]

Again your beliefs on what others would or would not do is totally irrelevant. No one has shown that "every demolition expert in the world" supports the Official Conspiracy Theory, and no one can. So you are left with trying to convince people that your beliefs that people would speak up if they didn't believe is actually true. IT'S NOT WORKING.



That's a lie and you know it Tom. Check out www.ae911truth.org and www.patriotsquestion911.com

Both of those sites lists hundreds of relevant experts (not just engineers) that have found many flaws in the Official Conspiracy Theory and are speaking out and are bringing this information to the attention of others. And it is growing.

The fact you try to make this claim pins you quite firmly in the camp of people who know the truth but are purposely trying to hide the facts so others do not see it.

Thank you Tom.


Gage's frauds, as you have been told countless times, are not experts. They are agenda-driven cranks. Gage is a failed architect who has never worked on a building larger than a gymnasium. Pegelow, a guy who works on oil rigs, believes that the towers were nuked. Rice is in his late eighties and has never read anything on 9/11 not written by a conspiracy nut. Bjorkman is, well, Bjorkman. These idiots have not found any flaws in the real science of the sane side.

[FineWine]

Thanks for copy/paste my figure from section 1.3 of may paper at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm about Help understanding the Destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Debunking the Conspiracy Theory of Prof. Bazant. It is quite simple! A piece cannot crush a bigger part of itself.

All your questions are answered in the paper. Please read it first ... and then we can discuss.




Your paper is incompetent garbage. Answer his question!

[alienentity]

Heiwa wrote '... the Destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Debunking the Conspiracy Theory of Prof. Bazant.'

What conspiracy theory? Since when is Crush Down/ Crush Up a conspiracy theory?:confused:

[tfk]

Steve,



Tell ya what. I believe that at least 90% of all engineers, if they found something grossly wrong in their field, would scream bloody murder.


Again your beliefs on what others would or would not do is totally irrelevant. No one has shown that "every demolition expert in the world" supports the Official Conspiracy Theory, and no one can. So you are left with trying to convince people that your beliefs that people would speak up if they didn't believe is actually true. IT'S NOT WORKING.

.
It is A FACT, not a belief, that I would disclose any fraud or significant error that I might find in the NIST report. Publicly & persistently.

It is A FACT, not a belief, that 90+% of the 150 or so engineers & scientists that I have known very well would do the same.

It is my strong & constantly supported experience that the same rules of behavior that I see in myself & in the world around me apply to the world at large. That the vast majority of people are honest & honorable. And that virtually ZERO professionals (engineers, scientists, doctors, etc) are intimidated by any public official to the extent that we will censor our opinions.

And I do NOT need "people to speak up". I need 0.001% of competent engineers, or 0.1% of competent engineers, or 1% of competent engineers - or just ONE competent engineer - to speak up. Since there are several million of them in the US alone (about 90% of them competent), this would produce a sizable army of dissent.

Your suggestion, that thousands of competent engineers would know of gross errors and/or fraud and would keep silent, is an adolescent fantasy.

Proven by the very public debate of all manner of controversies by competent scientists & engineers in our culture.


There are many hundreds to low thousands of engineers pouring thru the analysis. If even a few of them found something flawed, they would bring others' attention to that particular issue. And an growing mass would recognize the flaw, and an uproar would gather.

That hasn't happened.



That's a lie and you know it Tom.


I strongly suspect that you are a kid. (At my age, this is anyone under 30.) I recognize that, in the day of the internet, it is quite common to call someone "a liar". My generation considered that to be rude & insulting. In previous generations, it'd get you shot. As I get more annoyed at such childish antics, I find myself more & more convinced by Robert Heinlein's observation that "An armed society is a polite society." And wishing that I lived in a more polite society.

It is not a lie. I do not "know that it is".


Check out www.ae911truth.org (http://www.ae911truth.org) and www.patriotsquestion911.com (http://www.patriotsquestion911.com)

Both of those sites lists hundreds of relevant experts (not just engineers) that have found many flaws in the Official Conspiracy Theory...


A portion of my statement is my defensible opinion. A second portion is self-evident FACT.

My opinions include:
Looking thru the list of backgrounds of the people listed, very few (perhaps 10%) of them have backgrounds that are directly relevant.

The undeniable facts include:

a) A large percent of the members are self-acknowledged baby engineers (within 6 years of graduation.) They are not yet sufficiently experienced.

b) ANYONE who says "I knew the day I saw those towers collapse that ..." is incompetent. Any competent professional knows enough to wait for a competent, professional analysis. The number of people at ae911t who said "I knew immediately it was a demo" proves that those folks are amateurs.

c) The folks at ae911t are PROVABLY incompetent. If they were competent, they would have published AT LEAST 100 peer reviewed papers by now pointing out exactly where NIST made errors. The FACT that they have not done so PROVES WITHOUT QUESTION that they are incompetent. Or perhaps lazy. But productivity is an essential component of "competence".

The only product that they have produced are a couple of nonsense papers that have been published in a nonsense journal (J. 911 Studies) that was set up for the express purpose of circumventing a real peer review process.

And the next fact, below, is critical to this point.


Both of those sites lists hundreds of relevant experts (not just engineers) that have found many flaws in the Official Conspiracy Theory and are speaking out and are bringing this information to the attention of others.


And here, Steve, is an example of YOUR incompetence in these matters.

Publishing is the official form of communication in science & engineering. There are formalities to be observed.

The fact that some scientist or engineer publishes some claim or even test results in a paper is NOT a proof that what they are claiming is true.

That STARTS the process. Independent verification of the theory and the experimental results are required to pull all conclusions out of "provisional limbo". Thus far, not one single truther claim (AFAIK) has stood up to the slightest scrutiny or been independently confirmed.

Non-published claims are just noise.


And it is growing.


Sorry, you're simply wrong. Your movement is on life support with a DNR tag on its toe. It just hasn't had the common courtesy to die yet.


The fact you try to make this claim pins you quite firmly in the camp of people who know the truth but are purposely trying to hide the facts so others do not see it.

Thank you Tom.


Hmmm, once more with the "you're all liars", eh Steve.
.
You DO realize that this will get you sent to your room without dinner, grounded and stripped of your weekly allowance, don't you...

Tom

[Gamolon]

Here is Heiwa's diagram of WTC1 again:
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/WTC1slicea.gif

Here is my picture of the two walls that he says are offset over the concrete floor.
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/perimetercolumns3.jpg

How do the concrete floors of the lower floor "hinge" around the floor truss connections on the perimeter columns with a full length row of perimeter columns pushing down on the floor on two sides?

[Heiwa]

No they are not. I am questioning your diagram and the captions beneath a couple of the figures. I am trying to understand your paper/website, but there are contradictions and wrong information contained in them that need to be corrected in order to make sense of it.

Why are you sidestepping my questions when all you have to do is answer them?

In your diagram, you show WTC1. You claim that the concrete floors "hinged" around the connections on the columns? Are you claiming that the "L" shaped truss connections of the floors were strong enough to cause the concrete floor slab to "hinge" around them when the 2 walls of perimeter columns, containing 60 square box columns per wall, came down upon 2 edges of the concrete floors?
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/WTC1slicea.gif

It says right there in figure C. You are claiming that the concrete floors would have hinged around the undamaged truss connections.

Explain how that is possible.

The figure is just an introductary example of what could happen when/if upper part C collides with lower part A. Evidently various elements come into contact with one another and the weakest element in contact is then assumed to be damaged. E.g, a vertical, strong column of A will punch through a horizontal, weak floor/truss of C. I hope you agree that it is reasonable?
So the C floor/truss is damaged/cut into two parts, each of which is only supported at its end (the bolted connection to a C column) and it is suggested that the damaged C element rotates (hinges) around that support. Is that too difficult to understand?
According various OCTs of the destructions it is however assumed that many part C floors either remain intact and drop down on A (the floor connections to the columns fail = the pan cake theory!) or that the bottom C floor becomes superstrong and like a snow plough crushes anything below it, i.e. complete part A - the famous one-way crush down of A by C.
My introductury example is just to show that the OCTs are false. Evidently elements of upper part C are immediately locally damaged at contact, energy is absorbed ... and part C, or what remains of it, should be stopped or arrested. If you really read the whole paper, that's pretty obvious, n'est pas?

[Gamolon]

The figure is just an introductary example of what could happen when/if upper part C collides with lower part A. Evidently various elements come into contact with one another and the weakest element in contact is then assumed to be damaged. E.g, a vertical, strong column of A will punch through a horizontal, weak floor/truss of C. I hope you agree that it is reasonable?

No it's NOT reasonable. Especially when there were two walls of 60, 13" square columns spaced at 3'-4". How do the perimeter columns "PUNCH" through the concrete floor with other columns that closely spaced? Not going to happen. The perimeter wall will act as a "WHOLE" and push down upon the edge of the concrete floor as a "WHOLE", bending or shearing the "L"shaped truss support downward. See my picture above.

So the C floor/truss is damaged/cut into two parts, each of which is only supported at its end (the bolted connection to a C column) and it is suggested that the damaged C element rotates (hinges) around that support. Is that too difficult to understand?

Horsecrap. Seems like I'm the only one willing to show what hey are talking about with drawings/and pictures. What is causing the hinging? The "L" shaped floor truss connections?

[tfk]

Bill,

You really are amazing.

I don't think that I've ever run across anyone who was more consistently wrong. At every step.


The relative lack of insults ...

.
What are you talking about...?

There were COPIOUS amounts of insults in my posts.

I stated that the Chihuahua knows more about engineering than you. While this is completely accurate, it is STILL an insult.


... and the complete lack of any technical rebuttal ...

.
There was an abbreviated, but comprehensive, technical rebuttal in that post.

I pointed out where you got just about every statement wrong.

Just like here.


... makes your reply look weak T.

.
Not weak. Concise & to the point.


As we all know you are a great believer in the power of perceptiion as are most propagandists.

.
Batting 1,000, bill.

"We all..." ?? You speak for nobody but yourself. Your adolescent attempts to recruit the opinions of your imaginary friends may well have worked in the 9th grade. But your utter clumsiness in the attempt convinces me that even angst-ridden teenagers saw thru you, even back then.

"... you are a great believer in the power of perceptiion ..." I'm an engineer, bill. I could not possibly give a rat's butt about anybody's "perception". Least of all, yours.

"... propagandist ...". Sure, bill. That's why I invoke conservation of energy & momentum. Work & energy principles. Impulse / change of momentum equivalence. Stress, strain, calculus, etc. Nothing but "propaganda" here...


Perception is working against you here.

.
I am perfectly comfortable with the public perception of BOTH of us, bill.

Tom

[Heiwa]

Here is Heiwa's diagram of WTC1 again:
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/WTC1slicea.gif

Here is my picture of the two walls that he says are offset over the concrete floor.
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/perimetercolumns3.jpg

How do the concrete floors of the lower floor "hinge" around the floor truss connections on the perimeter columns with a full length row of perimeter columns pushing down on the floor on two sides?

Good picture! Thus the upper or lower outside wall slices the floor it comes into contact with into two parts. One floor part is very short (the one connected to the wall) and the other is very long - connected to the core. Evidently the latter floor section rotates around the undamaged core connections and the free floor end drops down on a floor below.
This evidently happens in both parts C and A. After impact you have first two damaged floors, sections of which have rotated and free end dropped down as outlined above, later, if more floors are sliced you have four, six or eight damaged floors rubbing against each other. Note that equal numbers of A and C floors are damaged as the A and C structures are similar.

You can in fact calculate the energy required to slice a floor in two bits. It is quite substantial and after cutting say 6 floors (3 in A and 3 in C), WTC 1 further local failures should have been arrested.

[SteveAustin]

You are, as usual, quite correct. My assertion that ALL demolition experts reject the conspiracy rubbish was intended--obviously--to be provocative.

BULL

I indicated as much by acknowledging that lunatics could be produced who would gleefully deny that the North won the Civil War. Predictably, desperate "truthers" are clinging to the deliberate exaggeration, trying to make some sort of point. Let's see what survives their typically disingenuous effort.

No, that was a smear by association.

IT REMAINS A FACT THAT NO DEMOLITION EXPERTS HAVE CHALLENGED THE POSITION ESTABLISHED BY PROMINENT REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DEMOLITION INDUSTRY. NO--ZERO--DEMOLITION EXPERTS HAVE LENT ANY CREDENCE TO THE MYTH THAT EXPLOSIVES BROUGHT DOWN THE TWIN TOWERS.

That's what is left. "Truthers" make baseless, implausible claims about a subject that demolition professionals know more about than anyone else. Not a single demolition professional has sided with the "truthers."

How many demolition experts have come forward to support the Official Conspiracy Theory? AND YES I WILL SAY IT AGAIN, IF THEY HAVE NOT COME RIGHT OUT AND SAID THEY SUPPORT IT, IT DOES NOT COUNT NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO OR WHERE THEY WORK.

If they have not come right out and said it you have no idea what they support, whether it's the Official Conspiracy Theory or alternative theories.

[Heiwa]

How do the perimeter columns "PUNCH" through the concrete floor with other columns that closely spaced? Not going to happen. The perimeter wall will act as a "WHOLE" and push down upon the edge of the concrete floor as a "WHOLE", bending or shearing the "L"shaped truss support downward. See my picture above.



Yes, the perimeter walls will act as a whole, like a knife or ax, and slice the thin floor into two bits.

Look at the strong perimeter wall of part A. It is fixed on ground. It will of course try to push up the lowest C floor, when in contact, but the C floor is too weak, so the A wall slices the C floor into two bits.

The strong perimeter wall of part C - it is dropping - and it contacts the top floor of part A. If the A floor was really strong (as Bazant assumes is the case for the lowest C floor), the C wall would just bounce! But it will not - it will slice the A floor into two parts, because the A floor is weak.

The C wall can therefore not push down anything, it will just punch/slice through the top A floor = local failure, soon arrested.

Thanks for asking! What's your age? Any religious beliefs in miracles?

[bill smith]

Bill,

You really are amazing.

I don't think that I've ever run across anyone who was more consistently wrong. At every step.


.
What are you talking about...?

There were COPIOUS amounts of insults in my posts.

I stated that the Chihuahua knows more about engineering than you. While this is completely accurate, it is STILL an insult.


.
There was an abbreviated, but comprehensive, technical rebuttal in that post.

I pointed out where you got just about every statement wrong.

Just like here.


.
Not weak. Concise & to the point.


.
Batting 1,000, bill.

"We all..." ?? You speak for nobody but yourself. Your adolescent attempts to recruit the opinions of your imaginary friends may well have worked in the 9th grade. But your utter clumsiness in the attempt convinces me that even angst-ridden teenagers saw thru you, even back then.

"... you are a great believer in the power of perceptiion ..." I'm an engineer, bill. I could not possibly give a rat's butt about anybody's "perception". Least of all, yours.

"... propagandist ...". Sure, bill. That's why I invoke conservation of energy & momentum. Work & energy principles. Impulse / change of momentum equivalence. Stress, strain, calculus, etc. Nothing but "propaganda" here...


.
I am perfectly comfortable with the public perception of BOTH of us, bill.

Tom

I am not satisfied with your 'comprehensive answer'. I find several conecutive 'no's' to be less than convincing. The post nr. was 2433 if anybody wants to check though I will repost it here to see if you can rebutt what I say.

Part C fell directly down on part A. The only force on the upstanding giant core columns was therefore compressive. After a small amount of elastic absorence of the downward force these columns would have punctured any floor and stripped off any floor to column connection that they encountered in part C. This would have ocurred before any plastic deformation of the upstanding columns was spossible seeing that the PE of the seperately descending components could never have overcome the general and constant SE of the individual upstanding giant columns.

Furthermore as the upstanding columns buried themselves deeper in the descending body of part C that body would have provided lateral support for the upstanding columns.

[SteveAustin]

.
A major part of my response was telling you
a) what I would do if I found an egregious engineering error in the NIST report, and
b) what I would do if I heard that some other engineer (or anyone) found a significant flaw in NIST's arguments.

This is NOT "belief". It is not "speculation".

Now if you honestly believed that I was labeling what YOU would do as your belief then you lack serious comprehension skills.

However as we both know, I was labeling as YOUR belief your saying what OTHERS would do. But this is part of the "debunking" process, you need as much of these thrown in as possible.

.nce again, you are wrong. I am not speculating about what others would do under those circumstances. I am TELLING you what I would do.

And my extrapolation (what you disparagingly call "belief") is NOT "baseless speculation".

See here you admit it, which means you knowingly lied about that first part

It is based on my 35 years interactions with other engineers.

In that time, I found out that engineers are curious, as patriotic as any other profession, diverse in their political persuasions, and, above all, LOVE finding mistakes in other engineers' work.

And especially because engineers are ornery contrarians, and NOBODY is gonna censor our commentary, especially not some pencil-neck bureaucrat, politician or lawyer.

Finally, MY job is easy. I've got to point out just a few engineers who will point out any existent flaws.
Your job is indefensible. You are suggesting that engineers who love justice & this country would remain silent.

Finally, as proof that the scientist & engineers will NOT stay silent, and that the gov't can NOT silence them:

The Global Warming debate.
The evolution debates (100s of them).
The evolution vs. creations debate.
The sociobiology debate.
Genetics debates.
Nuclear winter debates.
etc. etc. etc.

Sorry. Your proposition simply fails.

NOT from speculation. From experiment & experience.

Sorry but you have posted nothing to back up your claim except more of your belief of what others will do. No matter how much experience you have it is still just your belief.

You obviously do not understand even the basics of human nature and human society and how easy it is for most people IN ANY PROFESSION to sit down and shut up to keep their jobs so they can keep feeding their families. Because speaking out is a sure way to lose your job!!!

I believe that an absence of voiced dissent means an absence of unvoiced dissent.
I believe that the existence of real, unvoiced dissent lead INEXORABLY to the existence of voiced dissent.

You might want to review this part, re-read it a few times because it is gibberish. Oh it looks poetic and all but it is gibberish.

There is NO informed, voiced dissent.
There is amateur, incompetent, voiced dissent. This is NOT the same thing.

So now you backtrack from saying there is no voiced dissent to change it to there is no competent voiced dissent.

So you have in effect moved the goalposts, and labeled any expert in relevant fields that have voiced dissent as "amateur" and "incompetent" simply because they have dissented. I mean after all they MUST be incompetent if they do not agree with the Official Conspiracy Theory ritght?

By that reasoning every single person on the patriotsquestion911 list is incompetent right? Same goes for all those over at ae911truth.org right?

Have you reviewed what each and everyone of them has said with regards to 9/11? I would guess not, but of course you do not need to, in your mind and the mind of all "debunkers" the simple fact that they dissent is enough for you to dismiss them as "incompetent"

A cornerstone of your contention is that there are thousands of engineers who know that the NIST report contains KNOWN gross errors or outright fraud.

The only "skewed belief" on display in that contention, Steve, is the snot-nosed, wet-behind-the-ears, acne enhanced, Young&Stupid but unshakable conviction that "WE (in this case, "truthers") are the only honest, honorable people on the planet".

Most folks grow out of this delusion long about the time the acne clears up.
.
.
As respectfully as I can muster at the moment,

Tom

And then we get into the most classic disinfo tactic, the old insult. It gets a great laugh out of some but just go to show that you well and truly have nothing and you know it. You would not resort to this if you did.

Tell me Tom, what was I labeling as a skewed belief? That's right, it the belief that if no one has come forward to deny the Official Conspiracy Theory then they all support the Official Conspiracy Theory. Are you again saying that belief is not skewed? Or were you hoping to throw those last couple of paragraphs in in the hopes to smear me again and hope no one recalled what originated that comment and well this argument.

[Gamolon]

Good picture! Thus the upper or lower outside wall slices the floor it comes into contact with into two parts. One floor part is very short (the one connected to the wall) and the other is very long - connected to the core.

So what you are saying is that the "L" shaped floor truss conenctions, all 60 of them (30 along one wall and 30 along the other) held the downward force of the upper mass enough for the perimeter column walls to "slice through the reinforced concrete floor?

Really?

60 (30 on a perimeter wall) 13" long by 6" deep "L" shaped truss connections are strong enough to resist all that?

You can in fact calculate the energy required to slice a floor in two bits. It is quite substantial and after cutting say 6 floors (3 in A and 3 in C), WTC 1 further local failures should have been arrested.

Interexting. I'm sure you could. Can you calculate whether the 60 (30 per perimeter wall) truss connections welded to the perimeter columns are capable of holding up the upper mass coming down on them all at once?

Seems to me someone (Tony, who has disappeared) claimed that a floor was capable of holding up 12 times times it's own weight (29,000,000 lbs) and that the upper mass weighed about 68,295,000 lbs. So how could those truss connections withstand 2 1/2 times what they could support at 12 times the weight of a floor?

[Gamolon]

because the A floor is weak.

Weaker than the 13" wide by 6" deep "L" shaped truss connections? As I recall the concrete floor was reinforced right?

And if the were THAT strong, why wouldn't the small truss connection just "push" though the edge of the concrete floor?

[deep]

b) ANYONE who says "I knew the day I saw those towers collapse that ..." is incompetent. Any competent professional knows enough to wait for a competent, professional analysis. The number of people at ae911t who said "I knew immediately it was a demo" proves that those folks are amateurs.


Wait, so anyone who claimed that WTC7 was definitely brought down by fire alone prior to the release of the NIST report is also incompetent, right? I guess it depends on your definition of 'competent, professional analysis'.

c) The folks at ae911t are PROVABLY incompetent. If they were competent, they would have published AT LEAST 100 peer reviewed papers by now pointing out exactly where NIST made errors. The FACT that they have not done so PROVES WITHOUT QUESTION that they are incompetent. Or perhaps lazy. But productivity is an essential component of "competence".


Well, it proves that you believe they are incompetent, but that's all. Your argument is based on the unproven/unsupported/arbitrary assumption that every competent professional would publish or contribute to X number of peer-reviewed papers about NIST after signing the petition.

[Gamolon]

The C wall can therefore not push down anything, it will just punch/slice through the top A floor = local failure, soon arrested.

Nope.

I say the concrete floor, with the perimeter columns being so close to the edge of the concrete floor and just inside the lower perimeter column wall would either shear the actual truss from the "L" shaped truss connection, push the "L" shaped truss connection through the edge of the concrete floor, or bend/shear the actual "L" shaped truss connection from the peimeter column/s

[Gamolon]

Heiwa, where are the "L" shaped truss connections on this perimeter column?
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/wtc222.jpg

Sheared off maybe? Oh! And look...

Look at the bottom laft corner of the picture? Is that a piece of truss I see hanging off the column?

[Grizzly Bear]

Your argument is based on the unproven/unsupported/arbitrary assumption that every competent professional would publish or contribute to X number of peer-reviewed papers about NIST after signing the petition.
No... most of us just like to see historical precedent studies done correctly rather than amateurishly, and we also like to see professionals make competent arguments that fit within the known principals of their profession. Have you actually made any effort to compare AE911truth's claims with written literature on these professions? I can guarantee that the concerns of myself, tfk, Architect, et al are very well founded

[FineWine]

BULL


Although you traffic exclusively in "Bull", you can't distinguish the crapola you peddle from the rhetorical device I used to make a point--a point that remains unrefuted.




No, that was a smear by association.


Whenever I observe your witless, uninformed attempts to use rhetorical terms, I am put in mind of a chimpanzee playing with a watch. It is probably true that lunatics who deny that the North won the Civil War can be found. The population of demolition professionals, people with knowledge of the techniques of demolition, is considerably smaller than the general population. While it is reasonable to assume that an eccentric who swallows your insane movement's rubbish might be out there somewhere, that individual has not surfaced to date. Find him.



How many demolition experts have come forward to support the Official Conspiracy Theory? AND YES I WILL SAY IT AGAIN, IF THEY HAVE NOT COME RIGHT OUT AND SAID THEY SUPPORT IT, IT DOES NOT COUNT NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO OR WHERE THEY WORK.

If they have not come right out and said it you have no idea what they support, whether it's the Official Conspiracy Theory or alternative theories.


Stop lying about nonexistent "official" conspiracy theories. Brent Blanchard's views are not "official"; Mark and Stacey Loizeaux's views are not "official"; Ron Dokell's views are not "official." Tfk nailed your inept deceptions to the wall. The total absence of voiced dissent strongly suggests the absence of unvoiced dissent. Demolition professionals know that spokespersons for their industry reject your insane movement's idiocy. Where are the dissenters?

Find them.

[deep]

Have you actually made any effort to compare AE911truth's claims with written literature on these professions? I can guarantee that the concerns of myself, tfk, Architect, et al are very well founded


No, because that's not what we're talking about. tfk said it is proven that AE911T members are all incompetent because they haven't published 100 peer-reviewed papers by now (please see his original post for the exact quote).

That is an unsupported opinion, not a fact.

[Grizzly Bear]

Heiwa, where are the "L" shaped truss connections on this perimeter column?
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/wtc222.jpg

Sheared off maybe? Oh! And look...

Look at the bottom laft corner of the picture? Is that a piece of truss I see hanging off the column?

You have too much fun pointing this stuff out :D

Heiwa's model gets a number of things "wrong" unsurprisingly... the truss seats were never ever intended to withstand the so called "hinging" that he contends should have happened. The connections would have [and did] as you see, fail from these and other load applications.

Heiwa's "column punch through" entirely ignores every concept dealing with the slenderness ratio of the column assemblies themselves, that without the floors providing the cross sectional bracing of the building between the core and perimeter they were unstable and would have failed under their own self weight.

And most egregiously of all that his model shows a severe out-of-plane loading of the same unbraced column lengths yet he treats these columns as though they're utterly indestructible despite these loads.

He can try to explain how all of this prevents his so called "one way crush down" all he wants but doing so is akin to slamming a steel cube through a titanium cylinder.

I think the reason why I put Heiwa on ignore before was because despite how obviously deranged those assertions are he was still oblivious to them... Apparently he still is :|

[FineWine]

Now if you honestly believed that I was labeling what YOU would do as your belief then you lack serious comprehension skills.

However as we both know, I was labeling as YOUR belief your saying what OTHERS would do. But this is part of the "debunking" process, you need as much of these thrown in as possible.



See here you admit it, which means you knowingly lied about that first part



Sorry but you have posted nothing to back up your claim except more of your belief of what others will do. No matter how much experience you have it is still just your belief.

You obviously do not understand even the basics of human nature and human society and how easy it is for most people IN ANY PROFESSION to sit down and shut up to keep their jobs so they can keep feeding their families. Because speaking out is a sure way to lose your job!!!



You might want to review this part, re-read it a few times because it is gibberish. Oh it looks poetic and all but it is gibberish.



So now you backtrack from saying there is no voiced dissent to change it to there is no competent voiced dissent.

So you have in effect moved the goalposts, and labeled any expert in relevant fields that have voiced dissent as "amateur" and "incompetent" simply because they have dissented. I mean after all they MUST be incompetent if they do not agree with the Official Conspiracy Theory ritght?

By that reasoning every single person on the patriotsquestion911 list is incompetent right? Same goes for all those over at ae911truth.org right?

Have you reviewed what each and everyone of them has said with regards to 9/11? I would guess not, but of course you do not need to, in your mind and the mind of all "debunkers" the simple fact that they dissent is enough for you to dismiss them as "incompetent"



And then we get into the most classic disinfo tactic, the old insult. It gets a great laugh out of some but just go to show that you well and truly have nothing and you know it. You would not resort to this if you did.

Tell me Tom, what was I labeling as a skewed belief? That's right, it the belief that if no one has come forward to deny the Official Conspiracy Theory then they all support the Official Conspiracy Theory. Are you again saying that belief is not skewed? Or were you hoping to throw those last couple of paragraphs in in the hopes to smear me again and hope no one recalled what originated that comment and well this argument.


The grotesquely misnamed "truth" movement consists of three essential components, stupidity, dishonesty, and insanity, in varying degrees. Let's examine one of the favorite ploys of "truthers":

Supposedly, individuals in relevant industries abound who understand that the explanations supplied by real physicists, engineers, demolition professionals, aeronautical engineers, seismologists, metallurgists, avionics techs, fire safety experts, forensic examiners, air traffic controllers, etc., are simply wrong. Many of these individuals live in nations unfriendly to the U.S.
WHAT IS IT, EXACTLY, THAT PREVENTS THESE PEOPLE FROM SPEAKING OUT?

There are hundreds of demolition companies, big and small, in the U.S. NOT ONE demolition expert has come forward to dispute the views of prominent members of the industry. Who stops them? Is the demolition industry uniquely infiltrated by minions of your mad, imaginary conspiracy?
What shackles the hundreds of consultants employed by NIST? Is this agency of the Department of Commerce a hive of maniacs conspiring to conquer the world for Halliburton? What stops air traffic controllers from rebutting Dave Bottiglia and his colleagues? Where are the metallurgists who buy the manure your insane movement shovels? There must an army of conspirators--who never leak anything--to knock into line the thousands of people across a wide spectrum of industries who know the "truth." Who are these evildoers? How can so many hide for so long? If they have to hide, how can they be all-powerful?

A personal anecdote: a friend of mine watched Flight 175 crash into the south tower from her office windows. I told her that no-planers think she is lying. She says she doesn't care what psychos think. I said that they believe she is supporting the "gubmint" story to protect her job. She asked who was threatening to fire her. I said that evil forces that control everything were threatening her job. She replied that she retired in 2005--who was threatening what? I said that she was being paid off by the Gigantic Conspiracy. She wondered why she was being paid NOT to go public with her story.

And on it goes.

[alienentity]

Hi Steve,

My question (which is perfectly reasonable, dontcha think?) still awaits your answer:

'Here's a simple question for you then - since you apparently believe that the WTC tower collapses were due to explosive demolition, can you provide at least one leading or significant demolitions expert who backs up this claim?'

Still waiting........http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/304704a5cdf6c812fc.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16965)

[Gamolon]

Oh look Heiwa!!!

More sheared truss connections!!!! Funny how that proves my point.
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/fig-B-9a.jpg

[Gamolon]

Uh oh Heiwa!!!
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/fig-B-10a.jpg

[Gamolon]

You have too much fun pointing this stuff out :D

:D

[Gamolon]

Heiwa, have an answer to this incorrect statement on your site?
1. 1 The major Problem - No Evidence of (1) Buckled Columns, ...



Are you going to correct that since there is this evidence?
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/ST1-full.jpg

[FineWine]

Heiwa, have an answer to this incorrect statement on your site?



Are you going to correct that since there is this evidence?
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/ST1-full.jpg



Heiwa's all-purpose response: "La-la, I am raving so loudly I can't hear a word you say. My fingers are in my ears and my eyes are tightly shut. I can't hear or see. La-la."