Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

[beachnut]

They did not "collapse" they blew up. They blew up so aggressively that they broke windows hundreds of feet away with blast overpressure. They blew up so aggressively they disassembled human bodies and explosively ejected human bone fragments onto surrounding rooftops.
You opinions fall short when it comes to physics. They did not blow up there were no explosives in the WTC on 911.

The gravity collapse did have the energy of over 130 TONS of TNT in each tower. This is what did the damage after the impacts and fires initiated the fall. No need to tell this to me, I can figure it out using physics, properties of steel, study of the WTC design and engineering. But I checked with the chief structural engineer of the WTC who says the OP is hogwash and the WTC fell due to gravity collapse after impact and fires much greater than designed for.

Go get Robertson to explain why Heiwa is wrong and your ideas are wrong too. You can read some of his work on-line if you google effectively.

[leftysergeant]

As for windows being blown out of nearby buildings, this was not an indication of explosives, since it occurred only on the path taken by falling debris or that blown about by the turbidity flow at the bottom of the structures, which reached about ten storeys high. Look at the structures with broken windows. You will see dust residues on the facades. The broken windows are all at or below the top of the dust residues. Explosives would have blown out all the facing windows to the height of the towers.

The human body parts were chopped up in the whirling debris of the collapse and expelled under air pressure, or were ejected in the initial impact and explosion of the airplanes.

[tsig]

Beachnut, it is not necessary to see the actual jolt.

I would hope you realize that a deceleration would cause a velocity drop and that it would then take the upper block time to regain it's pre-impact velocity. This time turns out to be nearly a second, during which we have taken five measurements since we take them every 167 milliseconds. There is no indication of any velocity drop having taken place, where the velocity was lower than just before impact, it just kept increasing.

Beachnut, you say you are an engineer, although I have yet to see any legitimate calculations or basis for the things you say. I would also mention that calling other engineers delusional is not very becoming of an engineer especially when you make posts like the above.

Anyone who expects the top of the building to fall and then come to rest nestled in the arms of the rest of the building is experiencing a complete disconnect from reality.

[beachnut]

syzKBBB_THE
That proves one way crush down works.

6 floors take out 6 floors using hydraulic displacement. The 6 lower floors gave up! Just like the WTC when 11 to 20 floors fell down and took out the lower 11 to 20 floors and then the next 11 to 20 floors until they reached the ground ruble pile.

If Heiwa's not possible crush dumbed down engineer was true the lower 6 floors would stop the measly 6 upper floors. Gee the WTC 11 and 20 plus floors were not stopped, why did these 6 floors destroy the lower floors? What is Heiwa trying to say?

What would happen if you dropped that 2 miles first? Two miles?

[bill smith]

Now I know what Tony S. meant by 'ever more tortured explanations'. lol

[tsig]

Wiki on Axiom:

Sir, me thinks your Axiom is broken. :D

At the very least it needs sharpening.

[beachnut]

Now I know what Tony S. meant by 'ever more tortured explanations'. lol
By now Tony could have earned a Pulitzer Prize for his work on 911, but it is all garbage like your ideas on 911; failed opinions based on idiotic ideas, hearsay, lies and delusions.

Heiwa's failed OP ideas are too easy to understand and this is why the chief structural engineer of the WTC thinks your ideas, Tony's failed work, and Heiwa's ideas are ridiculous. With just high school physics, or some cause and effect from first grade, you would stop supporting failed ideas like the OP and start to make rational ideas on 911.

[bill smith]

By now Tony could have earned a Pulitzer Prize for his work on 911, but it is all garbage like your ideas on 911; failed opinions based on idiotic ideas, hearsay, lies and delusions.

Heiwa's failed OP ideas are too easy to understand and this is why the chief structural engineer of the WTC thinks your ideas, Tony's failed work, and Heiwa's ideas are ridiculous. With just high school physics, or some cause and effect from first grade, you would stop supporting failed ideas like the OP and start to make rational ideas on 911.

Can you fix it for Les Robertson to pop in for a chat with us ?

[beachnut]

Can you fix it for Les Robertson to pop in for a chat with us ? I bet you have sourced the debate with Jones. You failed to listen?
He said the CD claims are ridiculous. You can research it but you are not looking for truth about 911, you are spewing delusions like Heiwa's failed OP.

It was funny listening to Jones with Robertson talking about 911. Jones had delusions, Robertson had reality. You have delusions, and you fail to seek out knowledge to correct your failed ideas.

Robertson clearly makes the OP a failed delusion. Google it and try to use some sound judgment before your believe the idiotic ideas you support.

So what is your engineering and physics background that makes you an expert to support Heiwa's ideas instead of believing Robertson who said the gravity collapse of his towers was how they would fall after failure due to impact and fire?

Robertson would speak you would ignore. His work is on the internet, there is an interview done with Jones, and you like Jones' lies you will not accept the truth from Robertson (the chief structural engineer for the Towers). You prefer the lies from 911Truth; Robertson's work refutes the OP and you can't present any evidence to support your failed 911Truth ideas. You have never presented evidence you may have evidence to support your ideas on 911. That sums up your failed posts on 911; you are a follower, not an action oriented go get the Pulitzer Prize will all your evidence guy.

[bill smith]

I bet you have sourced the debate with Jones. You failed to listen?
He said the CD claims are ridiculous. You can research it but you are not looking for truth about 911, you are spewing delusions like Heiwa's failed OP.

It was funny listening to Jones with Robertson talking about 911. Jones had delusions, Robertson had reality. You have delusions, and you fail to seek out knowledge to correct your failed ideas.

Robertson clearly makes the OP a failed delusion. Google it and try to use some sound judgment before your believe the idiotic ideas you support.

So what is your engineering and physics background that makes you an expert to support Heiwa's ideas instead of believing Robertson who said the gravity collapse of his towers was how they would fall after failure due to impact and fire?

The plane was one half of one tenth of one percent of the building's weight. The fires were small. The two quarter-nile high half-million ton buildings both collapsed straight down at close to freefall speed within an hour of being struck.
And you ask me to believe Robertson ?

[ozeco41]

Join The Heiwa Challenge and produce any structure that can one-way crush down itself.
So far NIST, NASA, FEMA, FBI, CIA, NSA, Bazant & Co have failed. If is easy, prove it. Do not just talk! Like them!
You would have to specify what you mean by "Crush" OR preferably change it to Collapse.

The ambiguity and vagueness you rely on includes: The inference that crush includes crush the columns in axial compression. If You make it explicit that you do NOT mean "crush" in that sense I could be interested. But changing the word to "collapse" removes the ambiguity; AND Recognise the "time frame" ambiguity. The top block in WTC AND in some aspects of your model does not trade "one floor for one floor" in synchronisation. You are wrong on that for WTC. We could discuss how it is part right and part wrong in your model.

Whilst I do not engage in the personal attacks which are so routinely deployed by others the number who take that line suggests that your illogical and mendacious approach to "discussion" may be something you are not prepared to give up.

And my main goal on posting is not to convert the "I won't be converted brigade" rather to assist others to see through the errors and misleading which they may not see through without assistance.

O a seven point scale of "misleading <> not misleading I have you tentatively ranked as 3 - slightly misleading but easy to see through for those with relevant expertise.

Cheers.

[beachnut]

The plane was one half of one tenth of one percent of the buildings weight. The fires wre small. The two quarter-nile high half-million ton buildings both collapsed straight down at close to freefall speed within an hour of being struck.
And you ask me to believe Robertson ?

The buildings were design to resist an impact from a 187 pounds of TNT event in the shape of a 707. On 911 the impacts that did extensive damage to the Towers were 1300 to 2093 pounds of TNT kinetic energy impacts. This is just under and over an order of magnitude difference as noted by Roberson who thinks your ideas are crap.

The fires were small is a lie and you are now a liar. Good for you repeating the lies of 911Truth as your own failed opinions now.

No the towers did not collapse at free fall speed they collapsed exactly at a speed that can be checked by momentum transfer. Your lack of physics is showing and you have no real knowledge in engineering.

Robertson understand the impacts were 7 to 11 times greater then his design would withstand. The impacts damage the towers extensively and destroyed the fire systems and insulation. Fires destroy the strength of steel and the towers fell. Roberson built the towers and understand the collapse. You can't even figure out the impact energies or the collapse energy, or the momentum transfer. If you did you would see Heiwa's ideas are pure stupid; like your ideas on 911.

[Slayhamlet]

I suppose that video has been doctored then, and all the explosive 'flashes' and 'booms' edited out?

Much as with the collapse of the twin towers and WTC 7, no 'flashes' and 'booms' needed to be edited out of the Balzac demolition since, you know, they never occurred in the first place.

Think before you post.

[Tony Szamboti]

@AI- No one has claimed that the collapse acclerated at 1g. There was a negative acceleration due to restistence. This point has been made again and again yet some such as yourself remain willfully ignorant of it. Either show how the deceleration should have been greater than was observed or move on. There isn't one single person here that believes the collapse accelerated at 1g, making analogies to show how this isn't possible is quite boring and useless.

The North Tower measurements show the upper block fell at approximately 0.7g and it never decelerated. How can you claim it did?

[Tony Szamboti]

The buildings were design to resist an impact from a 187 pounds of TNT event in the shape of a 707. On 911 the impacts that did extensive damage to the Towers were 1300 to 2093 pounds of TNT kinetic energy impacts. This is just under and over an order of magnitude difference as noted by Roberson who thinks your ideas are crap.

The fires were small is a lie and you are now a liar. Good for you repeating the lies of 911Truth as your own failed opinions now.

No the towers did not collapse at free fall speed they collapsed exactly at a speed that can be checked by momentum transfer. Your lack of physics is showing and you have no real knowledge in engineering.

Robertson understand the impacts were 7 to 11 times greater then his design would withstand. The impacts damage the towers extensively and destroyed the fire systems and insulation. Fires destroy the strength of steel and the towers fell. Roberson built the towers and understand the collapse. You can't even figure out the impact energies or the collapse energy, or the momentum transfer. If you did you would see Heiwa's ideas are pure stupid; like your ideas on 911.

The wings never made it to the core. NIST analyses even show that, and a 16.5 foot diameter hole from the fuselage all the way through the tower would not have made a difference. That is why they had to say it was fire and then only due to fireproofing being stripped away. So your 1300 to 2093 tons of TNT didn't matter, unless you want to try to show how it could removed fireproofing from the opposite side of the building and above the impacts in the case of the North Tower. NIST just said it did but didn't quite explain how. Maybe you should give it a try there Beachy.

[Tony Szamboti]

Anyone who expects the top of the building to fall and then come to rest nestled in the arms of the rest of the building is experiencing a complete disconnect from reality.

C'mon you can do better than this can't you?

Tell us how the upper block could cause the lower structure to collapse if there was no deceleration of the upper block.

[Tony Szamboti]

Apples and Oranges Tony. You are not seriously comparing the collapse of the twin towers to building 7? are you? Top down VS bottom up. The initiating event in building 7 began approximately at floor 13. While in the towers it was in the high nineties north tower And between 80-82 south tower.

It isn't apples and oranges at all. The point is that momentum transfer and deceleration, a jolt, is needed to continue a collapse naturally.

WTC 7 was a classic controlled demolition. 8 stories or about 100 feet were removed from floors 7 to 14 to get the 33 story upper block to build up enough of a head of steam to crush the lower six stories and itself.

There was a jolt after the 8 story drop because that was all that was needed to demolish it and no more floors needed to be removed by demolition devices as the momentum of the upper block was then sufficient to do the job. Which it then did by momentum transfer with an initial large impulse and successive impulses as each floor at the bottom of the upper block gave way.

The big problem for the official story is that you need a jolt to take out the lower structure if it isn't being done by demolition devices. They don't have a jolt for over nine measureable stories of fall of the North tower upper block. The only other answer is that demolition devices were removing the columns?

Why does it even make a difference if the demolition was started up higher in the Twin Towers? You can take out multiple floors just as easily and let it start to fall. You can even do a demolition by continuously removing the columns and not even depend on momentum transfer, which is what appears to have been done in the Twin Towers. What you can't do is get a natural collapse of the lower structure without transfer of momentum and deceleration of the upper part of the building.

Sorry AW, no jolt no natural collapse is possible. It really is that simple.

I think I am done for a while here. I just thought I would pop in and say hello. Good Luck to those of you who support the official story and are thinking of taking Heiwa's challenge. I think you are going to need it.

[beachnut]

The wings never made it to the core. NIST analyses even show that, and a 16.5 foot diameter hole from the fuselage all the way through the tower would not have made a difference. That is why they had to say it was fire and then only due to fireproofing being stripped away. So your 1300 to 2093 tons of TNT didn't matter, unless you want to try to show how it could removed fireproofing from the opposite side of the building and above the impacts in the case of the North Tower. NIST just said it did but didn't quite explain how. Maybe you should give it a try there Beachy.
Pounds; can't you do the calculations.

The impacts were significant since Roberson planned on a 187 pounds of TNT kinetic energy impact that would almost fall off the building. But at 1300 and 2093 pounds of TNT the kinetic energy impacts damage the cores and destroyed the insulation and the fire fighting systems. Facts you have to ignore and add dirt dumb stupid explosives or sprayed on delusional super thermite. What a dumb idea you have and you call yourself an engineer but instead you are a hearsay, lie and fantasy expert spewing junk science in the name of 911Truth. How ironic as 911 proves this OP junk science to the nthdegree.

The impacts destroyed the insulation; see! Open your eyes or learn what 2093 pounds of TNT kinetic energy can do when in the form of a 767 at 590 mph. What school trained you as an engineer to be the expert in stupid ideas on 911 due to lack of knowledge and applications of what you should haver learned in engineering school; sound judgment?

With the fireproofing mainly wallboard (like your walls in the your house where you can put a fist through at anytime, just miss the studs) and spray on under the floors, the towers were doomed with the 66,000 pounds of fuel and stripped off insulation. Sorry, the truth elude your great engineering skills, your school must of held back the real education in your case.

Think some insulation was removed?
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/WTCcladdingflying.jpg
Note: The impacts were equal in energy to 1,726,094 and 2,662,478 shotgun blasts. Do you think you can remove a lot of WALLBOARD with over a million blasts? Gee the insulation under the floors would fall off if you touched it! I think several shotgun blasts would finish off most the floor.

What does fire do to steel?
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/onemeridiansag.jpg
An office fire that the FD left due to possible collapse. Oh noes; the truth is fire cause steel to fail to hold the design load. Oh noes for you.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/woodbeambentsteel-full.jpg
Darn, fire destroys steel; The truth that 911Truth ignores so they can sell dumb ideas on DVD to people who lack knowledge. What is your status, a fraud selling ideas or a sucker buying them?


One of your fellow lack of knowledge 911Truth terrorist apologist said the fires were small! Guess that is why people on fire were jumping. What do you think of your delusions after 7 years of failure?
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/wtcnorthfacemeltedal.jpg
Small fires for you and your fellow delusion seekers.

So you support the ideas of Heiwa; why am I not surprised by the dumb ideas you support on 911? The OP is false and is the anti-intellectual part of 911Truth; pure stupid.

[ozeco41]

The North Tower measurements show the upper block fell at approximately 0.7g and it never decelerated. How can you claim it did?

C'mon you can do better than this can't you?

Tell us how the upper block could cause the lower structure to collapse if there was no deceleration of the upper block.

So we agree on approx 0.7 G

However your use of "no deceleration" is somewhat ambiguous. Do you mean no net reduction in acceleration OR what? So can you clarify what you mean by "never decelerated"?

The fall was resisted sufficient to limit the acceleration by 0.3G to the agreed 0.7G (approximately and "average" I presume in both cases).

So something was resisting and the next questions will be "How did that global collapse occur?" and "what caused the resistance?"

[Tony Szamboti]

So we agree on approx 0.7 G

However your use of "no deceleration" is somewhat ambiguous. Do you mean no net reduction in acceleration OR what? So can you clarify what you mean by "never decelerated"?

The fall was resisted sufficient to limit the acceleration by 0.3G to the agreed 0.7G (approximately and "average" I presume in both cases).

So something was resisting and the next questions will be "How did that global collapse occur?" and "what caused the resistance?"

I mean there was no negative change in velocity which is deceleration. I don't mean just less acceleration as velocity is still increasing there.

In order to get an amplification of the load it must decelerate at a rate greater than 1 g. If it decelerates at 96.6 ft/sec/sec then you would have a 3g amplification and the force applied by the upper block on the lower structure would be 3 times it's static weight.

This is all explained in the Missing Jolt paper which is at the Journal of 911 Studies if you are interested.

Okay Ozeco, you are my last post as I really do have to run.

[Grizzly Bear]

The big problem for the official story is that you need a jolt to take out the lower structure if it isn't being done by demolition devices. They don't have a jolt for over nine measureable stories of fall of the North tower upper block. The only other answer is that demolition devices were removing the columns?
As far as I'm concerned structural failure is structural failure... if the design has vulnerabilities to certain failure mechanisms such as a progressive collapse I see no reason to believe any controlled demolition would be necessary. I don't see any similarities between those collapses and any CD other than the fact that the building collapsed. Unless people have more than simple spurious similarities to speak of it's grasping at straws, and totally unnecessary.

Why does it even make a difference if the demolition was started up higher in the Twin Towers?
I'd have an easier time believing in such speculation if they weren't clearly in a position where they would be in the direct path of vehicles that were effectively used as human-filled missiles. That aside you lose every element of "controlled" the moment you haphazardly fill specific floors allowing virtually every building within the trade center complex to be crushed under the weight of the collapsing structure. If I had even the slightest inclination to argue that bombs were used to take down the structure for any reason, the controlled demolition wouldn't be my signature term.

Sorry AW, no jolt no natural collapse is possible. It really is that simple.
The jolt was the entire 15 to 30 stories that came down on the lower section with a dynamic force that far exceeded the static weight of those sections. The result being a cascade of failures which propagated to the base of the buildings. Given their design such a failure of that magnitude was entirely understandable... If the object being impacted doesn't have nearly enough strength to sustain that force, then I doubt there's going to be much appreciable visibility of any "jolt," the mass will just slam right through it

I think I am done for awhile here. I just thought I would pop in and say hello. Good Luck to those of you who support the official story and are thinking of taking Heiwa's challenge. You are going to need it.
Well sorry to hear that if you see some legitimacy to Heiwa's comparison's... Comparing ship collisions, pizza boxes, and lemons to two full sized skyscrapers simply burns my eye balls... Those aren't case studies... Making a challenge based on such bizarre comparisons is... unique... l8r....

[Furcifer]

The North Tower measurements show the upper block fell at approximately 0.7g and it never decelerated. How can you claim it did?

AI was heading towards the free fall claim. 0.3g is missing, where did it go?

[beachnut]

... This is all explained in the Missing Jolt paper which is at the Journal of 911 Studies if you are interested.
...
Sampling theory is your downfall. You need a video at a frame rate of 96.35 frames per second to catch a rough jolt on 911 (192.7 fps for high fidelity). Did you try to do the math, or use some engineering stink on this? Your work looks like you made it all up to fool idiots. Why can't you do simple physics?

Why is the OP so dumb? Explain and support the OP with your voodoo engineering; it will be so entertaining.

[ozeco41]

....What does fire do to steel?....

One of the more dramatic examples I have visited is Coventry Cathedral.

The original timber roof structure had become weakened through deterioration and had been reinforced with steel.

At least one body of opinion has it that the collapse of Nov 1940 (?) resulted from the weight of steel reinforcing which lost its own structural strength in the fire and actually was the overload to trigger the collapse.

I cannot quickly locate any pictures but this was the post collapse scene:

http://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/results.asp?image=10464569&wwwflag=3&imagepos=9

[ozeco41]

I mean there was no negative change in velocity which is deceleration. I don't mean just less acceleration as velocity is still increasing there. OK... In order to get an amplification of the load it must decelerate at a rate greater than 1 g. If it decelerates at 96.6 ft/sec/sec then you would have a 3g amplification and the force applied..... Right - so that disposes of the basic physics near enough for us to take the next step. .... by the upper block on the lower structure would be 3 times it's static weight....this is where the fundamental misclose between your starting point premises and what actually happened at WTC on 9/11 intrudes into your logic.

The upper block impacted only on parts of the lower structure. To first order approximation (leaving some loose ends aside for simplicity of explanation ONLY) the upper block missed the outer columns AND landed on the first floor below it. So it is the total wight of the upper block plus its dynamic impacts landing on ONE floor which therefore overwhelmingly lands on and shears the floor joist to column connections.

There are only two aspects to include into that oversimplification: The effect of the seriously weakened core which (a)could not support the outer floors via the overhead hanging from the hat truss AND (b) would mostly miss landing with any effective upper core to lower core transfer of axial loading into columns leaving far weaker other means of transfer OR total miss for probably most columns at the first floor of downward impact. Some friction with the outer columns which remained standing for a variable but brief interval after the collapse wave passed inside the tube.
.... This is all explained in the Missing Jolt paper which is at the Journal of 911 Studies if you are interested.....
I read the paper on the second or so day after it was published. It builds on a false premise of how the contact between the falling block and the lower tower actually occurred. So qualitatively my explanation as posted so far is correct. Quantitatively will need to come later.

My premise is correct. The premise of your paper is not and therefore the conclusions are incorrect. And you unfortunately do not have the benefit of having the right answer come out of a wrong method (Which is the piece of generally unrecognised luck that some of the energy calculation based positions against demolition benefit from. :( )

[Tony Szamboti]

OK Right - so that disposes of the basic physics near enough for us to take the next step. ...this is where the fundamental misclose between your starting point premises and what actually happened at WTC on 9/11 intrudes into your logic.

The upper block impacted only on parts of the lower structure. To first order approximation (leaving some loose ends aside for simplicity of explanation ONLY) the upper block missed the outer columns AND landed on the first floor below it. So it is the total wight of the upper block plus its dynamic impacts landing on ONE floor which therefore overwhelmingly lands on and shears the floor joist to column connections.

There are only two aspects to include into that oversimplification: The effect of the seriously weakened core which (a)could not support the outer floors via the overhead hanging from the hat truss AND (b) would mostly miss landing with any effective upper core to lower core transfer of axial loading into columns leaving far weaker other means of transfer OR total miss for probably most columns at the first floor of downward impact. Some friction with the outer columns which remained standing for a variable but brief interval after the collapse wave passed inside the tube.

I read the paper on the second or so day after it was published. It builds on a false premise of how the contact between the falling block and the lower tower actually occurred. So qualitatively my explanation as posted so far is correct. Quantitatively will need to come later.

My premise is correct. The premise of your paper is not and therefore the conclusions are incorrect. And you unfortunately do not have the benefit of having the right answer come out of a wrong method (Which is the piece of generally unrecognised luck that some of the energy calculation based positions against demolition benefit from. :( )

I have to answer you here. You are making a huge completely unsupported assumption in saying that connected columns would miss their lower portion when they buckle.

I say they would not miss.

On top of that there is no jolt for the 114 feet over which the fall of the upper block was measureable. How do you account for that in light of every other collapse having a jolt if it is dependent on transfer of momentum to cause it.

What you are saying is unsupportable but if you believe it write it up and try to get it published.

[Tony Szamboti]

Sampling theory is your downfall. You need a video at a frame rate of 96.35 frames per second to catch a rough jolt on 911 (192.7 fps for high fidelity). Did you try to do the math, or use some engineering stink on this? Your work looks like you made it all up to fool idiots. Why can't you do simple physics?

Why is the OP so dumb? Explain and support the OP with your voodoo engineering; it will be so entertaining.

I already explained that you don't need to see the jolt to measure it's effect. I'll tell you one more time. The velocity loss would cause a time lag for the upper block to get back to pre-impact velocity. That is where one can discern whether or not a velocity loss occurred. There was no velocity loss and therefore no amplified load and no mechanism for a natural collapse.

Why can't you seem to comprehend this. Do you have a mental block of some sort?

[Tony Szamboti]

AI was heading towards the free fall claim. 0.3g is missing, where did it go?

Imagine you have a 100 lb. metal weight being supported with 30 legs which together can support 300 lbs. This means 10 legs can just support the 100 lb. weight.

Now remove 27 of the legs and what happens? The 100 lb. weight falls at 0.7g.

[Tony Szamboti]

The jolt was the entire 15 to 30 stories that came down on the lower section with a dynamic force that far exceeded the static weight of those sections. The result being a cascade of failures which propagated to the base of the buildings. Given their design such a failure of that magnitude was entirely understandable... If the object being impacted doesn't have nearly enough strength to sustain that force, then I doubt there's going to be much appreciable visibility of any "jolt," the mass will just slam right through it

Sorry Grizzly, but it doesn't work like that. Even if the momentum transfer was sufficient to cause the upper block to slam right through the lower structure it would still need to decelerate to apply the necessary force.

You sound like you are arguing from incredulity.

[Grizzly Bear]

Sorry Grizzly, but it doesn't work like that. Even if the momentum transfer was sufficient to cause the upper block to slam right through the lower structure it would still need to decelerate to apply the necessary force.
I don't doubt that... however if the force substantially overwhelms an object's capability to carry the weight that change in acceleration is reflected accordingly, in the case of the towers such deceleration in a visual context is indiscernible. I'm certain one of the more experienced engineers here will clarify this in better detail...

You sound like you are arguing from incredulity.
Somehow I doubt that...

[ozeco41]

I have to answer you here. You are making a huge completely unsupported assumption in saying that connected columns would miss their lower portion when they buckle. false accusation there Tony - My posts were explicit that the bold assertions are for simplicity of explanation with proof to possibly follow if justified.

I say they would not miss. since I am the engineer I suspect that your reason in making that comment may for the benefit of the non-engineers who MAY see it as you legitimately putting doubt on my point.

Axial loading of columns (and lateral bracing) are the key aspects which enable a column to support its design load. The simple probability that an already misaligned top block would start its descent with columns aligned with sufficient accuracy to transfer designed strength axial loads is so small as to be almost disregardable. Even the tilt of the top section alone would compromise that alignment. For those columns already cut or even bent the chance of full design load axial transfer is remote and buckling or bending near certain.

...On top of that there is no jolt for the 114 feet over which the fall of the upper block was measurable...... a more accurate statement would be "On top of that there is no jolt that was measurable for the 114 feet over which the fall of the upper block was measurable"

With respect - whether you are right or I am - the mini jolts as floors were sheared would be too small to detect on the macro scale of the measurements you made. To legitimately criticise my explanation you have to look for measurements of the jolts my explanation uses. Trying to measure my explanation by the characteristics of yours is, well, just a little bit cheating. :D

How do you account for that in light of every other collapse having a jolt if it is dependent on transfer of momentum to cause it...
Lets clear up one issue that continues to derail your logic. I have never said no jolts. I have said they were "little" jolts and several other diminutives on my several forums and email lists.

Second issue is the false analogy not only "every other collapse having a jolt" but this one (these ones) also had "jolts". I don't have to account for all the others NOR for your false inferences that I have claimed no jolts at WTC and/or not explained them. Both those inferences are not true.

What you are saying is unsupportable... hang on a minute. You denied me the right to open with a bold assertion with delayed support if needed. How about you apply the same standard to yourself. :)

... but if you believe it write it up and try to get it published. Not my life objective. Never have been interested in the "Academic Status Game" of published papers - only did one or two (and both in HR management not technical)

My current and last few years focus relevant to this topic is assisting those who are genuine enquirers to understand the technical, security and logistic aspects of the question "demolition or not?" at WTC on 9/11. Happens to fit my career experience stream like a glove.

My primary focus is not on converting "believers" nor on "beating them in debate".

If you are not able to benefit from my input I am still reaching members of my intended audience who may benefit. And I get enough feedback from them to satisfy the small proportion of ego goals that is involved.

[beachnut]

I already explained that you don't need to see the jolt to measure it's effect. I'll tell you one more time. The velocity loss would cause a time lag for the upper block to get back to pre-impact velocity. That is where one can discern whether or not a velocity loss occurred. There was no velocity loss and therefore no amplified load and no mechanism for a natural collapse.

Why can't you seem to comprehend this. Do you have a mental block of some sort? Are you always this bad at physics?

There were velocity losses and that is why the WTC collapsed slower than free-fall. But go ahead and spew dolt science for the dumb followers of 911Truth.

Go ahead make my day and specify exactly the time delay in seconds. I can tell you the first 31G jolt needed better than 100 fps to detect. But you can go ahead and make up lies and junk science. You will not be getting a Pulitzer Prize, you will be laughed at by real engineers.

Go ahead break the story of how you support Heiwa's failed OP and delusional engineering. Go ahead and publish more junk in the journal of woo started by Jones.

Got anything at all to save the OP; your paper failed when you used a slow frame rate video; failure is an exact art for 911Truth; you have perfected it. OP?

[Furcifer]

Imagine you have a 100 lb. metal weight being supported with 30 legs which together can support 300 lbs. This means 10 legs can just support the 100 lb. weight.

Now remove 27 of the legs and what happens? The 100 lb. weight falls at 0.7g.

I suppose this makes sense to you. You certainly have a unique way of thinking.

[alienentity]

my prediction? this thread will end up like all others. the truthers will get frustrated and resort to calling the debunkers: "government loyalists", "bush lovers", or even "traitors".

any bets?

It's now ok to be a bush lover again....:Banane42:

[GodisEnergy]

if the concrete is pulverised then where does the energy come from to crush the tower below. you cannot have it both ways.

[beachnut]

if the concrete is pulverised then where does the energy come from to crush the tower below. you cannot have it both ways.
So physics is not your bag; what is new. You will not be able to support the failed OP; will you?

Are you talking about the dust now? Sorry, but most the dust was not pulverized concrete. Do you have something to help Heiwa with? Got physics?

[ozeco41]

if the concrete is pulverised then where does the energy come from to crush the tower below. you cannot have it both ways.
Very little concrete was pulverised other than as a consequence of falling not a cause. And the tower was not crushed in any normal sense of meaning of that word. The floors were peeled off the columns and the rest fell over.

Don't know what you are claiming is "both ways".

Next question.

[Heiwa]

... the tower was not crushed in any normal sense of meaning of that word. The floors were peeled off the columns and the rest fell over.



You might be right! But can energy provided by gravity alone do that? That is topic of thread!

[ozeco41]

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti
Sorry AW, no jolt no natural collapse is possible. It really is that simple.

The jolt was the entire 15 to 30 stories that came down on the lower section with a dynamic force that far exceeded the static weight of those sections. The result being a cascade of failures which propagated to the base of the buildings. Given their design such a failure of that magnitude was entirely understandable... If the object being impacted doesn't have nearly enough strength to sustain that force, then I doubt there's going to be much appreciable visibility of any "jolt," the mass will just slam right through it
....
Missed this earlier Grizzly Bear.

This part of your comment is 95% accurate - I would say "strength" not "static weight" for the extra 5%. The rest is spot on.
Tony's comment is a mendacious strawman argument. He says "no jolt no natural collapse is possible" which is sort of true in the context. But he implies that there was "no jolt" when the reality is that he means "no jolt big enough to support his false view of the events". And it follows that he only looked for jolts big enough to give the answer he wanted. The real jolts were much smaller - because the falling mass hit and fractured the weakest links. Tony and other truthers want you to think the strongest links failed because that needs a lot of energy and therefore supports "explosives".

Simple tactics if he gets away with it. Some of us understand the structures so we are not gullible. And you accurately describe what happened. Well done.

[Heiwa]

Missed this earlier Grizzly Bear.

This part of your comment is 95% accurate - I would say "strength" not "static weight" for the extra 5%. The rest is spot on.
Tony's comment is a mendacious strawman argument. He says "no jolt no natural collapse is possible" which is sort of true in the context. But he implies that there was "no jolt" when the reality is that he means "no jolt big enough to support his false view of the events". And it follows that he only looked for jolts big enough to give the answer he wanted. The real jolts were much smaller - because the falling mass hit and fractured the weakest links. Tony and other truthers want you to think the strongest links failed because that needs a lot of energy and therefore supports "explosives".

Simple tactics if he gets away with it. Some of us understand the structures so we are not gullible. And you accurately describe what happened. Well done.

I would say 100% inaccurate as explained in post #1! The energy available at first impact is very small and all of it should be absorbed as elastic compression of structure and ground = jolt + ARREST.
But maybe more energy was available or impact produced high local pressures somewhere and some element was broken first, probably in the upper part C, as it was the lightest and weakest part.
Regardless, there is always a jolt when something - part C - drops and impacts something static. If there is no jolt, there is no drop. Isaac Newton was one of the first to explain it.
By careful examinations of videos of part C roof line displacement for > 3 seconds no jolt is observed, just increasing velocity at abt 0.7 g suggesting that structural elements in both parts C and A are removed/destroyed NOT by part C dropping/crushing them, a phenomenon that is impossible for any structure. That part C roof line doesn't drop at 1 g is simply due to broken elements braking the displacement a little before being ejected in a fountain of debris as observed. Controlled demolition is the only way to demolish a structure like WTC 1 as one-way crush down of A by C is impossible. It is quite simple, actually.
Why do you make up fairy tales of floors dropping off, walls peeling off, core structure just falling apart ignoring all joints between these elements that require 1000X more energy to be broken than can be applied by gravity of a little part dropping on the top?

[alienentity]

Heiwa, just because you and Tony seem unable to comprehend things that many other competent and qualified engineers can, you seem to believe that makes you right.

It doesn't. It actually makes you wrong. Get over it and move on. You're flogging a dead horse already.

You can't seriously be expecting people to buy into the idea that explosives brought those buildings down. That possibility doesn't exist, based on the actual events. Perhaps in an alternative scenario - one that didn't happen - your ideas might have some validity, but in this case they don't.

The explosives needed to accomplish the things you guys are talking about would have left plenty of evidence, starting with large explosions of the type seen in actual controlled demolitions.
Since that didn't happen, you can't just invent another reality and expect it to be taken seriously.

For gawds sake, even the guy who designed the buildings, Leslie Robertson, who obviously has far better credentials and judgment than you guys, calculated that, once the upper blocks began to move, nothing could have stopped the collapse of the towers down to their foundations.

Maybe when you and Tony have designed 30 or 40 buildings you can claim some credentials. Until then you're just wasting everybody's time.

[ozeco41]

....Why do you make up fairy tales of floors dropping off, walls peeling off, core structure just falling apart ignoring all joints between these elements that require 1000X more energy to be broken than can be applied by gravity of a little part dropping on the top?
Please take care Heiwa - admit too much of the truth and your own model may "Globally Collapse" :D

The floors of WTC 1 & 2 two were sheared off the columns.

That is clearly shown by the sheets of outer walls falling freely AND UNBUCKLED to land outwards from the base of the towers.

The only question is "sheared of by falling weight" OR "cut off by explosives"?

The falling weight was at least ten times overload for any one floor plus dynamic impact. You do not need to be an engineer or do any calculations to work out what happens when 10 plus dynamic lands on 1 plus safety. You have about a 50 on 5 overload. And, to quote one other source "global collapse is inevitable". 50 beats 5 and I use the word overwhelming.

You persist all you want with your strawman - one of your multiple strawmen actually - of a little thing hitting a big thing. Utter nonsense.

10 floors in one case and 20 floors in the other, of total structure, landed on the single floor equivalent and a severely weakening contact with the core.

It is a no brainer. It is no little thing hitting a big thing. No it is a big thing hitting a little thing about 80 times in sequence. The big lump takes out the one floor, takes out, bends, deflects or misses a level of core and continues on to the next.

When it hits the next it has the extra weight of the last floor level failed join to and increase the falling weight.

[ozeco41]

Heiwa, just because you and Tony seem unable to comprehend things that many other competent and qualified engineers can, you seem to believe that makes you right.

It doesn't. It actually makes you wrong. Get over it and move on. You're flogging a dead horse already.

You can't seriously be expecting people to buy into the idea that explosives brought those buildings down. That possibility doesn't exist, based on the actual events. Perhaps in an alternative scenario - one that didn't happen - your ideas might have some validity, but in this case they don't.

The explosives needed to accomplish the things you guys are talking about would have left plenty of evidence, starting with large explosions of the type seen in actual controlled demolitions.
Since that didn't happen, you can't just invent another reality and expect it to be taken seriously.

For gawds sake, even the guy who designed the buildings, Leslie Robertson, who obviously has far better credentials and judgment than you guys, calculated that, once the upper blocks began to move, nothing could have stopped the collapse of the towers down to their foundations.

Well said alienentity. The big picture of the logistic and security impossibility of demolition is one the we let pass when doing these truthers the courtesy of attempting to explain. So we are acting as if one hand tied. Then they rarely accept evidence of structural reasoning let alone video. So Tony and Heiwa both adopt fantasy models of collapse which are not analogous to actual events of 9/11. And neither has the grace to back out when confronted by reality. So they are out there , in the public arena, all their faults exposed and only supported by their sycophant supporters. Not the place I would want to be. Then my ego needs are different.

...Maybe when you and Tony have designed 30 or 40 buildings you can claim some credentials. Until then you're just wasting everybody's time. No need to wait for that goal. I could not satisfy it. The only need is to look at evidence and correctly interpret it. AND, if you make a big mistake, either run away and hide OR admit it and gain respect.

[alienentity]

'no jolt is observed' but even if there was a jolt 'The energy available at first impact is very small ' If by 'small' you mean 'Many times greater than the strength of the impacted points' sure, it was positively tiny.
To declare that there was no jolt is misleading. To claim that the impact was small is misleading.
Most normal, rational people can see that the structure began to fail, not as a result of a giant explosion immediately preceding the failure (as in CD).
And most normal, rational people are able to see the causality of a giant airplane impacting a building at 400+ mph and starting multiple giant fires leading to structural failure.

Your misuse of the concept of 'jolt' is like Steven Jones' 'nano'. They become nothing more than cheap rhetorical devices used to sell a bad theory.
Maybe you guys should switch to selling Hummers at the GM dealer. You'd probably have more success with that than you'll ever have with your current product line - with the bonus that Hummers, even if you hate 'em, are real.

[alienentity]

'The big picture of the logistic and security impossibility of demolition is one the we let pass when doing these truthers the courtesy of attempting to explain.' Well put.

That's an additional set of impossible challenges for them to surmount. I was just referring to the absence of the necessary explosions.

This seems to be a bad case of ASDES - Attention Seeking Dead Ender Syndrome

[bill smith]

I have to answer you here. You are making a huge completely unsupported assumption in saying that connected columns would miss their lower portion when they buckle.

I say they would not miss.

On top of that there is no jolt for the 114 feet over which the fall of the upper block was measureable. How do you account for that in light of every other collapse having a jolt if it is dependent on transfer of momentum to cause it.

What you are saying is unsupportable but if you believe it write it up and try to get it published.

Tony you say that the 250 columns that still connected part C to part A after the plane crash would still strike their lower parts when the columns buckled. Do you mean that they buckled concertina-fashion ?- straight down ? How could that be ?

[ozeco41]

Tony you say that the 250 columns that still connected part C to part A after the plane crash would still strike their lower parts when the columns buckled. Do you mean that they buckled concertina-fashion ?- straight down ? How could that be ?

Spot on bill - that is the key point I have put to Tony only I used confusing and complicated engineering language.

And the "buckled concertina fashion" is the failure that Tony needs to make any sense out of his "Jolt Hypothesis" - it is not the only error but it is one of them and it is fatal to his case.

It is the most energy consuming failure. Think about it - you could easily break a thin stick by holding both ends and bending it over your knee. You could not hold the same stick in both hands and push it endwise so it crushed or concertinaed.

A stick has to be very weak and pliable before you can hand compress it endwise so it folds. And such a stick would have no strength against sideways bending.

In engineer talk "end on" is axial force and sideways is "bending" or "bending moment. There is another couple but those two will do for this topic at this stage.

[Heiwa]

Please take care Heiwa - admit too much of the truth and your own model may "Globally Collapse" :D

The floors of WTC 1 & 2 two were sheared off the columns.

That is clearly shown by the sheets of outer walls falling freely AND UNBUCKLED to land outwards from the base of the towers.

The only question is "sheared of by falling weight" OR "cut off by explosives"?

The falling weight was at least ten times overload for any one floor plus dynamic impact. You do not need to be an engineer or do any calculations to work out what happens when 10 plus dynamic lands on 1 plus safety. You have about a 50 on 5 overload. And, to quote one other source "global collapse is inevitable". 50 beats 5 and I use the word overwhelming.

You persist all you want with your strawman - one of your multiple strawmen actually - of a little thing hitting a big thing. Utter nonsense.

10 floors in one case and 20 floors in the other, of total structure, landed on the single floor equivalent and a severely weakening contact with the core.

It is a no brainer. It is no little thing hitting a big thing. No it is a big thing hitting a little thing about 80 times in sequence. The big lump takes out the one floor, takes out, bends, deflects or misses a level of core and continues on to the next.

When it hits the next it has the extra weight of the last floor level failed join to and increase the falling weight.

Thanks for observations. You 100% debunk Bazant & Co in their BLGB paper that explains the one-way crush down intact C crushing A and then the one-way crush up rubble B crushing C with some crazy differential equations and associated assumptions. So a Bazant one way crush down didn't take place!

Good!

So how did all the structural elements in the structure shear off at joints or inside the elements themselves? Falling elements? Why would elements connected to other elements fall? Some supports failed! They buckled! OK - some elements displaced downwards. But when did shearing off by falling elements start?
Falling elements must apply their energy/forces on other elements and then shear them off at joints or inside the element. It is not so easy. Just visit The Heiwa Challenge thread where you are invited to produce any structure that can do that. You see the other, static elements apply energy/forces on the falling elements, too.

The falling elements are assumed loose and the other elements are still connected to one another. One falling, loose element has no chance against several static elements still connected. The lonely one may contact one of the the many but will then be pushed aside; the energy of the falling element will simply not be applied to the many. And so one. So a falling object C cannot destroy an assembly A of similar objects C (A=10C) joined together. C may break loose one C of A but that's it. If you can provide evidence to the contrary, pls do.

Anyway, thanks for debunking Bazant & Co. That's the purpose of my article in post #1.

[bill smith]

Spot on bill - that is the key point I have put to Tony only I used confusing and complicated engineering language.

And the "buckled concertina fashion" is the failure that Tony needs to make any sense out of his "Jolt Hypothesis" - it is not the only error but it is one of them and it is fatal to his case.

It is the most energy consuming failure. Think about it - you could easily break a thin stick by holding both ends and bending it over your knee. You could not hold the same stick in both hands and push it endwise so it crushed or concertinaed.

A stick has to be very weak and pliable before you can hand compress it endwise so it folds. And such a stick would have no strength against sideways bending.

In engineer talk "end on" is axial force and sideways is "bending" or "bending moment. There is another couple but those two will do for this topic at this stage.

I see what Tony means though because at no point do we see the top block overlap the lower block which means that the walls were in perfect alignment. That would imply a straight-down collapse....column-on-column.
Oviously if 250 columns had knelt they would have knelt in one direction and that would have walked the top block visibly out of line with the lower block.
If you look at the attached video you will note there is no rotation of any kind of the roofline prior to collapse initiation. No rotation = no kneeling of 250 columns.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9-owhllM9k Antenna video

(Note; there are those who claim that although there is no rotation of the roofline in this relatively clear video that there actualy IS rotation in videos taken from other angles. Think that through)

[beachnut]

Many persons take for granted that steel structures of certain types, e.g. WTC Twin Towers, collapse from top down - one-way crush down - ...

On 911 the WTC fell down due to impact and fires. The gravity collapse is not understood by many due to lack of knowledge.
Heiwa's paper will be rejected and not be the source material for a Pulitzer Prize. His failure to convince any rational engineers (you can't count the idiot idea believers in 911Truth) in the world of his ideas is proof of failure. 7 years; no joy.

The WTC failed as seen on 911 without beam weapons, no thermite, no explosives, just fire after crippling impacts. Heiwa why are you stuck making up lies about 911; over 7 years after the event?

[ozeco41]

I see what Tony means though because at no point do we see the top block overlap the lower block which means that the walls were in perfect alignment. That would imply a straight-down collapse....column-on-column.
Obviously if 250 columns had knelt they would have knelt in one direction and that would have walked the top block visibly out of line with the lower block.
If you look at the attached video you will note there is no rotation of any kind of the roofline prior to collapse initiation. No rotation = no kneeling of 250 columns.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9-owhllM9k Antenna video

(Note; there are those who claim that although there is no rotation of the roofline in this relatively clear video that there actualy IS rotation in videos taken from other angles. Think that through)
Bill there are three options: Top falls outside bottom. Not so see your linked video; Top falls directly on top of bottom. Again not so - look carefully at where the top disappears at the "top edge of the bottom" at about the 10-15 seconds timing. AND Top falls behind therefore inside bottom. Look at the video again at that same timing point.

The top moved down and clearly the bottom is neither crushed nor buckled nor apparently affected in any way.

Therefore the top is neither falling outside NOR falling directly on top.

Also there is no evident damage to the top - it simply disappears behind the upper edge of the bottom bit for the time we can see.

So my claim is correct at least for that one of the four walls.

Lets take this step by step so I will leave it there for this post.

[Bananaman]

Beach:
Heiwa why are you stuck making up lies about 911; over 7 years after the event?

I'd say he either makes money from it, has his ego compensated for some deficiency by it, or is as mad as a hatstand.

I'm betting on a bit of all three.

Bananaman.

[ozeco41]

Thanks for observations. You 100% debunk Bazant & Co in their BLGB paper that explains the one-way crush down intact C crushing A and then the one-way crush up rubble B crushing C with some crazy differential equations and associated assumptions. So a Bazant one way crush down didn't take place!... that is your interpetetion. I have not read Bazant for about a year. I recall discomfort with some of his approach - cannot recal what so it was not my intention to debunk and there may still be other issues I would want to examine.
[/QUOTE]
Good!
[QUOTE]...So how did all the structural elements in the structure shear off at joints or inside the elements themselves? Falling elements? Why would elements connected to other elements fall? Some supports failed! They buckled! OK - some elements displaced downwards. But when did shearing off by falling elements start? I have already addressed most of these issues in other posts but it is probably time to draw them together into one cherent explanation. I will try to do so in the near future.
Falling elements must apply their energy/forces on other elements and then shear them off at joints or inside the element. It is not so easy. Just visit The Heiwa Challenge thread where you are invited to produce any structure that can do that. You see the other, static elements apply energy/forces on the falling elements, too.

The falling elements are assumed loose and the other elements are still connected to one another. One falling, loose element has no chance against several static elements still connected. The lonely one may contact one of the the many but will then be pushed aside; the energy of the falling element will simply not be applied to the many. And so one. So a falling object C cannot destroy an assembly A of similar objects C (A=10C) joined together. C may break loose one C of A but that's it. If you can provide evidence to the contrary, pls do.

Anyway, thanks for debunking Bazant & Co. That's the purpose of my article in post #1. I will take a rain check here due to other commitments.
- will return when time to think clearly and write.

eco

[Dave Rogers]

The North Tower measurements show the upper block fell at approximately 0.7g and it never decelerated. How can you claim it did?

If it fell at an acceleration of 0.7g, and the downward force was gravity, then it was experiencing a continuous deceleration of 0.3g. This, added to the continuous acceleration of 1.0g, produced a resultant acceleration of 0.7g. Apparently everyone understands this except you.

Dave

[Heiwa]

Bill there are three options: Top falls outside bottom. Not so see your linked video; Top falls directly on top of bottom. Again not so - look carefully at where the top disappears at the "top edge of the bottom" at about the 10-15 seconds timing. AND Top falls behind therefore inside bottom. Look at the video again at that same timing point.

The top moved down and clearly the bottom is neither crushed nor buckled nor apparently affected in any way.

Therefore the top is neither falling outside NOR falling directly on top.

Also there is no evident damage to the top - it simply disappears behind the upper edge of the bottom bit for the time we can see.

So my claim is correct at least for that one of the four walls.

Lets take this step by step so I will leave it there for this post.

OK - step by step! Se below three pictures:

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/WTCstartx.jpg

Picture 1 is no failures.
Picture 2 is when roof has dropped for 2 seconds about 10 meters or 3 floors. What bottom has contacted what top? What elements have failed and where and why? Is there anything between the bottom/top?

Picture 3 is when roof has dropped for 3 seconds about 30/35 meters or 7-9 floors. Where is top/bottom of what. What elements have failed, &c? Why is smoke coming out of Upper Part C, if Upper Part C is supposed to be intact and crushing down elements below in Lower Part A?

[bill smith]

OK - step by step! Se below three pictures:

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/WTCstartx.jpg

Picture 1 is no failures.
Picture 2 is when roof has dropped for 2 seconds about 10 meters or 3 floors. What bottom has contacted what top? What elements have failed and where and why? Is there anything between the bottom/top?

Picture 3 is when roof has dropped for 3 seconds about 30/35 meters or 7-9 floors. Where is top/bottom of what. What elements have failed, &c? Why is smoke coming out of Upper Part C, if Upper Part C is supposed to be intact and crushing down elements below in Lower Part A?

Very useful pictures Heiwa. It makes other things jump out too. It's not dificult to mentally sketch in the column locations above and below for instance.

[Redtail]

OK - step by step! Se below three pictures:

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/WTCstartx.jpg

Picture 1 is no failures.
Picture 2 is when roof has dropped for 2 seconds about 10 meters or 3 floors. What bottom has contacted what top? What elements have failed and where and why? Is there anything between the bottom/top?

Picture 3 is when roof has dropped for 3 seconds about 30/35 meters or 7-9 floors. Where is top/bottom of what. What elements have failed, &c? Why is smoke coming out of Upper Part C, if Upper Part C is supposed to be intact and crushing down elements below in Lower Part A?


:eye-poppi Do... Do you think C is a solid block of material?

[Drs_Res]

Hmm, according to Heiwa's pictures, part "A" is getting shorter and part "C" is the same height in all of the pictures.

Actually, part "C" GREW a few pixels from picture 1 to picture 2.

[Heiwa]

:eye-poppi Do... Do you think C is a solid block of material?

According to the OCT, NIST, Bazant, Seffen, a.o., C is rigid (solid, neglegibly damaged, &c) ... and crushes down WTC 1 part A while remaining rigid. Don't you agree that it is obviously not the case? So, bye, bye, OCT, NIST, Bazant, Seffen & Co. :)

[ozeco41]

Now now folks - don't fall for some clearly drawn lines superimposed on a murky picture. Talk a bout desperate grasping of straws.

Naughty Heiwa. :(

Look at the video that bill linked which shows clearly what I said earlier.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9-owhllM9k

In those first few seconds the top block falls within the bottom - C inside A in Heiwa's nomencalature.

Since both are same size slearly either C is copressing OR A is expanding already (OR both)

But the key is still C inside A :rolleyes:

[dtugg]

According to the OCT, NIST, Bazant, Seffen, a.o., C is rigid (solid, neglegibly damaged, &c) ... and crushes down WTC 1 part A while remaining rigid. Don't you agree that it is obviously not the case? So, bye, bye, OCT, NIST, Bazant, Seffen & Co. :)

Stop lying, Anders, we can all see through it.

[AndrewIlluminatus]

@AI- No one has claimed that the collapse acclerated at 1g. There was a negative acceleration due to restistence. This point has been made again and again yet some such as yourself remain willfully ignorant of it. Either show how the deceleration should have been greater than was observed or move on. There isn't one single person here that believes the collapse accelerated at 1g, making analogies to show how this isn't possible is quite boring and useless.

Although the exact time of the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 cannot be determined with precision because of the growing dust cloud, each collapse took approximately 10-12 seconds. NIST NCSTAR "Within 12s, the collapse of WTC1 had left nothing but rubble." Only 2 seconds slower than the time for a reasonably dense object that was not overly influenced by air buoyancy at 1.2kg/cubic metre (and air drag), to fall from the WTC roof to the plaza. Therefore, air resistance alone will make it take longer than 10 seconds for gravity to pull an object to the ground from the former height of WTC1 or 2 (time would be about 9.2 seconds in a vacuum). That 12s represents extraordinarily insufficient resistance within the intact tower structure to have permitted the kind of impacts imagined to produce sequential kinetic energy impacts and kinetic energy explosions in a ripple down manner. The energy from gravity has to be used up and it cannot be expected to do two jobs at once. Either all the energy from gravity is used up to create imagined tonnes of TNT kinetic energy explosiveness in sequential one-off explosive ripple-down events or it is used up to get an already explosively disassembled (by other means) building to the ground in that sort of time frame.

Additionally it is clear from video of the WTC2 event that the top load tipped over to the East, so did not apply a symmetrical weight load to the tower below yet within about 2 seconds of the explosive collapse initiation, the top load was explosively disassembled in mid-air upwards. Moreover for the initial symmetrical explosive collapse process below the tipped over top, during the first few seconds the ripple down, explosive blow outs shot down the tower faster than the explosively ejected building material from the top could keep up. This means that in the initial stage of the "WTC2 collapse process" the symmetrical-ripple-down-explosiveness, purportedly from a top load exerting an asymmetrical weight load, since it had tipped over before it was explosively disassembled upwards, was faster than the time for a reasonably dense object to fall through air.

On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the government's "complete and final report" of 9/11 that the South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds. Here is the exact quote: "At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds". Actually that is probably slightly too short a time period for the collapse to have been possible in air.

Considerable energy was used up in causing the observed massive high-speed sideways ejection of material (sometimes upwards) and much of the glass and concrete was pulverised and the ductile (not brittle) steelwork was shattered, twisted and mangled. The energy requirements to do anything even remotely like that rival the total amount of potential energy that the entire towers had to give when converted to kinetic energy, via gravity as the energy input. So while gravity is strong enough to cause reasonably dense objects to fall that far, through air, that fast, and while gravity is probably not strong enough to have so thoroughly disintegrated the towers under their own weight, gravity is certainly not strong enough to have done both simultaneously.

[Heiwa]

Now now folks - don't fall for some clearly drawn lines superimposed on a murky picture. Talk a bout desperate grasping of straws.

Naughty Heiwa. :(

Look at the video that bill linked which shows clearly what I said earlier.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9-owhllM9k

In those first few seconds the top block falls within the bottom - C inside A in Heiwa's nomencalature.

Since both are same size slearly either C is copressing OR A is expanding already (OR both)

But the key is still C inside A :rolleyes:

Thanks for the link, where it is even more obvious that upper part (C) does not crush lower part (A) at all ... but self-destructs (compresses??) prior to that:

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/WTC1x.jpg

Picture left start - picture right after 3 seconds.

So upper part (C) doesn't drop on lower part (A). It self-destructs/compresses. Evidently not due to gravity! Nothing drops on upper part C!

Thanks for pointing out this! OCT-ists, NIST, Bazant, FEMA, CIA, FBI, &c, will not be happy.

[Dave Rogers]

Considerable energy was used up in causing the observed massive high-speed sideways ejection of material (sometimes upwards) and much of the glass and concrete was pulverised and the ductile (not brittle) steelwork was shattered, twisted and mangled. The energy requirements to do anything even remotely like that rival the total amount of potential energy that the entire towers had to give when converted to kinetic energy, via gravity as the energy input. So while gravity is strong enough to cause reasonably dense objects to fall that far, through air, that fast, and while gravity is probably not strong enough to have so thoroughly disintegrated the towers under their own weight, gravity is certainly not strong enough to have done both simultaneously.

On the one hand we have your bare assertion, unsupported by any attempt at calculations, that there was not enough potential energy in the Twin Towers to produce the observable effects. On the other we have the painstaking and thorough calculations by Frank Greening, Gregory Urich, Newtons Bit and others - I've even reproduced them myself and reached the same conclusion - which demonstrate mathematically that there was ample potential energy to produce these effects. Oh, the dilemma - should I believe you, or my own lying maths?

Dave

[twinstead]

Oh, the dilemma - should I believe you, or my own lying maths?

Yea. Whom to believe. Whom to believe...;)

[Swing Dangler]

Except that his challenge was accepted, yet he basically refused to answer any of the posts. Couple that with the fact he backed out of actually paying any of the money he had promised, and you have a fraud. Way to continue your history of supporting frauds.

It was accepted? Well great. I noticed the thread was closed because Parky showed up and began the derailment as is standard fare for him/her.

1. So someone here decided to take on the challenged then backed out because Heiwa didn't answer some questions?
If I recall, they demanded part of the money be put into escrow, correct? But that wasn't part of Hewais challenge, correct? Model it and he will pay. Quite simple really. By changing the challenge that is simply a passive-aggressive way of avoiding the challenge all together. Which means the challenge still stands and is still completely avoided by engineers, scientists, etc.

2. Strange to avoid science when it is so easy to do, eh? Why do people at JREF fear science, Disbelief?

3. So let me get this straight, someone will do it for money, but not do it to support the WTC 1 official collapse scenario? :newlol

4. Don't you think, Disbelief, NIST would have modeled it if an anonymous poster on this site could easily model the collapse to prove Hewia wrong?

5.If so, doesn't this make NIST look just a tad bit incompetent?

[leftysergeant]

Why is smoke coming out of Upper Part C, if Upper Part C is supposed to be intact and crushing down elements below in Lower Part A?

There was smoke coming oput of it from the get-go, immediately after the aircraft struck.

The deflagration of jet fuel blew open elevators and staved in fire doors. There are styairways to conduct the smoke upward. There are elevator shafts to conduct the smoke upward.

Pretty simple stuff here, really.

[Tony Szamboti]

If it fell at an acceleration of 0.7g, and the downward force was gravity, then it was experiencing a continuous deceleration of 0.3g. This, added to the continuous acceleration of 1.0g, produced a resultant acceleration of 0.7g. Apparently everyone understands this except you.

Dave

Did you see and understand this little example I showed above?

Imagine you have a 100 lb. metal weight being supported with 30 legs which together can support 300 lbs. This means 10 legs can just support the 100 lb. weight.

Now remove 27 of the legs and what happens? The 100 lb. weight falls at 0.7g.


The 0.3g less than gravitational acceleration is not deceleration in the sense of effecting a transfer of momentum of the moving upper block to the lower structure. It is just minor resistance to the upper block's full acceleration due to gravity. To transfer momentum you need negative velocity change. With a 0.7g acceleration the velocity of the upper block continues to increase.

Aside from the above, at a bare minimum a 3g deceleration of the upper block would be necessary to overload the core columns. This deceleration or jolt just isn't there, and this proves something else was causing the lower structure columns to fail to support their load. The upper block simply could not overload them without a negative velocity change due to a high deceleration of at least 3g.

You couldn't be any more wrong about how you are stating this.

[bardamu]

In those first few seconds the top block falls within the bottom - C inside A in Heiwa's nomencalature.

Since both are same size slearly either C is copressing OR A is expanding already (OR both)

But the key is still C inside A :rolleyes:

If C is inside A, why are the perimeter columns at the top of A not showing any signs of being pushed out by debris or pulled in by the failed floor trusses?

[Dave Rogers]

Did you see and understand this little example I showed above?

Imagine you have a 100 lb. metal weight being supported with 30 legs which together can support 300 lbs. This means 10 legs can just support the 100 lb. weight.

Now remove 27 of the legs and what happens? The 100 lb. weight falls at 0.7g.

Yes, I saw it, but it's such an absurd fantasy that it's a little difficult to know how to respond to someone who could believe something so ridiculous. We have three legs each capable of supporting 10lbs and a weight of 100lb, so one or more of the legs will break. When they've broken, the weight will fall at 1g. That's assuming, of course, that the legs are made of some material with similar yield behaviour to steel. You seem to be suggesting that the remaining legs will continue to exert the same upward force after they've broken. I wonder what world you live in.

The 0.3g less than gravitational acceleration is not deceleration it is just some minor resistance to full acceleration due to gravity. To decelerate you need negative velocity change.

Exactly. If the resistance to the collapse gives less than 1g upward force, there will be no overall deceleration. If the upper block is falling at an angle, then the effective force from breaking individual structural elements will be averaged over a number of collisions, and will appear as a resistance to collapse, visible as a downward acceleration less than 1g. To see an absolute deceleration, you need a single impact across the entire block, which would only happen if all the columns collided simultaneously. Since we know the upper block fell at an angle, we know this didn't happen, so we don't expect a jolt. The resistance to collapse you claim not to see is just the difference between 1g and the actual downward acceleration. It's there, you just don't recognise it when you see it.

You've been told this a hundred times by many different people, all of whom understand exactly what's wrong with your paper. It's your failure to understand that's the problem.

Dave

[AndrewIlluminatus]

On the one hand we have your bare assertion, unsupported by any attempt at calculations, that there was not enough potential energy in the Twin Towers to produce the observable effects. On the other we have the painstaking and thorough calculations by Frank Greening, Gregory Urich, Newtons Bit and others - I've even reproduced them myself and reached the same conclusion - which demonstrate mathematically that there was ample potential energy to produce these effects. Oh, the dilemma - should I believe you, or my own lying maths?

Dave

Although the exact time of the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 cannot be determined with precision because of the growing dust cloud, each collapse took approximately 10-12 seconds. NIST NCSTAR "Within 12s, the collapse of WTC1 had left nothing but rubble." Only 2 seconds slower than the time for a reasonably dense object that was not overly influenced by air buoyancy at 1.2kg/cubic metre (and air drag), to fall from the WTC roof to the plaza. Therefore, air resistance alone will make it take longer than 10 seconds for gravity to pull an object to the ground from the former height of WTC1 or 2 (time would be about 9.2 seconds in a vacuum). That 12s represents extraordinarily insufficient resistance within the intact tower structure to have permitted the kind of impacts imagined to produce sequential kinetic energy impacts and kinetic energy explosions in a ripple down manner. The energy from gravity has to be used up and it cannot be expected to do two jobs at once. Either all the energy from gravity is used up to create imagined tonnes of TNT kinetic energy explosiveness in sequential one-off explosive ripple-down events or it is used up to get an already explosively disassembled (by other means) building to the ground in that sort of time frame.

Additionally it is clear from video of the WTC2 event that the top load tipped over to the East, so did not apply a symmetrical weight load to the tower below yet within about 2 seconds of the explosive collapse initiation, the top load was explosively disassembled in mid-air upwards. Moreover for the initial symmetrical explosive collapse process below the tipped over top, during the first few seconds the ripple down, explosive blow outs shot down the tower faster than the explosively ejected building material from the top could keep up. This means that in the initial stage of the "WTC2 collapse process" the symmetrical-ripple-down-explosiveness, purportedly from a top load exerting an asymmetrical weight load, since it had tipped over before it was explosively disassembled upwards, was faster than the time for a reasonably dense object to fall through air.

On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the government's "complete and final report" of 9/11 that the South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds. Here is the exact quote: "At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds". Actually that is probably slightly too short a time period for the collapse to have been possible in air.

Considerable energy was used up in causing the observed massive high-speed sideways ejection of material (sometimes upwards) and much of the glass and concrete was pulverised and the ductile (not brittle) steelwork was shattered, twisted and mangled. The energy requirements to do anything even remotely like that rival the total amount of potential energy that the entire towers had to give when converted to kinetic energy, via gravity as the energy input. So while gravity is strong enough to cause reasonably dense objects to fall that far, through air, that fast, and while gravity is probably not strong enough to have so thoroughly disintegrated the towers under their own weight, gravity is certainly not strong enough to have done both simultaneously.

Why Did the WTC Towers fall, "fire and gravity" or something else?
In perfect conditions the maximum temperature that can be reached by hydrocarbons, like jet-fuel, burning in air is 825°C (1520°F) but these perfect conditions were not reached in the burning towers before collapse. There is absolutely no reason in the Bush-Cheney-PNAC-FEMA "truss theory" why there should have been any kind of fire in the basements at all to account for the molten steel found there. Thermal hotspots of around 1100°C (2000°F) were found in the basements on September 16th 2001. A thermite reaction (and explosives) generate extraordinarily high temperatures, greater than 2500°C (4550°F), and it provides a potentially credible explanation for the thermal hot spots and the molten steel around the basement level steel foundations. Construction steel has an extremely high melting point of about 1535°C (2800°F). Something other than gravity and fires melted the steel in the basements of the WTC complex.

The "Bush-Cheney razor blades and Saudi hijacker conspiracy theory" does not deal with the fact that we need to account for the molten steel in the basements through a hypothetical truss theory. A theory that implausibly speculates that fire high up in the building caused a "final straw" failure of a single truss support and gravity did the rest. Please remember that there is zero empirical evidence for this "truss theory" and it remains just a theoretical hypothesis.

Since buildings 1 and 2 survived the impact of the aircraft without collapsing (or signs of undue stress) and fire and gravity are claimed to have caused their collapse instead, then the aircraft are irrelevant as a mechanism for collapse except that they obviously caused some initial damage. In WTC7 aircraft are totally irrelevant to the mechanism of collapse since no aircraft ever hit the building. As the aircraft are irrelevant as the final mechanism of collapse, they are therefore simply a military deception "magician style visual pretext" for a collapse and not an ultimate cause of the collapse. Many eyewitnesses reported seeing and hearing explosions!

Turning to the video of where the collapse starts in all three buildings the timing sequence for the demolition appears to start around the area of the fires high up in buildings 1 and 2. However in the case of building 7, this building appears to have been demolished in a more conventional manner from the bottom, below the rather small fires that were in that building. Explosives used in the controlled demolition of buildings have to be detonated in precisely the correct order to achieve the desired collapse effect. When you carefully view the video of the collapse of buildings 1 and 2, (and 7) you will see "squibs" (or puffs of smoke shooting out sideways from the building). These squibs were several floors below the falling dust cloud and these slightly early detonations are an indication that explosives were used in the demolition of the buildings, not gravity alone.

The observed near free-fall times of the Twin Towers (and WTC7) were a dramatic signature of a controlled demolition. US (war criminal) regime measured times are around 10 to 12 seconds for WTC 1 & 2 and 6.6 seconds for the shorter WTC 7, which is close to calculated free-fall time in air, indicating the tower floors fell without much impediment. They essentially fell into air because the buildings had already lost all structural integrity. The collapse of WTC 7 in 6.6 seconds is just 0.6 of a second longer than it would take an object dropped from the roof to hit the ground so where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum, one of the foundational laws of physics? That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors and intact steel support columns the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. How do the upper floors fall so quickly and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings? The implausible theory put forth by "establishment" engineers is that while no steel members actually melted or failed in WTC 1 & 2, it was the "floor assemblies", bolted at their joists to the outer walls and inner core structures, that did fail. The floor joist attachment bolts were weakened by heat and gave way, twisting sideways and allowing the initial truss and then initial floor to "instantly unzip" itself all the way round the building and collapse onto the floor below. The remaining floors then "pancaked" all the way down at a speed of around 10 floors per second. Never mind that floor joist cross members, placed to resist twisting, and additional support structures were not included at all in the MIT/FEMA/NOVA/NIST calculations and presentations nor was a collapse mechanism for the very robust inner core of columns explained at all. Building WTC 7 has been totally ignored in the TV propaganda "expert documentary explanations" provided for the plebeian masses purporting to reassure us all that Saudis (mainly) and razorblades caused 9/11.

But consider the following; if the "pancaking" effect caused the total building failure, why is it that no video of either of the WTC 1 and 2 collapses shows any sign of stutter between floor collapses? Stutter should have been very apparent, especially in the first few floors of collapse when the speed of gravitational collapse had not accelerated for long. The first "unzipped" floor would only have fallen around 12 feet before hitting the next floor below. The exterior of the building should have been sliding down around the inner core, which should have remained largely sticking up in the air after the collapse. Consider also that apologists for the official Bush-Cheney conspiracy theory propose that 30% of the gravitational collapse energy was necessary to create the "pyroclastic" cloud of debris. That is, in the "official" analysis, this pulverising energy came out of the gravitational energy. This means that the time of fall would have been slowed further than what was observed. When a body of mass m falls from a height h, acted upon by gravitational acceleration g, it converts its potential energy PE = m x g x h into kinetic energy KE = (1/2) x m x (v exp2). Here h = (1/2) x g x (t exp2), t = time of fall, and v =g x t, where v = velocity. Removal of 30% of the PE to turn the concrete and asbestos into fine powder essentially reduces the amount of energy available from falling, effectively reducing the gravitational acceleration to something less than g. Substituting, in the above equations we have (1.0 - 0.3) x PE = 0.7 x PE = m x g' x h, where PE, m and h are as before and g' = the effective gravitational acceleration. Hence, comparing terms for PE, g' = 0.7 g. The time of collapse under g' will also increase. If we let the effective collapse time be t', then comparing terms for constant h, (1/2) x g x (t exp2) = (1/2) x g' x (t' exp2) = (1/2) x 0.7g x (t' exp2). Hence, (t exp2) = 0.7 x (t' exp2), or (t/t') = SQRT (0.7) = 0.837. Or, t' = 1.195 t. Now the observed time t = 10 seconds, a free fall time, the fastest possible time under g = 9.8m/sec/sec. For the dust cloud debris creation to absorb 30% of the gravitational energy, the observed time of fall would be 10s x 1.195, or almost 12 seconds, but on page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the government's "complete and final report" of 9/11 that the South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds. Here is the exact quote: "At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds". Clearly, there are serious flaws in the "official" explanation/conspiracy theory. The implication from the above is that there were major energy sources other than gravitational forces involved in the WTC tower collapses. In any event "common-sense" should tell us that gravity causing all the damage and providing the energy could not possibly propel steel beams out of the building sideways and even upwards towards space and away from the planet generating the gravity. In conclusion, the buildings could not possibly, following the laws of physics, have collapsed like that without explosives and/or the use of something like a thermite reaction. Nineteen disaffected Muslims (nine reportedly still strangely alive) armed with razorblades could not possibly have been involved in preparing WTC 1, 2 and 7 for demolition by those means and so perhaps we still need to catch and bring to justice the real terrorists of 9/11.

[bill smith]

Yea. Whom to believe. Whom to believe...;)

Who knows which way you will spring ? lol

[ozeco41]

...Imagine you have a 100 lb. metal weight being supported with 30 legs which together can support 300 lbs. This means 10 legs can just support the 100 lb. weight.... Please take care that this simplification does not mislead the non-engineers because it depends on which legs are removed. It is only true under some very specific situations.

Now remove 27 of the legs and what happens? The 100 lb. weight falls at 0.7g.
...so "ditto"

The 0.3g less than gravitational acceleration is not deceleration in the sense of effecting a transfer of momentum of the moving upper block to the lower structure. It is just minor resistance to the upper block's full acceleration due to gravity. To transfer momentum you need negative velocity change. With a 0.7g acceleration the velocity of the upper block continues to increase....the point we clarified yesterday.

Aside from the above, at a bare minimum a 3g deceleration of the upper block would be necessary to overload the core columns. ..if it was effectively loaded onto those columns which is highly unlikely. The probable result of the falling tilting block is an eccentric loading or glancing "miss" Even a total miss is possible but at that first fall most columns would still be joined - and bent either as part of the group that cascade failed to allow the initial collapse to start OR be the ones that were left with insufficient strength to hold the total and bent/buckled as a failure mode (plus the few already cut by aircraft). So the chance of columns carrying anything resembling original capacity is nearly non existent given that the start of the initial collapse would already have bent or buckled them. So lets not lose track of the sequence of events to postulate stages as if they were isolated from their context. This deceleration or jolt just isn't there, and this proves something else was causing the lower structure columns to fail to support their load. False dilemma - you are still missing the third option "OR the columns were not taking the load" The upper block simply could not overload them without a negative velocity change due to a high deceleration of at least 3g....therefore this is a false assumption based on the false premise

...You couldn't be any more wrong about how you are stating this....well that is a "bit strong" why not say "wrong" or "in error" Surely there are many ways to be "more wrong" :D

[Tony Szamboti]

Yes, I saw it, but it's such an absurd fantasy that it's a little difficult to know how to respond to someone who could believe something so ridiculous. We have three legs each capable of supporting 10lbs and a weight of 100lb, so one or more of the legs will break. When they've broken, the weight will fall at 1g. That's assuming, of course, that the legs are made of some material with similar yield behaviour to steel. You seem to be suggesting that the remaining legs will continue to exert the same upward force after they've broken. I wonder what world you live in.


Exactly. If the resistance to the collapse gives less than 1g upward force, there will be no overall deceleration. If the upper block is falling at an angle, then the effective force from breaking individual structural elements will be averaged over a number of collisions, and will appear as a resistance to collapse, visible as a downward acceleration less than 1g. To see an absolute deceleration, you need a single impact across the entire block, which would only happen if all the columns collided simultaneously. Since we know the upper block fell at an angle, we know this didn't happen, so we don't expect a jolt. The resistance to collapse you claim not to see is just the difference between 1g and the actual downward acceleration. It's there, you just don't recognise it when you see it.

You've been told this a hundred times by many different people, all of whom understand exactly what's wrong with your paper. It's your failure to understand that's the problem.

Dave

Let's assume the columns were short. In that case they have to yield and fail by compressive rupture. The net effect is a downward acceleration of 0.7g.

The decleration which is needed to cause a transfer of momentum and amplified load of the statically insufficient load above the columns needs to come from a velocity change to the upper block velocity accumulated due to the 0.7g acceleration.

I am not misunderstanding anything. Now, in addition to your tortured "we don't expect a jolt" ramblings, you are just parsing words and throwing names around.

Dave, please tell us why Dr. Bazant thought it necessary for a jolt to have occurred to explain a natural mechanism for the collapses. Most shouldn't need it as it is painfully obvious, and you are now simply twisting words to eliminate that as a requirement for a natural collapse.

The game is over Dave. Those towers were taken down by controlled demolitions and the only reason we don't have a new investigation is political, not because there is no scientific proof of it.

[Dave Rogers]

I asked for mathematics, not a foaming-mouthed, disjointed rant. Maybe I wasn't clear. However, there were one or two numbers to be found.

Although the exact time of the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 cannot be determined with precision because of the growing dust cloud, each collapse took approximately 10-12 seconds.

So you're starting by stating that the collapses could have taken as long as 12 seconds. OK, although most informed observers would say more like 12-16; but let's take 12 seconds as your upper bound.

When a body of mass m falls from a height h, acted upon by gravitational acceleration g, it converts its potential energy PE = m x g x h into kinetic energy KE = (1/2) x m x (v exp2). Here h = (1/2) x g x (t exp2), t = time of fall, and v =g x t, where v = velocity. Removal of 30% of the PE to turn the concrete and asbestos into fine powder essentially reduces the amount of energy available from falling, effectively reducing the gravitational acceleration to something less than g. Substituting, in the above equations we have (1.0 - 0.3) x PE = 0.7 x PE = m x g' x h, where PE, m and h are as before and g' = the effective gravitational acceleration. Hence, comparing terms for PE, g' = 0.7 g. The time of collapse under g' will also increase. If we let the effective collapse time be t', then comparing terms for constant h, (1/2) x g x (t exp2) = (1/2) x g' x (t' exp2) = (1/2) x 0.7g x (t' exp2). Hence, (t exp2) = 0.7 x (t' exp2), or (t/t') = SQRT (0.7) = 0.837. Or, t' = 1.195 t. Now the observed time t = 10 seconds, a free fall time, the fastest possible time under g = 9.8m/sec/sec. For the dust cloud debris creation to absorb 30% of the gravitational energy, the observed time of fall would be 10s x 1.195, or almost 12 seconds,

So now you're saying that the collapse times would be expected to be almost 12 seconds.

Let's get this straight. The collapses should have taken just under 12 seconds, whereas they actually took between 10 and 12 seconds.

Gosh, now I'm suspicious.

Dave

[Shrinker]

Additionally it is clear from video of the WTC2 event that the top load tipped over to the East, so did not apply a symmetrical weight load to the tower below yet within about 2 seconds of the explosive collapse initiation, the top load was explosively disassembled in mid-air upwards. Moreover for the initial symmetrical explosive collapse process below the tipped over top, during the first few seconds the ripple down, explosive blow outs shot down the tower faster than the explosively ejected building material from the top could keep up. This means that in the initial stage of the "WTC2 collapse process" the symmetrical-ripple-down-explosiveness, purportedly from a top load exerting an asymmetrical weight load, since it had tipped over before it was explosively disassembled upwards, was faster than the time for a reasonably dense object to fall through air.

I feel explosively strange after explosively reading this explosive paragraph. Like some explosively subliminal process has explosively affected me. Do I seem explosively okay?

[Disbelief]

It was accepted? Well great. I noticed the thread was closed because Parky showed up and began the derailment as is standard fare for him/her.

1. So someone here decided to take on the challenged then backed out because Heiwa didn't answer some questions?
If I recall, they demanded part of the money be put into escrow, correct? But that wasn't part of Hewais challenge, correct? Model it and he will pay. Quite simple really. By changing the challenge that is simply a passive-aggressive way of avoiding the challenge all together. Which means the challenge still stands and is still completely avoided by engineers, scientists, etc.

Would you pay a substantial amount of your own money with no proof that the challenger actually has the money? This is a smart thing to do, since Heiwa really hasn't proven he has any substantial portion of the million he claims.


2. Strange to avoid science when it is so easy to do, eh? Why do people at JREF fear science, Disbelief?

Science is all over this forum, with only the TM that fails to read. How many calculations has the TM provided to real peer reviewed journals for publishing? Why does the TM get ripped apart by the posters here whenever they do post their calculations?


3. So let me get this straight, someone will do it for money, but not do it to support the WTC 1 official collapse scenario? :newlol

Are you spending your own money to try and support your silly ideas? Why should someone else do so, when the math proves the widely accepted belief in how the towers collapsed from fire and structural damage?


4. Don't you think, Disbelief, NIST would have modeled it if an anonymous poster on this site could easily model the collapse to prove Hewia wrong?

Maybe, as pointed out in the challenge thread, Heiwa's challenge is not really truly representative of what happened. Therefore, the person accepting the challenge is doing so, just to prove Heiwa is wrong on what he is stating.


5.If so, doesn't this make NIST look just a tad bit incompetent?


Once again, since Heiwa's challenge does not really represent the collapse of the towers, NIST is in no way shown incompetent. The only incompetence displayed is the TM who is thinking this challenge really represents reality.

[twinstead]

Please don't tell me anybody thinks Heiwa's "Challenge" has anything to do with what actually happened at the WTC on 9/11. To me it's just an abstract exorcise, something engineers would do for fun at parties or something.

[Dave Rogers]

Let's assume the columns were short. In that case they have to yield and fail by compressive rupture. The net effect is a downward acceleration of 0.7g.

It's like trying to argue with someone who truly believes the sky is yellow - there's simply no point of contact between you and reality. At some point the columns break, and if they're made of steel that fracture occurs at a shortening that's at most less than 1% of their original length. After they break, they're not as strong as they were before they broke. I can't believe I'm trying to explain this.

Dave, please tell us why Dr. Bazant thought it necessary for a jolt to have occurred to explain a natural mechanism for the collapses.

He didn't. The jolt is your fantasy. Bazant calculated a limiting case, which was not intended to describe the actual details of the collapse.

The game is over Dave. Those towers were taken down by controlled demolitions and the only reason we don't have a new investigation is political, not because there is no scientific proof of it.

A convenient excuse for why your ramblings will never be taken seriously, to be sure. So is the Obama administration part of the conspiracy too now?

Your supposed scientific proof is laughable. No informed and unbiased observer takes any of it seriously for a moment. Whatever the political situation, that's why you don't have your new investigation.

Dave

[ozeco41]

I asked for mathematics, not a foaming-mouthed, disjointed rant. Maybe I wasn't clear. However, there were one or two numbers to be found......

Dave be assured that your descriptions are good enough - certainly "headed in the right direction" and Tony is using debating tricks in his attempt to throw you.

His model is flawed - it has a similar flaw to Greenings work and I suspect Bazants work exccept that Bazant is a past master of writing "Academic Speak Gobledegook" to look impressive whilst obscuring what he is really saying. Greening at least makes his wrong assumption explicit and open.

The difference for Greening, Bazant and probably others is that there was so much energy available that they still proved "collapse" even though the method was wrong.

Tony is still playing word games with "Jolt" when he means a big Jolt to support his explanation. Of course there were jolts. But not the big ones his expalanation needs. He would be better of correcting his modeling but with his current political alliance that path is probably not viable for him.

The old saying "choose your friends wisely" :(

His legs model plays deliberately or accidentally on the lay persons expectation that removing one quarter of legs would add an additional one third load to the other remaining legs. Not necessarily so. I can draw a simple arrangement where removing 1/4 of the legs doubles the load on some of the remaining legs. And that by the way is a key factor often misunderstood in the initial collapse cascade.

Remember also that legal practitioners maxim "When you have no case attack the witnesses" AND the corollary "When they attack the witnesses they probably have no case." :D

Cheers.

Eric C

[ozeco41]

Please don't tell me anybody thinks Heiwa's "Challenge" has anything to do with what actually happened at the WTC on 9/11. To me it's just an abstract exorcise, something engineers would do for fun at parties or something.

OK I won't tell you that.

It has no resemblance to what happened at WTC on 9/11.

It has a superficial appearance of being true but even that has flaws.

He defines it with ambiguity to allow "escape holes".

I have challenged him several times BUT refused to take on the technical side of the challenge because of the ambiguity of definitions (plus it is a waste of time)

[Tony Szamboti]

It's like trying to argue with someone who truly believes the sky is yellow - there's simply no point of contact between you and reality. At some point the columns break, and if they're made of steel that fracture occurs at a shortening that's at most less than 1% of their original length. After they break, they're not as strong as they were before they broke. I can't believe I'm trying to explain this.



He didn't. The jolt is your fantasy. Bazant calculated a limiting case, which was not intended to describe the actual details of the collapse.



A convenient excuse for why your ramblings will never be taken seriously, to be sure. So is the Obama administration part of the conspiracy too now?

Your supposed scientific proof is laughable. No informed and unbiased observer takes any of it seriously for a moment. Whatever the political situation, that's why you don't have your new investigation.

Dave

Dave, you couldn't get a model to do what you propose in a million years and you are just playing games.

What I am saying could be replicated everytime, and anyone here who has a high speed camera could build a two story model with a weight at the top and remove the columns from the second story and prove the weight will decelerate when it impacts the first story columns. However, if the first story columns are removed also, the weight will not decelerate. This is what really happened in those towers and you can try and trick all the people you want, but anyone with a scientific background will see through your false argument.

Bazant said there needed to be a jolt because that is the only way a statically insufficient load above can overcome a structure below, which is designed to support several times that load.

[Dave Rogers]

Dave be assured that your descriptions are good enough - certainly "headed in the right direction" and Tony is using debating tricks in his attempt to throw you.

Oh, don't worry, I've argued with Tony before, and I'm fairly resigned to the fact that I'll never be on his Christmas card list. I just find it incredible that anyone can believe the things he claims to believe and still be able to count to five.

Dave

[Grizzly Bear]

THe obsession with a visible jolt is as bizarre as Psybillyhackrs' (can't get the spelling of his name right if my life depended on it) obsession with the mass of concrete and steel inside the building's...

[AndrewIlluminatus]

So now you're saying that the collapse times would be expected to be almost 12 seconds.

Let's get this straight. The collapses should have taken just under 12 seconds, whereas they actually took between 10 and 12 seconds.

Gosh, now I'm suspicious.

Dave

Why did you dishonestly stop and clip half way through the sentence?

"For the dust cloud debris creation to absorb 30% of the gravitational energy, the observed time of fall would be 10s x 1.195, or almost 12 seconds, but on page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the government's "complete and final report" of 9/11 that the South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds. Here is the exact quote: "At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds". Clearly, there are serious flaws in the "official" explanation/conspiracy theory."


So let's just say, for the sake of simplicity, that our falling object has a mass of 1. (The object's mass will affect its energy, and its momentum, but not its rate of free-fall.)

The potential energy given up by falling 3 seconds (144 ft) is 1 x 32 x 144 = 4608

The kinetic energy gained after falling 3 secs is 1/2 x 1 x 96(squared) = 1/2 x 9216 = 4608

So, all of the available potential energy was converted to kinetic energy. Seeing that energy was, in fact, conserved is how we know that the answer in The Simplest Case, above, was correct. We've checked our work, using an independent analysis, based upon the sound principle of conservation of energy. Now, and only now, we can be certain that our answer was correct.


One Little Complication

Air resistance.

The free-fall equations reflect a perfect, frictionless world. They perfectly predict the behaviour of falling bodies in a vacuum. In fact, some of you may have seen a science class demonstration in which the air is pumped out of a tube and then a feather will fall, in that vacuum, as fast as will a solid metal ball.

That's how parachutes work: much of the falling object's potential energy gets expended doing the work of pushing a lot of air out of the way in order for the object to fall. As a result, not all of the potential gravitational energy can go towards accelerating the object downward at gravity's maximal rate of 32 ft/sec/sec.

In other words, only when there is zero resistance can any falling object's potential energy be completely converted into kinetic energy. Anything which interferes with any falling object's downward acceleration will cause its acceleration to be reduced from the maximum gravitational acceleration of 32 feet per second per second, as some of gravity's potential energy is consumed doing work overcoming resistance.

That's why you may have heard the term "terminal velocity". The free-fall equations predict that a falling object's velocity will continue to increase, without limit. But in air, once a falling object reaches a certain speed, it's propensity to fall will be matched by air's resistance to the fall. At that point the object will continue to fall, but its speed will no longer increase over time.

A Quick Recap

Earth's gravity causes objects to fall. They fall according to precise, well-known equations. The equations assume no (air) resistance. Any resistance at all will cause the object to fall less rapidly than it would have without that resistance.

It is that last sentence which bears repeating.

There is a maximum possible rate at which objects fall, and if any of gravity's potential energy is consumed doing anything other than accelerate the object downward -- even just having to push air out of the way -- there will be less energy available to accelerate the object downward, and so that object's downward acceleration will be diminished.

And if an object's downward acceleration is diminished, it will be going slower along the way, and thus it will take longer to fall a given distance.

Free-falling from WTC heights

The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall. So let's start by using our trusty free-fall equation to see how long it should take an object to free-fall from the towers' former height.

Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time(squared)

or

Time(squared) = (2 x Distance) / Gravity

Time(squared) = 2710 / 32 = 84.7

Time = 9.2

So our equation tells us that it will take 9.2 seconds to free-fall to the ground from the towers' former height.

Using our simpler equation, V = GT, we can see that at 9.2 seconds, in order to reach the ground in 9.2 seconds, the free-falling object's velocity must be about 295 ft/sec, which is just over 200 mph.

But that can only occur in a vacuum. Not in air at about 1.2Kg per cubic metre density.

Since the WTC was at sea level, in Earth's atmosphere, you might be able to imagine how much air resistance that represents. (Think about putting your arm out the window of a car moving half that fast!) Most free-falling objects would reach their terminal velocity long before they reached 200 mph. For example, the commonly-accepted terminal velocity of a free-falling human is around 120 mph. The terminal velocity of a free-falling cat is around 60 mph.

Therefore, air resistance alone will make it take longer than 10 seconds for gravity to pull an object to the ground from the former height of WTC2.

There is essentially no resistance from the intact structure shown and so no sequential kinetic energy collisions could have taken place in the official number of 10 seconds for WTC2 (12 seconds for WTC1). What is the sound of one hand clapping? No sequential and mutually annihilating explosive impacts took place in towers offering essentially no resistance to the collapse process, so the towers evidently exploded by some other method than gravity supplying any energy. The steel frame towers below (the already explosively disassembled tops) offered less resistance to the "collapse process" than if they had been made out of wood and chewing gum. They offered no more resistance than air and less resistance than if the already explosively disassembled tops had been falling through water instead of through a highly robust steel frame structure.

[Dave Rogers]

Bazant said there needed to be a jolt because that is the only way a statically insufficient load above can overcome a structure below, which is designed to support several times that load.

No, he didn't. There only has to be a measurable jolt if the entire structure is overwhelmed at the same time. If individual structural elements are fractured separately at different times, then the series of very small jolts will be seen as an overall reduction in the downward acceleration, as everyone keeps trying to tell you.

As for your bizarre claim about the 0.7g acceleration of the weight with only three legs, it contradicts Hooke's law for a start, and everything that's ever been known about plastic deformation to continue. In fact, it's absurd enough for an award.

Dave

[dtugg]

Why did you dishonestly stop and clip half way through the sentence?

"For the dust cloud debris creation to absorb 30% of the gravitational energy, the observed time of fall would be 10s x 1.195, or almost 12 seconds, but on page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the government's "complete and final report" of 9/11 that the South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds. Here is the exact quote: "At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds". Clearly, there are serious flaws in the "official" explanation/conspiracy theory."

The collapse clearly took longer than 10 seconds. I couldn't care less about a minor mistake in a report that had nothing to do with explaining the collapses.

[Dave Rogers]

Why did you dishonestly stop and clip half way through the sentence?

"For the dust cloud debris creation to absorb 30% of the gravitational energy, the observed time of fall would be 10s x 1.195, or almost 12 seconds, but on page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the government's "complete and final report" of 9/11 that the South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds. Here is the exact quote: "At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds". Clearly, there are serious flaws in the "official" explanation/conspiracy theory."

Because it's idiotic. You're trying to claim that the collapse time was something other than what it should have been, yet you end up proving that it's exactly what it should have been. The fact that the 9/11 Commission Report approximates the collapse time is irrelevant. If the towers fell in 12 seconds, they fell in 12 seconds.

Still, enjoy your ranting. Someone should.

Dave

[ozeco41]

And the NIST Brief stopped at the point where "global collapse was inevitable" - which every competent engineer who is aware of how it collapsed would agree.

So it really is a not so clever trick to pretend otherwise.

My focus (one of them) for 18 months has been on explaining how the global collapse occurred for genuinely interested lay persons. Not trying to convert the believers - most are beyond recovery with some mix of limited understanding/intellect OR political alliance ties and loyalties to "honour" if that is correct word for untruthfulness.

[tsig]

Although the exact time of the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 cannot be determined with precision because of the growing dust cloud, each collapse took approximately 10-12 seconds. NIST NCSTAR "Within 12s, the collapse of WTC1 had left nothing but rubble." Only 2 seconds slower than the time for a reasonably dense object that was not overly influenced by air buoyancy at 1.2kg/cubic metre (and air drag), to fall from the WTC roof to the plaza. Therefore, air resistance alone will make it take longer than 10 seconds for gravity to pull an object to the ground from the former height of WTC1 or 2 (time would be about 9.2 seconds in a vacuum). That 12s represents extraordinarily insufficient resistance within the intact tower structure to have permitted the kind of impacts imagined to produce sequential kinetic energy impacts and kinetic energy explosions in a ripple down manner. The energy from gravity has to be used up and it cannot be expected to do two jobs at once. Either all the energy from gravity is used up to create imagined tonnes of TNT kinetic energy explosiveness in sequential one-off explosive ripple-down events or it is used up to get an already explosively disassembled (by other means) building to the ground in that sort of time frame.

Additionally it is clear from video of the WTC2 event that the top load tipped over to the East, so did not apply a symmetrical weight load to the tower below yet within about 2 seconds of the explosive collapse initiation, the top load was explosively disassembled in mid-air upwards. Moreover for the initial symmetrical explosive collapse process below the tipped over top, during the first few seconds the ripple down, explosive blow outs shot down the tower faster than the explosively ejected building material from the top could keep up. This means that in the initial stage of the "WTC2 collapse process" the symmetrical-ripple-down-explosiveness, purportedly from a top load exerting an asymmetrical weight load, since it had tipped over before it was explosively disassembled upwards, was faster than the time for a reasonably dense object to fall through air.

On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the government's "complete and final report" of 9/11 that the South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds. Here is the exact quote: "At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds". Actually that is probably slightly too short a time period for the collapse to have been possible in air.

Considerable energy was used up in causing the observed massive high-speed sideways ejection of material (sometimes upwards) and much of the glass and concrete was pulverised and the ductile (not brittle) steelwork was shattered, twisted and mangled. The energy requirements to do anything even remotely like that rival the total amount of potential energy that the entire towers had to give when converted to kinetic energy, via gravity as the energy input. So while gravity is strong enough to cause reasonably dense objects to fall that far, through air, that fast, and while gravity is probably not strong enough to have so thoroughly disintegrated the towers under their own weight, gravity is certainly not strong enough to have done both simultaneously.

[B]Why Did the WTC Towers fall, "fire and gravity" or something else?
In perfect conditions the maximum temperature that can be reached by hydrocarbons, like jet-fuel, burning in air is 825°C (1520°F) but these perfect conditions were not reached in the burning towers before collapse. There is absolutely no reason in the Bush-Cheney-PNAC-FEMA "truss theory" why there should have been any kind of fire in the basements at all to account for the molten steel found there. Thermal hotspots of around 1100°C (2000°F) were found in the basements on September 16th 2001. A thermite reaction (and explosives) generate extraordinarily high temperatures, greater than 2500°C (4550°F), and it provides a potentially credible explanation for the thermal hot spots and the molten steel around the basement level steel foundations. Construction steel has an extremely high melting point of about 1535°C (2800°F). Something other than gravity and fires melted the steel in the basements of the WTC complex.

The "Bush-Cheney razor blades and Saudi hijacker conspiracy theory" does not deal with the fact that we need to account for the molten steel in the basements through a hypothetical truss theory. A theory that implausibly speculates that fire high up in the building caused a "final straw" failure of a single truss support and gravity did the rest. Please remember that there is zero empirical evidence for this "truss theory" and it remains just a theoretical hypothesis.

Since buildings 1 and 2 survived the impact of the aircraft without collapsing (or signs of undue stress) and fire and gravity are claimed to have caused their collapse instead, then the aircraft are irrelevant as a mechanism for collapse except that they obviously caused some initial damage. In WTC7 aircraft are totally irrelevant to the mechanism of collapse since no aircraft ever hit the building. As the aircraft are irrelevant as the final mechanism of collapse, they are therefore simply a military deception "magician style visual pretext" for a collapse and not an ultimate cause of the collapse. Many eyewitnesses reported seeing and hearing explosions!

Turning to the video of where the collapse starts in all three buildings the timing sequence for the demolition appears to start around the area of the fires high up in buildings 1 and 2. However in the case of building 7, this building appears to have been demolished in a more conventional manner from the bottom, below the rather small fires that were in that building. Explosives used in the controlled demolition of buildings have to be detonated in precisely the correct order to achieve the desired collapse effect. When you carefully view the video of the collapse of buildings 1 and 2, (and 7) you will see "squibs" (or puffs of smoke shooting out sideways from the building). These squibs were several floors below the falling dust cloud and these slightly early detonations are an indication that explosives were used in the demolition of the buildings, not gravity alone.

The observed near free-fall times of the Twin Towers (and WTC7) were a dramatic signature of a controlled demolition. US (war criminal) regime measured times are around 10 to 12 seconds for WTC 1 & 2 and 6.6 seconds for the shorter WTC 7, which is close to calculated free-fall time in air, indicating the tower floors fell without much impediment. They essentially fell into air because the buildings had already lost all structural integrity. The collapse of WTC 7 in 6.6 seconds is just 0.6 of a second longer than it would take an object dropped from the roof to hit the ground so where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum, one of the foundational laws of physics? That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors and intact steel support columns the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. How do the upper floors fall so quickly and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings? The implausible theory put forth by "establishment" engineers is that while no steel members actually melted or failed in WTC 1 & 2, it was the "floor assemblies", bolted at their joists to the outer walls and inner core structures, that did fail. The floor joist attachment bolts were weakened by heat and gave way, twisting sideways and allowing the initial truss and then initial floor to "instantly unzip" itself all the way round the building and collapse onto the floor below. The remaining floors then "pancaked" all the way down at a speed of around 10 floors per second. Never mind that floor joist cross members, placed to resist twisting, and additional support structures were not included at all in the MIT/FEMA/NOVA/NIST calculations and presentations nor was a collapse mechanism for the very robust inner core of columns explained at all. Building WTC 7 has been totally ignored in the TV propaganda "expert documentary explanations" provided for the plebeian masses purporting to reassure us all that Saudis (mainly) and razorblades caused 9/11.

But consider the following; if the "pancaking" effect caused the total building failure, why is it that no video of either of the WTC 1 and 2 collapses shows any sign of stutter between floor collapses? Stutter should have been very apparent, especially in the first few floors of collapse when the speed of gravitational collapse had not accelerated for long. The first "unzipped" floor would only have fallen around 12 feet before hitting the next floor below. The exterior of the building should have been sliding down around the inner core, which should have remained largely sticking up in the air after the collapse. Consider also that apologists for the official Bush-Cheney conspiracy theory propose that 30% of the gravitational collapse energy was necessary to create the "pyroclastic" cloud of debris. That is, in the "official" analysis, this pulverising energy came out of the gravitational energy. This means that the time of fall would have been slowed further than what was observed. When a body of mass m falls from a height h, acted upon by gravitational acceleration g, it converts its potential energy PE = m x g x h into kinetic energy KE = (1/2) x m x (v exp2). Here h = (1/2) x g x (t exp2), t = time of fall, and v =g x t, where v = velocity. Removal of 30% of the PE to turn the concrete and asbestos into fine powder essentially reduces the amount of energy available from falling, effectively reducing the gravitational acceleration to something less than g. Substituting, in the above equations we have (1.0 - 0.3) x PE = 0.7 x PE = m x g' x h, where PE, m and h are as before and g' = the effective gravitational acceleration. Hence, comparing terms for PE, g' = 0.7 g. The time of collapse under g' will also increase. If we let the effective collapse time be t', then comparing terms for constant h, (1/2) x g x (t exp2) = (1/2) x g' x (t' exp2) = (1/2) x 0.7g x (t' exp2). Hence, (t exp2) = 0.7 x (t' exp2), or (t/t') = SQRT (0.7) = 0.837. Or, t' = 1.195 t. Now the observed time t = 10 seconds, a free fall time, the fastest possible time under g = 9.8m/sec/sec. For the dust cloud debris creation to absorb 30% of the gravitational energy, the observed time of fall would be 10s x 1.195, or almost 12 seconds, but on page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the government's "complete and final report" of 9/11 that the South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds. Here is the exact quote: "At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds". Clearly, there are serious flaws in the "official" explanation/conspiracy theory. The implication from the above is that there were major energy sources other than gravitational forces involved in the WTC tower collapses. In any event "common-sense" should tell us that gravity causing all the damage and providing the energy could not possibly propel steel beams out of the building sideways and even upwards towards space and away from the planet generating the gravity. In conclusion, the buildings could not possibly, following the laws of physics, have collapsed like that without explosives and/or the use of something like a thermite reaction. Nineteen disaffected Muslims (nine reportedly still strangely alive) armed with razorblades could not possibly have been involved in preparing WTC 1, 2 and 7 for demolition by those means and so perhaps we still need to catch and bring to justice the real terrorists of 9/11.

Are you being paid by the word?

[T.A.M.]

reminds me of those long forms you have to sign at the bank that nobody reads...lol

something to be said, especially in cyberspace, for FREQUENT paragraphing.

TAM;)

[Heiwa]

And the NIST Brief stopped at the point where "global collapse was inevitable" - which every competent engineer who is aware of how it collapsed would agree.

So it really is a not so clever trick to pretend otherwise.

My focus (one of them) for 18 months has been on explaining how the global collapse occurred for genuinely interested lay persons. Not trying to convert the believers - most are beyond recovery with some mix of limited understanding/intellect OR political alliance ties and loyalties to "honour" if that is correct word for untruthfulness.

Actually NIST goes a little further and says re WTC 1:

"At 10.28 a.m., 102 min after the aircraft impact, WTC1 began to collapse. … The release of potential energy (PE) due to downward movement of the building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy (SE) that could be absorbed by the structure. Global collapse ensued."

Began to collapse? OK, it started to fall down starting at the top! Funny collapse. Why? Aha, the release of potential energy exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed!
Now, that sentence is absurd! A structure may collapse, if you apply forces on it, that displaces elements, and for that you require energy, but as soon as you apply a force on an element in a structure and the element fails due to lack of strength, the force slips off ... and that's it.
There is no established, scientific method to calculate how much energy is required to demolish a structure and it has nothing to do with the strain energy that the structure could absorb.
On the other hand it is quite easy to show that for a given structure A, you cannot destroy A by dropping a part C of A on it (C<1/10A).

The NIST conclusion "Global collapse ensued" due to potential energy exceeding capability to absorb strain energy is simply false.

[tsig]

Oh, don't worry, I've argued with Tony before, and I'm fairly resigned to the fact that I'll never be on his Christmas card list. I just find it incredible that anyone can believe the things he claims to believe and still be able to count to five.

Dave

Tony seems to have a real lively argument going with the laws of physics.

He fought the law but the law won.

[AndrewIlluminatus]

Because it's idiotic. You're trying to claim that the collapse time was something other than what it should have been, yet you end up proving that it's exactly what it should have been. The fact that the 9/11 Commission Report approximates the collapse time is irrelevant. If the towers fell in 12 seconds, they fell in 12 seconds.

Still, enjoy your ranting. Someone should.

Dave

But the "collapse" of the already explosively disassembled (and estimated 40% lighter top, through lateral ejection) proceeded "through" the lower floors of the tower in only 10 to 12 seconds. Those undamaged floors below the impact zone would and must have offered resistance that is thousands of times greater than air. Recall that those lower floors had successfully supported the static mass of the tower for 30 years with a huge margin of over engineering. The top of WTC2 tipped over and was explosively disassembled upwards within the first 2 seconds of the event. The distributed dynamic weight load of a fraction of the already disassembled top of the building falling like heavy rain on the intact tower below was much less than any dynamic coherent hammer blow imagined in the absurd official explanations.

In order for the towers to have collapsed "gravitationally", as we've been told over and over again, in the observed duration, one or more of the following zany-sounding conditions must have been met:

* The undamaged floors and columns below the impact zone offered zero resistance to the collapse and did not pause in space to be collided with
* The glass and concrete spontaneously disintegrated without any expenditure of energy with all steel-frame steelwork connections breaking spontaneously as well
* On 9/11, gravity was much stronger than gravity, perhaps because an invisible very heavy giant god was involved stomping on the buildings

"All this was inspired by the principle – which is quite true in itself – that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying." Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

"How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think" - Adolf Hitler

Ron Suskind, 2002 conversation with Bush aide: "The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an EMPIRE now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality - judiciously, as you will - we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors. . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

Anyway 3000 American, economically farmed, profane "Animal Farm" cattle, killed on 9/11 is really not that important anymore IMO, since over 1 million innocent people have died in the wars that the 9/11 pretext for war spawned. Which is probably why the world now prays for the destruction of the USA and thinks that the only good American is a dead American.

[beachnut]

...Aside from the above, at a bare minimum a 3g deceleration of the upper block would be necessary to overload the core columns. This deceleration or jolt just isn't there, and this proves something else was causing the lower structure columns to fail to support their load. The upper block simply could not overload them without a negative velocity change due to a high deceleration of at least 3g.

You couldn't be any more wrong about how you are stating this.
You need over 100 frame per second to capture a jolt. You failed. Got physics? no you have delusions




...
we still need to catch and bring to justice the real terrorists of 9/11.
They are dead; sorry you missed reality over 7 years ago, now your delusional post needs to be trimmed to your delusional conclusion; at least you have Tony spewing delusions about explosives with you; almost forgot Heiwa and his failed engineering matches Tony's but in a special way.

Actually NIST goes a little further and says re WTC 1:

"At 10.28 a.m., 102 min after the aircraft impact, WTC1 began to collapse. … The release of potential energy (PE) due to downward movement of the building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy (SE) that could be absorbed by the structure. Global collapse ensued."

Began to collapse? OK, it started to fall down starting at the top! Funny collapse. Why? Aha, the release of potential energy exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed!
Now, that sentence is absurd! ... And you replace reality with your delusional junk engineering with your kids jumping on a bed to prove you have some far out ideas on 911. Is the super-nano-thermite full moon out? We have AI who can't to a lick of physics and matches Heiwa full blown failure to understand gravity. Can AI, Heiwa, and Tony come up with a single integrated ops plan for their evil plot? Three delusion believers and not one of them has the same story. Physics baffles them and poor Tony can't figure out the jolt is missing because he has no video at over 100 to 200 frames per second. Does he understand you have to sample at a rate to catch your event?

[twinstead]

But the "collapse" of the already explosively disassembled (and estimated 40% lighter top, through lateral ejection) proceeded "through" the lower floors of the tower in only 10 to 12 seconds. Those undamaged floors below the impact zone would and must have offered resistance that is thousands of times greater than air. Recall that those lower floors had successfully supported the static mass of the tower for 30 years with a huge margin of over engineering. The top of WTC2 tipped over and was explosively disassembled upwards within the first 2 seconds of the event. The distributed dynamic weight load of a fraction of the already disassembled top of the building falling like heavy rain on the intact tower below was much less than any dynamic coherent hammer blow imagined in the absurd official explanations.

In order for the towers to have collapsed "gravitationally", as we've been told over and over again, in the observed duration, one or more of the following zany-sounding conditions must have been met:

* The undamaged floors and columns below the impact zone offered zero resistance to the collapse and did not pause in space to be collided with
* The glass and concrete spontaneously disintegrated without any expenditure of energy with all steel-frame steelwork connections breaking spontaneously as well
* On 9/11, gravity was much stronger than gravity, perhaps because an invisible very heavy giant god was involved stomping on the buildings

"All this was inspired by the principle – which is quite true in itself – that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying." Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

"How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think" - Adolf Hitler

Ron Suskind, 2002 conversation with Bush aide: "The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an EMPIRE now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality - judiciously, as you will - we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors. . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

Anyway 3000 American, economically farmed, profane "Animal Farm" cattle, killed on 9/11 is really not that important anymore IMO, since over 1 million innocent people have died in the wars that the 9/11 pretext for war spawned. Which is probably why the world now prays for the destruction of the USA and thinks that the only good American is a dead American.

The politics forum is that way -------->

My mama always told me that ideologues are the world's WORST investigators and jurors. You are welcome to your political beliefs, but they cloud your judgment as far as 911 goes. You don't think so, but just like crazy people don't know they're crazy, irrational ideologues don't know they're...well...irrational.

So, I could care less what you think about 911. Your beliefs are irrelevant to reality. Go play in the politics forum. They'll love you.

[DavidJames]

The politics forum is that way -------->

My mama always told me that ideologues are the world's WORST investigators and jurors. You are welcome to your political beliefs, but they cloud your judgment as far as 911 goes. You don't think so, but just like crazy people don't know they're crazy, irrational ideologues don't know they're...well...irrational.

So, I could care less what you think about 911. Your beliefs are irrelevant to reality. Go play in the politics forum. They'll love you.I agree and Andrew, not to worry, there are plenty of wacky conspiracy theorists there to entertain and be entertained by.

[Dave Rogers]

But the "collapse" of the already explosively disassembled (and estimated 40% lighter top, through lateral ejection) proceeded "through" the lower floors of the tower in only 10 to 12 seconds. Those undamaged floors below the impact zone would and must have offered resistance that is thousands of times greater than air.

I've done the maths. It gave the right answer. You haven't done the maths, so your handwaving is irrelevant. The Twin Towers fell in exactly the time a reasonable engineering analysis would predict they should have taken. I suggest you read Gregory Urich's paper on the subject, the one the Journal of 9/11 Studies refused to publish because, in their attempts to expose the atmosphere of secrecy and lies that they like to think surround the events of 9/11, they've decided to create secrecy and lies of their own. Some of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists are as bad as the imaginary conspiracists they like to fantasise about.

Dave

[Seymour Butz]

Aside from the above, at a bare minimum a 3g deceleration of the upper block would be necessary to overload the core columns. This deceleration or jolt just isn't there, and this proves something else was causing the lower structure columns to fail to support their load. The upper block simply could not overload them without a negative velocity change due to a high deceleration of at least 3g.



So why in your paper are you whining about the lack of a 31G jolt? If we see a 31G jolt, then arrest is expected - assuming those figures are correct. Doesn't the LACK of a 31G jolt therefore argue in favor of NO arrest?

Right here you acknowledge that only 3G is needed to overload the core columns below the initiation zone. And that's assuming that 3G = a FOS of 3, which I'm not sure is correct. It may be less. Anyone care to flesh this out?

Here's a question - what if a lower figure is correct, like .5G, and the frame rate of youtube videos is unable to discern it?

[Dave Rogers]

Right here you acknowledge that only 3G is needed to overload the core columns below the initiation zone. And that's assuming that 3G = a FOS of 3, which I'm not sure is correct. It may be less. Anyone care to flesh this out?

The whole idea of a jolt is absurd.

Let's look at a scenario. Suppose we have a mass supported by an array of 100 columns, on a 10x10 grid, each capable of carrying 3% of the total mass, for a FOS of 3. Now, remove enough load carrying capacity that the FOS falls below 1, by a combination of structural damage and thermal weakening. The columns will then fail, allowing the mass to fall. If the failure mode is such that there is an undamaged section of column below the failed section, then the mass will fall on to the undamaged section. Tony claims that the collision between the mass and the undamaged section causes the jolt.

Now, suppose that the mass rotates as it falls. This will result in one corner striking one column. The breaking strain of that column is 3% of the total mass, so there's a deceleration of 0.03g from the moment the column is struck to the moment it fails. (That's not strictly correct, but it's a good enough simplification.) Between the time of impact and the time of failure, the column is being compressed, in other words it's shortening. Then the next two columns, adjacent to the corner column, impact the lower block, and there's a deceleration of 0.06g from them. Then the next three strike, and there's a deceleration of 0.09g. Total deceleration is now 0.18g. But somewhere around this time, the first column fails, so the deceleration drops to 0.15g. Another few columns strike, a few more fail, and the total deceleration never gets anywhere near 3g; in fact, it averages out to something like the ultimate strength of the columns multiplied by the fraction of their length they can shorten before failing, which works out to about 0.3g. Since there's still a 1g downward acceleration due to gravity, the block falls at a resultant acceleration of 0.7g.

And that's why Tony doesn't see his jolt. It's smeared out by the fact that the upper block doesn't hit all the columns at the same time. It's ironic that he's aware that the acceleration is 0.7g, but doesn't realise that he should see either freefall with jolts or reduced acceleration; he expects to see both.

Dave

[bill smith]

In the light of Heiwa's new and illuminating pictures and what I've posted below do you not hink that the case for column-on-column contact between the upper and lower blocks is fully proven ? Shouldn't his have caused a big jolt ?

I see what Tony means though because at no point do we see the top block overlap the lower block which means that the walls were in perfect alignment. That would imply a straight-down collapse....column-on-column.
Oviously if 250 columns had knelt they would have knelt in one direction and that would have walked the top block visibly out of line with the lower block.
If you look at the attached video you will note there is no rotation of any kind of the roofline prior to collapse initiation. No rotation = no kneeling of 250 columns.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9-owhllM9k Antenna video

(Note; there are those who claim that although there is no rotation of the roofline in this relatively clear video that there actually IS rotation in videos taken from other angles. Think that through)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_3036149e75e3c25c0b.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16049)

[Seymour Butz]

The whole idea of a jolt is absurd.

Let's look at a scenario. Suppose we have a mass supported by an array of 100 columns, on a 10x10 grid, each capable of carrying 3% of the total mass, for a FOS of 3. Now, remove enough load carrying capacity that the FOS falls below 1, by a combination of structural damage and thermal weakening. The columns will then fail, allowing the mass to fall. If the failure mode is such that there is an undamaged section of column below the failed section, then the mass will fall on to the undamaged section. Tony claims that the collision between the mass and the undamaged section causes the jolt.

Now, suppose that the mass rotates as it falls. This will result in one corner striking one column. The breaking strain of that column is 3% of the total mass, so there's a deceleration of 0.03g from the moment the column is struck to the moment it fails. (That's not strictly correct, but it's a good enough simplification.) Between the time of impact and the time of failure, the column is being compressed, in other words it's shortening. Then the next two columns, adjacent to the corner column, impact the lower block, and there's a deceleration of 0.06g from them. Then the next three strike, and there's a deceleration of 0.09g. Total deceleration is now 0.18g. But somewhere around this time, the first column fails, so the deceleration drops to 0.15g. Another few columns strike, a few more fail, and the total deceleration never gets anywhere near 3g; in fact, it averages out to something like the ultimate strength of the columns multiplied by the fraction of their length they can shorten before failing, which works out to about 0.3g. Since there's still a 1g downward acceleration due to gravity, the block falls at a resultant acceleration of 0.7g.

And that's why Tony doesn't see his jolt. It's smeared out by the fact that the upper block doesn't hit all the columns at the same time. It's ironic that he's aware that the acceleration is 0.7g, but doesn't realise that he should see either freefall with jolts or reduced acceleration; he expects to see both.

Dave


That's about what i expected.

So the claim of a even a 3G jolt needs to be seen, given the simplified scenario that Bazant gives, is wrong?

I tried doing this before at ATS, using some of the numbers from Bazant's first paper and came up with a lower number than .3G, IIRC around .1G, but since I'm not an engineer, never felt real good about them.

So then assuming that my .1G is correct, the difference between .1G and .3G represent what exactly? Acceleration from gravity to the equilibrium point of energy absorption vs energy "addition" from gravity?

Thus giving an averaged .7G during the collapse?

[beachnut]

..
(Note; there are those who claim that although there is no rotation of the roofline in this relatively clear video that there actualy IS rotation in videos taken from other angles. Think that through)

...
Note: when 911Truth says the WTC was brought down by explosives or super thermite it is clear from the evidence there were no explosives just a gravity collapse. The release of energy greater than 576,000,000,000 joules in each tower is too big of a number for 911Truth to grasp with their constant delusion posting. The same energy used in real CD did the WTC in, gravity. Think that through when you show up without evidence just junk science.

[Seymour Butz]

If you look at the attached video you will note there is no rotation of any kind of the roofline prior to collapse initiation. No rotation = no kneeling of 250 columns.



This flies in the face of all the questions that troofers have about why the top stopped rotating.

That is unless you want to limit your statement to PRIOR to the collapse initiation. The reason for this should be self evident. If it's not moving, collapse initiation hasn't begun, right?

But what happens in the moments AFTER collapse initiation? Rotation, right?

Heiwa even acknowledges this in his "entanglement" argument. There can be no "entanglement" unless the columns miss each other. Do you agree?

[Heiwa]

We are Off Topic a long way, but one reason why a one-way Crush down is not possible is the high g-forces applied at contact.

Imagine a part C dropping on part A and that C bounces, as they usually do, when stiff objects collide. Soft objects, like ships, damage each other a little. One-way crush down never occurs.

Stiff C has dropped on A from 3.7 m and has thus velocity v (down) = 8.52m/s at impact with A. After say 0.05 seconds contact with stiff A, stiff C is bouncing up with say velocity v(up) = -0.7 v(down) = -5.97 m/s. The total change in velocity is thus 14.49 m/s during 0.05 s corresponding to a deceleration/acceleration of 290 m/s² or 29.5 g that stiff C was subject to.

Say that C does not bounce up after impact but comes to rest on part A. Only elastic compression/damping takes place. Thus C v(up)=0 after impact. The change in velocity is just 8.52 m/s. Say that it took 0.028 s. The deceleration is thus 304 m/s² or 31g.

Luckily, this high g-force deceleration only lasted 0.028 s, so no damages to A and C took place. On molecular contact level in C and A there was hard work going on that nobody noticed. Actually all energy applied by C at impact was absorbed and converted into heat!

It is why this thread is so hot!

[ozeco41]

THe obsession with a visible jolt is as bizarre as Psybillyhackrs' (can't get the spelling of his name right if my life depended on it) obsession with the mass of concrete and steel inside the building's...

psikeyhackr - he and I are old acquaintances from elsewhere where I use a slightly different version of my user name which is just as transparent.

The obsessions are structured similarly - an underlying belief system which shows in refusal to depart from a flawed premise.

[bill smith]

This flies in the face of all the questions that troofers have about why the top stopped rotating.

That is unless you want to limit your statement to PRIOR to the collapse initiation. The reason for this should be self evident. If it's not moving, collapse initiation hasn't begun, right?

But what happens in the moments AFTER collapse initiation? Rotation, right?

Heiwa even acknowledges this in his "entanglement" argument. There can be no "entanglement" unless the columns miss each other. Do you agree?

What I really want to know is whether the 250 remaining clumns hnelt or if they collapsed straight down on themselves. The evidence i have shown here points to the second scenario. .

[WildCat]

We are Off Topic a long way, but one reason why a one-way Crush down is not possible is the high g-forces applied at contact.
syzKBBB_THE

This was posted earlier but Heiwa seems to have missed it... :rolleyes:

[Seymour Butz]

What I really want to know is whether the 250 remaining clumns hnelt or if they collapsed straight down on themselves. The evidence i have shown here points to the second scenario. .

And what I'm telling you is that the 2 are mutually exclusive.

If Tony wants to argue that they fell straight down, and the ends of the columns met, that is 1 scenario. Then the maths tell the truth. the maths are in dispute.

But Heiwa has argued that they DON'T meet, become entangled, and the fall is arrested due to entanglement/friction.

You can't have it both ways.

You need to pick a side here.

To argue both is illiogical.

[alienentity]

AndrewIlluminatus - I don't suppose you really care if your basic facts are accurate or not. But for the record, you wrote: 'The observed near free-fall times of the Twin Towers (and WTC7) were a dramatic signature of a controlled demolition.
[Except that your conclusion is based on incorrect data, as I'll show] US (war criminal) regime [??? NIST scientists are war crimininals? Please get back on your meds] measured times are around 10 to 12 seconds for WTC 1 & 2 and 6.6 seconds for the shorter WTC 7, which is close to calculated free-fall time in air, indicating the tower floors fell without much impediment.
[Let's get this straight: NIST et al are all government shill liars, but you're going to quote their figures anyway, without fact-checking. Here's a few facts for you:
1) Collapse times for both towers, based on seismic data plus video, are minimum 15 seconds each, not including the core sections up to 60 stories which stood even longer.
FACT: the towers didn't collapse close to freefall. That is a myth.
2) WTC7 took OVER 14 seconds to collapse, from the time the East Penthouse fell into the building until it disappeared from view on one CBS video.] (see my video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnW0rlectQ0

They essentially fell into air because the buildings had already lost all structural integrity. [False. See above]
The collapse of WTC 7 in 6.6 seconds is just 0.6 of a second longer than it would take an object dropped from the roof to hit the ground so where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum, one of the foundational laws of physics?'
[Your questions are answered by a simply examination of the facts. Case closed - no freefall speed overall, no CD. Plus, WTC towers were obviously NOTHING like classic CD, but even building 7 wasn't either -
1) It did NOT collapse from the bottom, as you claim. The initial failure was at least 7 floors up, above the giant trusses and Con Ed substation.
2) The initial failure was NOT simultaneous across the whole building, not even close. Again, NOT like CD
3) No explosive flashes, no shockwaves of any kind were recorded on audio/video, thus eliminating, a priori, controlled demolition thru explosives.
4) Don't even go there - the class 'explosives' includes superthermite or nanothermite. and regular thermite is of course eliminated as the cause of the 2.25 second period close to freefall for WTC7, since it COULD NOT remove structure simultaneously.

Your argument fails because it is not grounded in reality. CD theory fails for similar reasons.

Be very careful when accusing people of war crimes and mass murder. It is inflammatory and irresponsible to do this when you clearly lack the knowledge to judge.

[Seymour Butz]

We are Off Topic a long way, but one reason why a one-way Crush down is not possible is the high g-forces applied at contact.

Imagine a part C dropping on part A and that C bounces, as they usually do, when stiff objects collide. Soft objects, like ships, damage each other a little. One-way crush down never occurs.

Stiff C has dropped on A from 3.7 m and has thus velocity v (down) = 8.52m/s at impact with A. After say 0.05 seconds contact with stiff A, stiff C is bouncing up with say velocity v(up) = -0.7 v(down) = -5.97 m/s. The total change in velocity is thus 14.49 m/s during 0.05 s corresponding to a deceleration/acceleration of 290 m/s² or 29.5 g that stiff C was subject to.

Say that C does not bounce up after impact but comes to rest on part A. Only elastic compression/damping takes place. Thus C v(up)=0 after impact. The change in velocity is just 8.52 m/s. Say that it took 0.028 s. The deceleration is thus 304 m/s² or 31g.

Luckily, this high g-force deceleration only lasted 0.028 s, so no damages to A and C took place. On molecular contact level in C and A there was hard work going on that nobody noticed. Actually all energy applied by C at impact was absorbed and converted into heat!

It is why this thread is so hot!

You have just made an argument AGAINST entanglement/friction causing arrest. You're saying that it never should have happened.

You are contradicting previous statements about how you feel the collapse should have arrested.

Are you now going to change your website to reflect that change?

You can't have it both ways either.

[Heiwa]

Heiwa even acknowledges this in his "entanglement" argument. There can be no "entanglement" unless the columns miss each other. Do you agree?

When C and A are composite structures of different elements like strong vertical columns and rather weak horizontal floors, then, when C, after a drop of 3.7 m and velocity 8.52 m/s, contacts A, a bounce may still take place!

Reason is that the strong elements do not damage the weak elements at contact, only elastic compression takes place, very big g-forces occur for a very short time, &c, but there are no failures.

If C and A are slightly misaligned at contact and failures take place, you can be certain that the stronger elements damage the weak ones. And then we have a lot of damaged weak elements to consider - the floors. They are still hanging on to strong elements - columns - and normally these 'half-damaged, hanging on' floor elements get entangled and what structural damage analysists call 'damage arrest' or 'destruction arrest' takes place.

As shown in below illustration:

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/WTC1slicea.GIF

This I have explained since 2007. Thanks for reminding me!

[ozeco41]

.....and anyone here who has a high speed camera could build a two story model with a weight at the top and remove the columns from the second story and prove the weight will decelerate when it impacts the first story columns. However, if the first story columns are removed also, the weight will not decelerate. ..nor would it decelerate if the weight missed the columns and broke the weaker floor connections which is what happened at WTC 1 & 2 with a few extra details... This is what really happened in those towers...not true and evidence shows some of it clearly, the rest not so clearly and you can try and trick all the people you want, but anyone with a scientific background will see through your false argument...that is known in the trade as the pot calling the kettle black - and in this instance the kettle is shining, the pot is non-reflective. ....Bazant said there needed to be a jolt because that is the only way a statically insufficient load above can overcome a structure below, which is designed to support several times that load.. Several issues there (1) We are discussing what happened - not defending Bazant NOR using him as an authority. I for one doubt what he says. Anyone who writes mathematical soup and verbal gobbledegook style automatically raises my suspicions ; (2) The actual two structures below hit by the falling were not "designed to support several times that load" whether simply static or with the dynamic impacts added. (a) The core was obviously weakened significantly with only the amount of weakening not readily assessable; (b) the floors of the outer tube were designed for one floor load not the total weight of ten floors of the whole structure falling with dynamic impact; AND (c) the outer tube columns took no part other than to hold the floor connections up to the force required for the shear failure.

Simply put your claim is wrong in several aspects - all fatal to the claim.

[Seymour Butz]

So you're saying - AGAIN - that the column on column scenario is wrong.

Let's see if Bill gets it or not.

[GlennB]

In perfect conditions the maximum temperature that can be reached by hydrocarbons, like jet-fuel, burning in air is 825°C (1520°F) ....

Rubbish. Plain factually wrong. Nul points. Fail.

There are so many ways to demonstrate the erroneous nature of this statement that it's frightening. That you might post this gibberish in public betrays the cosmic nature of your ignorance and gullibility quotient.

[Heiwa]

You have just made an argument AGAINST entanglement/friction causing arrest. You're saying that it never should have happened.

You are contradicting previous statements about how you feel the collapse should have arrested.

Are you now going to change your website to reflect that change?

You can't have it both ways either.

No, I just explained what happens at a bounce or 100% damping/arrest of C by A.

Anyway, bounce, jolt, entanglement - part C can never crush down part A. Topic is Why a one way Crush down is not possible. I just explain why!

It is nothing new. A one-way Crush down has never taken place on Earth. Ever.

[AndrewIlluminatus]

I've done the maths. It gave the right answer.
Dave

Put garbage into a maths model and you get garbage out. To even suggest that a definitive and accurate model could be made when there are so many unknown variables involved indicates to me that you are evidently mind-programmed to believe what you have been told to believe. Of course your calculations gave you the "right answer", especially if the maths variables that you used were suggested to your mind "by the authorities" in the first place. About 20% of any population of humans will readily believe what they are told to believe "by the authorities", through a kind of authoritarian suggestive hypnosis (they make excellent slave soldiers and IRS guys), but in the USA I estimate that it is probably closer to 70 or 80%. The USA is much more advanced in managing and controlling the minds and thoughts of the common masses. Pavlov made some extremely profound observations both on animals and on human beings. He found among other things that conditioning techniques applied to animals or humans in a state either of psychological or physical stress, such as during a terrorist "shock and awe" attack, sank in very deeply, into the mind-body of the creature, and were extremely difficult to get rid of.

[ozeco41]

What I really want to know is whether the 250 remaining clumns hnelt or if they collapsed straight down on themselves. The evidence i have shown here points to the second scenario. .

Naughty claim that bill. :(

You posted a video which clearly showed what you apparently dont want it to show. So Heiwa posts two graphics which blur the clarity of the video.

If I was a cynic I would wonder if your loyalty to Heiwa's nonsense outranks you loyalty to truth, facts and evidence. And your story changing within a few posts. Tsk Tsk

The top block, as shown in your video and in the non fogged versions of the pics posted by Heiwa fell inside the bottom block.

[Seymour Butz]

Anyway, bounce, jolt, entanglement



Which is it?

If it bounces/jolts and collapse halts then entanglement/friction never takes place.

You can't have it both ways.

Pick one.

[alienentity]

This I have explained since 2007. Thanks for reminding me!

Perhaps you also need to be reminded that the floors were also falling, not just the columns.

Your attempt to introduce false arguments on the points of contact fails.

Heiwa, you've got a severe case of ASDES*, and you're wasting everybody's time by rehashing the same discredited stuff ad nauseum.

Stop this madness.

*Attention Seeking Dead-Ender Syndrome

[bill smith]

Is thre any video hat shows block C falling and impacting block A ? If so we might be able to see the bending columns. Is here such a video or is the 'falling block' only theoretical ?

[Seymour Butz]

or is the 'falling block' only theoretical ?



It's theoretical. It's an simplified exercise to study energy available ONLY. It does not attempt to explain the actual workings of the collapse. Which then renders Tony's paper moot.

IMHO, Heiwa actually gets something right when he states that the columns can't "meet".

[bill smith]

Naughty claim that bill. :(

You posted a video which clearly showed what you apparently dont want it to show. So Heiwa posts two graphics which blur the clarity of the video.

If I was a cynic I would wonder if your loyalty to Heiwa's nonsense outranks you loyalty to truth, facts and evidence. And your story changing within a few posts. Tsk Tsk

The top block, as shown in your video and in the non fogged versions of the pics posted by Heiwa fell inside the bottom block.

Was the top block smaller then ? If not how did it fit inside block A ? Why did A not go inside C ? If it had would that have made any difference ?

[AndrewIlluminatus]

Rubbish. Plain factually wrong. Nul points. Fail.

There are so many ways to demonstrate the erroneous nature of this statement that it's frightening. That you might post this gibberish in public betrays the cosmic nature of your ignorance and gullibility quotient.

OK so when you conducted your experiments what temperature did you reach with jet fuel and did the temperature melt steel and keep it molten for weeks, as was reported at the WTC terrorist event?

[ozeco41]

So you're saying - AGAIN - that the column on column scenario is wrong.

Let's see if Bill gets it or not.

See my previous post. This "counter attack" is simply a move to swamp the debate. Keep calm - "They" are an alliance with differing models of false explanation. I will just keep plugging away with rational commentary and avoiding the ad homery which seems to be fashionable on this forum.

The issue under the microscope is the reality of how both towers collapsed.

The top block fell by wedging itself inside the outer tube. The floors failed in sequential pancaking under the overwhelming overload. Whatever the details of how the core collapsed it did not and could not resist with full strength.

"They" keep ignoring the reality that, for the initial collapse to start as it did the core and other columns of the impact zone had already failed.

Read that again - the core had already failed - and add "at the impact zone level" - to be clear.

Therefore the core columns were already bent and or buckled and that bending or buckling would propagate. There is simply no mechanism where a process of dynamic collapse of a column will revert to a properly braced column loaded to a design level of axial compression under a collapse stae caused by overload.

(As an aside the focus on one detail - ignore the sequence or context - is standard "truther" tactics.)

That is the dynamic reality which underpins the weakness of Tony and several others assumptions

The columns were already compromised. The ones already cut would not hit butt on butt. They already had torn ends to ensure no butt to butt contact. A ready made create your own eccentric load at best, glancing load or miss at worst.

[beachnut]

Is thre any video hat shows block C falling and impacting block A ? If so we might be able to see the bending columns. Is here such a video or is the 'falling block' only theoretical ?
http://www.debunking911.com/sag.htm

Oops the WTC fell due to fire; you are showing your lack of knowledge by posting delusions and supporting junk science of Heiwa and his pizza box engineering.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/Sag1.jpg
Now what is your scenario on how the WTC collapsed relative to the OP?

[alienentity]

Why is this thread, and all the others connected with Heiwa, a dead-end?

Because the conspiracy theory of controlled demolition is most likely unprovable by either physics, forensics or any other known method of investigation.

If we take the basic competing ideas:

a) WTC buildings collapsed due to plane impacts, debris impacts and large fires

or

b) 'THEY' did it by planting explosives/thermite or using Star Wars Beam Weapons


and suppose that 'b' is incorrect, (very likely), then NO AMOUNT of inquiry, accusation, investigation or tortured physics calculations can make it correct, given an INFINITE amount of time.

In other words, past a certain point, it accomplishes nothing but to waste time and effort, it re-injures the original victims and their families. It ultimately leads nowhere.

Hence it is a classic Dead-End. Led by contrarian attention seekers.

[bill smith]

It's theoretical. It's an simplified exercise to study energy available ONLY. It does not attempt to explain the actual workings of the collapse. Which then renders Tony's paper moot.

IMHO, Heiwa actually gets something right when he states that the columns can't "meet".

Very interesting. So given that it seems totally impossible that 250 colmns could all collapse straight down perhaps it did not happen at all ? Perhaps there WAS no block C. So how did the building fall top-down without a driving force ?

[alienentity]

OK so when you conducted your experiments what temperature did you reach with jet fuel and did the temperature melt steel and keep it molten for weeks, as was reported at the WTC terrorist event?

Where's the proof of molten steel? And can you supply me with a picture of the pools of molten steel, and the lab tests to show its composition?

Thanks in advance.

ps I take it you have read my post to you and that you accept your collapse scenario was false? Or are you just ignoring the facts and moving on to the next conspiracy talking point?

[ozeco41]

Was the top block smaller then ? If not how did it fit inside block A ? Why did A not go inside C ? If it had would that have made any difference ?
It wedged itself in there bill. Obvious with the tilted top block - the tiltedbit is already smaller. It doesn't matter wheter "C" forced "A" wider OR "A" forced "C" narrower. Or a bit of both.

Debating HOW it happened is pointless. The real fact is it did. Accept that point then look at all the "lets confuse the issue misdirection" and evasions some members are posting. Sure indication they dont want the argument down the path that the evidence suggests.

See the most obvious trick - "AndrewIlluminatus" attempts the derail into consideration of temperature. Far too unsubtle.

So stay focussed bill - it gets easier once you get the base mechanism of how it actually happened.

Block "C" started the descent of the "Global Collapse" by wedging itself inside the outer tube of Block "A".

[alienentity]

http://www.debunking911.com/sag.htm

Oops the WTC fell due to fire; you are showing your lack of knowledge by posting delusions and supporting junk science of Heiwa and his pizza box engineering.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/Sag1.jpg
Now what is your scenario on how the WTC collapsed relative to the OP?

My God! Look at the explosives severing the columns! (Sarcasm) Amazing how they engineered the explosives to go off silently, without flashes, and only BEND the columns. Very clever indeed.
Classic controlled demolition, isn't it? We've seen it dozens of times before, just like on the videos. Imploded neatly into their 600M footprints. (groan..)

[bill smith]

http://www.debunking911.com/sag.htm

Oops the WTC fell due to fire; you are showing your lack of knowledge by posting delusions and supporting junk science of Heiwa and his pizza box engineering.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/Sag1.jpg
Now what is your scenario on how the WTC collapsed relative to the OP?

That's WTC2 I think. We are talking about WTC1.

[beachnut]

That's WTC2 I think. We are talking about WTC1.
No you are talking about junk science and delusions.

You don't have a story on what happen on 911 let alone evidence. Your delusion is clear from this forum to the other forums where you post lies, hearsay and failed fantasy ideas about 911.

WTC Twin Towers, collapse from top down - ... da op was...
... We are talking about ...
Do you have a clue what the topic is or what happen on 911? Your post reflect your lack of knowledge in all fields related to 911.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/Sag1.jpg
No explosions in this tower, not explosion in either tower. Failed for over 7 years as you fail to present evidence.

[bill smith]

No you are talking about junk science and delusions.

You don't have a story on what happen on 911 let alone evidence. Your delusion is clear from this forum to the other forums where you post lies, hearsay and failed fantasy ideas about 911.

da op was...

Do you have a clue what the topic is or what happen on 911? Your post reflect your lack of knowledge in all fields related to 911.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/Sag1.jpg
No explosions in this tower, not explosion in either tower. Failed for over 7 years as you fail to present evidence.

Your record is scratched Beachnut.

[Seymour Butz]

Very interesting. So given that it seems totally impossible that 250 colmns could all collapse straight down perhaps it did not happen at all ?

Exactly. Heiwa gets something right in his model where the columns "offset".


Perhaps there WAS no block C. So how did the building fall top-down without a driving force ?

Gravity

[bill smith]

It wedged itself in there bill. Obvious with the tilted top block - the tiltedbit is already smaller. It doesn't matter wheter "C" forced "A" wider OR "A" forced "C" narrower. Or a bit of both.

Debating HOW it happened is pointless. The real fact is it did. Accept that point then look at all the "lets confuse the issue misdirection" and evasions some members are posting. Sure indication they dont want the argument down the path that the evidence suggests.

See the most obvious trick - "AndrewIlluminatus" attempts the derail into consideration of temperature. Far too unsubtle.

So stay focussed bill - it gets easier once you get the base mechanism of how it actually happened.

Block "C" started the descent of the "Global Collapse" by wedging itself inside the outer tube of Block "A".

The video does not seem to show a tilt. What kind of tilt would permit one block to enter another block of the same size anyway ? I think we can all see the necessary angle....but it didn't happen on 9/11 and the video proves it.

[beachnut]

Your record is scratched Beachnut.
Another evidence filled post from 911Truth believer. Good job@! This is the most evidence I have see you post. And my record is scratched; you sound just like the dolt Balsamo. He has no evidence and he can't do better than make an enemies list. But you have an ignore button and you can stop seeing my posts; you have nothing to refute me anyway and have no clue what the real topic is.


bMZ-nkYr46w


...
Gravity
It only confuses the delusion seekers.

[Grizzly Bear]

OK so when you conducted your experiments what temperature did you reach with jet fuel...
One must wonder why people like yourself still use that defenseless strawman... straw men have feelings too you know... tsk tsk...


and did the temperature melt steel and keep it molten for weeks, as was reported at the WTC terrorist event?
When you enlighten me what (if anything) this has to do with the collapse... let me know... we just got done with a month long trip between C7 and others in a thread specifically intended for the molten steel topic... And FTR steel doesn't need to be melted in the first place in order to fail, they become limp noodles when they reach 1,000oC. So you'll have to forgive me if I don't exactly trust its integrity when I becomes like this (http://www.softwood.org/AITC_eVersion/images/G3a.jpg)

[phunk]

Now now folks - don't fall for some clearly drawn lines superimposed on a murky picture. Talk a bout desperate grasping of straws.

Naughty Heiwa. :(

Look at the video that bill linked which shows clearly what I said earlier.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9-owhllM9k

In those first few seconds the top block falls within the bottom - C inside A in Heiwa's nomencalature.

Since both are same size slearly either C is copressing OR A is expanding already (OR both)

But the key is still C inside A :rolleyes:

Or, C is slightly tilted which makes its lower edge fit inside A.

[bill smith]

Another evidence filled post from 911Truth believer. Good job@! This is the most evidence I have see you post. And my record is scratched; you sound just like the dolt Balsamo. He has no evidence and he can't do better than make an enemies list. But you have an ignore button and you can stop seeing my posts; you have nothing to refute me anyway and have no clue what the real topic is.


bMZ-nkYr46w



It only confuses the delusion seekers.

I find that I don't need an ignore button.

[Seymour Butz]

It only confuses the delusion seekers.



Well, at least he sees that Tony's paper is moot, since he now realizes that that whole scenario didn't happen, and couldn't happen.....

Now let's see if he asks the right questions about how the collapse in fact progressed after the initiation.

Hope is eternal!!:cool:

[WildCat]

syzKBBB_THE

This was posted earlier but Heiwa seems to have missed it... :rolleyes:
Notice how Heiwa is very selective in which posts he sees!

[Heiwa]

Or, C is slightly tilted which makes its lower edge fit inside A.

And the upper edge outside A! Look both ways and you have it. :)

[Seymour Butz]

And the upper edge outside A! Look both ways and you have it. :)

No.

If it tilts, BOTH lower edges can fit inside.

The top will be outside.

[Heiwa]

Perhaps you also need to be reminded that the floors were also falling, not just the columns.

Your attempt to introduce false arguments on the points of contact fails.

Heiwa, you've got a severe case of ASDES*, and you're wasting everybody's time by rehashing the same discredited stuff ad nauseum.

Stop this madness.

*Attention Seeking Dead-Ender Syndrome

No, floors and columns in part A are not falling. They are static Like the ground.

Only part C is falling incl. its columns and floors, if you believe the OTC. But if part C with 14 floors or so drops on part A only one C floor will contact part A. Guess which one!

Right! The one that A damages first.

BTW - that is the C floor that is supposed to crush down WTC 1.

Why are you rehashing the same discredited OTC stuff ad nauseum?

[bill smith]

No.

If it tilts, BOTH lower edges can fit inside.

The top will be outside.

The magic of 9/11 strikes again.

[Seymour Butz]

The magic of 9/11 strikes again.


Really?

How so?

Are you saying that when something is tilted, its footprint isn't smaller?

Do you remember A^2 + B^2 = C^2?

C is longer than B, and yet it still takes up the same horizontal space as B. How can that be?

Now what happens when B=C, but C is at the previous angle? Does C now take up less horizontal space or not?

[Heiwa]

No.

If it tilts, BOTH lower edges can fit inside.

The top will be outside.

Yes - see post # 362. Put your glasses on this time! :)

[Seymour Butz]

Yes - see post # 362. Put your glasses on this time! :)

Good!

Can you now explain this to Bill?

He seems to missing the plot....

ETA: Have you decided which scenario you're gonna propose yet?

a) columns meet and "bounce"

or

b) columns miss and "entangle"

[AndrewIlluminatus]

ps I take it you have read my post to you and that you accept your collapse scenario was false? Or are you just ignoring the facts and moving on to the next conspiracy talking point?


You appear to be answering a reply here that I made to another poster who made a simple statement about jet fuel burning temperature in open air without any argument or evidence. I said that the steel was reported molten weeks after 9/11, I did not claim that it was a "fact" that steel was molten. In wartime the enemy (the global common masses) are fed a lot of bogus stories "to muddy the water" and this, plus the residual heat stories during the winter of 2001/2, out at the Fresh Kills spoil location, may conceivably be bogus. However the reports exist and they were not officially addressed by the official US regime conspiracy theories for the event.
Google: Dust To Dust: The Health Effects Of 9/11

I have now found your reply to one of my posts elsewhere and you appear to be stating things as incontrovertible "facts" when I would consider such statements of "fact" as epistemologically unsound, since they are based on data sources that might have been corrupted. You appear to acknowledge this when you said sarcastically "NIST et al are all government shill liars, but you're going to quote their figures anyway" when I was simply quoting their figures to illustrate that their own theory was internally flawed. When you said: "not including the core sections up to 60 stories which stood even longer" you must understand that such an observation is completely beside the point as far as roof level material estimations for ground level impact time. Seismic data may also deal with stuff tumbling around the pile heap, behind the dust cloud, long after the roof level material was out of the sky. Anyway, in short, when anybody starts saying that they are spouting "facts" about anything I tend to suspect that they have minds untrained to think philosophically about any extrinsic phenomena whatsoever. When you say "Be very careful when accusing people of war crimes and mass murder. It is inflammatory and irresponsible to do this when you clearly lack the knowledge to judge." I am merely pointing out that the US regime launched an illegal war of aggression on a bogus WMD (+9/11 fear-mongering) pretext that led to mass murder (plus torture etc.) in Iraq and that under UN and Nuremberg rules it was indeed an "illegal war of aggression". Recorded war criminal acts (the Iraq war itself being criminal) inside Iraq (and acts inside Afghanistan) also contravened the Hague Conventions and the Geneva Conventions. This pretty clearly makes the imperialist US regime a rogue, pariah, war criminal regime, by any reasonable international law definition. Therefore it is hardly surprising that much of the world suspects that rogue elements within the evil US industrial military complex engineered 9/11 for global strategic objectives. Orchestrated a Hegelian Dialectic Thesis, a global war pretext that will continue to be very unpleasant for the majority of the economically farmed masses of the USA. That 9/11 was a militaristic political coup or putsch that in "the global grand chess game" will ultimately and deliberately wreck the USA so that international forces of capital can make even greater, huge, profits. Alternatively, some facile minded people appear to favour the simplistic theory that 19 foreign grumpy young men (who apparently simply "hated freedom" as a motive) got very lucky 3 times out of 4 on 9/11. History will see where things go, but I suspect that the USA will be, ultimately, in very deep trouble (economically, politically, spiritually, internationally and socially) from a very sophisticated, awesomely brilliant, 9/11 chess move.

[Seymour Butz]

You appear to be answering a reply here that I made to another poster who made a simple statement about jet fuel burning temperature in open air without any argument or evidence. I said that the steel was reported molten weeks after 9/11, I did not claim that it was a "fact" that steel was molten.



So why are you asking others to explain the molten steel when YOU already know that it can't be substantiated?

[Furcifer]

That's why you may have heard the term "terminal velocity". The free-fall equations predict that a falling object's velocity will continue to increase, without limit. But in air, once a falling object reaches a certain speed, it's propensity to fall will be matched by air's resistance to the fall. At that point the object will continue to fall, but its speed will no longer increase over time.



Oh my, you're so smart. Thanks for the lesson. I suppose you can tell us all what the terminal velocity is for an 11 story building?

(crickets)

[alienentity]

AndrewIlluminatus - please eschew obfuscation. I particularly loved the 'Anyway, in short, when anybody starts saying that they are spouting "facts" about anything I tend to suspect that they have minds untrained to think philosophically about any extrinsic phenomena whatsoever.'

How's this for a simple fact, Andrew? WTC7 did NOT collapse in 6.5 seconds, as you stated. That's a fact. It is not up for debate.
As for the towers, you can view video evidence which shows them still collapsing after 13 seconds....hmmm. That's a fact as well. That's 2 for truth, 0 for you.
If you can't deal in facts, you have no business debating them. Stick to philosophy if you wish.

[alienentity]

No, floors and columns in part A are not falling. They are static Like the ground.

Only part C is falling incl. its columns and floors, if you believe the OTC. But if part C with 14 floors or so drops on part A only one C floor will contact part A. Guess which one!

Right! The one that A damages first.

BTW - that is the C floor that is supposed to crush down WTC 1.

etc..

Yes, we see that you don't understand the physics of the collapse. I think you've made that point about 1000x. Each time you repeat it, you refuse to learn from other, wiser people. Your loss, not mine.

You lose, Heiwa, you have failed.

[bill smith]

I can't speak for others but to me it is sooo obvious that most of you guys know what happened on 9/11 the same as we do. But for your own reasons you defend the perps.

[alienentity]

I can't speak for others but to me it is sooo obvious that most of you guys know what happened on 9/11 the same as we do. But for your own reasons you defend the perps.

Did you use your Ouija board or your crystal ball to gain those insights? LOL

[Seymour Butz]

I can't speak for others but to me it is sooo obvious that most of you guys know what happened on 9/11 the same as we do. But for your own reasons you defend the perps.

Really?

You were sure that the columns had to meet, but Heiwa showed you to be wrong.

Then you were sure that it takes magic to make the upper block to fit inside the lower block if it tilts, and then Heiwa shows you to wrong AND uneducated on this issue.

So that's 2 things that you were wrong about...... TODAY!!!

How can you know anything when it's been shown IN ONE DAY that even these simple concepts escape you?

[tsig]

I can't speak for others but to me it is sooo obvious that most of you guys know what happened on 9/11 the same as we do. But for your own reasons you defend the perps.

If you're calling people liars you had better be prepared to prove it.

[GlennB]

OK so when you conducted your experiments what temperature did you reach with jet fuel and did the temperature melt steel and keep it molten for weeks, as was reported at the WTC terrorist event?

How does this relate to your earlier - erroneous - claim about the maximum temperatures reached by hydrocarbon fires?

As a matter of interest - if you were correct we would not have progressed as far as the iron age. Our distant ancestors managed to smelt iron using hydrocarbon fires easily exceeding your "In perfect conditions the maximum temperature that can be reached by hydrocarbons, like jet-fuel, burning in air is 825°C (1520°F)"

House and office fires routinely reach 1000°C. You were wrong. No shame there unless you are determined to deny it.

[ozeco41]

I can't speak for others but to me it is sooo obvious that most of you guys know what happened on 9/11 the same as we do. But for your own reasons you defend the perps.

I cannot speak for others bill but as both civil and military engineer and able to follow a chain of logic I can readily observe an overall happening in this sase in structural failure. I can work down from that overall feature to separate it into major components and down to the minor.

Then I can see which bits will fit together and which bits won't.

If you have been following my posts you will have notices several clear indicators of that. When posting to Tony I gave an outline of the broad issues and reasons BUT numerous times indicated or hinted as to where I was simplifying. Ditto in posts for you and for Heiwa.

I am prepared at any time to walk through all my detailed reasoning with any one person and pace their understanding with my explanations.

In some posts I have made the bold assertion that there is only one place in the collapse where the use of thermate could fit the known evidence. I have acknowledged openly that it is the only place where my explanation relies on an "improbability" argument rather that explicit evidence of fact.

So you cannot be more open that that I suggest.

My explanation is "out there, open to correction" - not yet and may never end up fully documented on this forum but could if there was a serious offer of debate and the persistent climate of ad hom attacks and derailing ridicule could be held a little in abeyance.

Conversely I have never seen a coherent overall explanation of demolition from anyone on the "truther side"

On another forum I met one person prepared to test his explanation of how demolition could have been achieved - we discussed for weeks or longer. Eventually we were down to that one last issue where I rely on probability. He claimed victory and departed.

Now as anyone knows "you cannot prove it so GawdDidIt" is the classic creationists false dilemma...

So if anyone here wants to put there explanation of how demolition could have been achieved let him now speak or, else, henceforth forever hold his peace*

So it is not "....you guys know what happened on 9/11 the same as we do. But for your own reasons you defend..."

The situation is asymmetric. Quite a few on "our" side can fully justify the total explanation to the required standard of proof. I am one of those. And a lot more ride on the coattails of that few.

From "your" side I am not aware of a single truther who can explain how demolition could have been employed. Look at the "is it thermate" debate. Has anyone tried to suggest how thermate could have been used? In a mechanism which caused the collapse which actually happened?

I do not know evert 9/11 protagonist so there may be some out there. If so produce the link and I will see what I think.

Meanwhile decide whether you will play "The King Has no clothes" - I think he is naked.



*Cranmer, Archbishop. 1662 - in a slightly different context ;)

[WildCat]

syzKBBB_THE

This was posted earlier but Heiwa seems to have missed it... :rolleyes:
Heiwa? Care to explain how this could happen?

Maybe Bill could take a shot at it?

[FineWine]

Although the exact time of the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 cannot be determined with precision because of the growing dust cloud, each collapse took approximately 10-12 seconds. NIST NCSTAR "Within 12s, the collapse of WTC1 had left nothing but rubble." Only 2 seconds slower than the time for a reasonably dense object that was not overly influenced by air buoyancy at 1.2kg/cubic metre (and air drag), to fall from the WTC roof to the plaza. Therefore, air resistance alone will make it take longer than 10 seconds for gravity to pull an object to the ground from the former height of WTC1 or 2 (time would be about 9.2 seconds in a vacuum). That 12s represents extraordinarily insufficient resistance within the intact tower structure to have permitted the kind of impacts imagined to produce sequential kinetic energy impacts and kinetic energy explosions in a ripple down manner. The energy from gravity has to be used up and it cannot be expected to do two jobs at once. Either all the energy from gravity is used up to create imagined tonnes of TNT kinetic energy explosiveness in sequential one-off explosive ripple-down events or it is used up to get an already explosively disassembled (by other means) building to the ground in that sort of time frame.

Additionally it is clear from video of the WTC2 event that the top load tipped over to the East, so did not apply a symmetrical weight load to the tower below yet within about 2 seconds of the explosive collapse initiation, the top load was explosively disassembled in mid-air upwards. Moreover for the initial symmetrical explosive collapse process below the tipped over top, during the first few seconds the ripple down, explosive blow outs shot down the tower faster than the explosively ejected building material from the top could keep up. This means that in the initial stage of the "WTC2 collapse process" the symmetrical-ripple-down-explosiveness, purportedly from a top load exerting an asymmetrical weight load, since it had tipped over before it was explosively disassembled upwards, was faster than the time for a reasonably dense object to fall through air.

On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the government's "complete and final report" of 9/11 that the South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds. Here is the exact quote: "At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds". Actually that is probably slightly too short a time period for the collapse to have been possible in air.

Considerable energy was used up in causing the observed massive high-speed sideways ejection of material (sometimes upwards) and much of the glass and concrete was pulverised and the ductile (not brittle) steelwork was shattered, twisted and mangled. The energy requirements to do anything even remotely like that rival the total amount of potential energy that the entire towers had to give when converted to kinetic energy, via gravity as the energy input. So while gravity is strong enough to cause reasonably dense objects to fall that far, through air, that fast, and while gravity is probably not strong enough to have so thoroughly disintegrated the towers under their own weight, gravity is certainly not strong enough to have done both simultaneously.

[B]Why Did the WTC Towers fall, "fire and gravity" or something else?
In perfect conditions the maximum temperature that can be reached by hydrocarbons, like jet-fuel, burning in air is 825°C (1520°F) but these perfect conditions were not reached in the burning towers before collapse. There is absolutely no reason in the Bush-Cheney-PNAC-FEMA "truss theory" why there should have been any kind of fire in the basements at all to account for the molten steel found there. Thermal hotspots of around 1100°C (2000°F) were found in the basements on September 16th 2001. A thermite reaction (and explosives) generate extraordinarily high temperatures, greater than 2500°C (4550°F), and it provides a potentially credible explanation for the thermal hot spots and the molten steel around the basement level steel foundations. Construction steel has an extremely high melting point of about 1535°C (2800°F). Something other than gravity and fires melted the steel in the basements of the WTC complex.

The "Bush-Cheney razor blades and Saudi hijacker conspiracy theory" does not deal with the fact that we need to account for the molten steel in the basements through a hypothetical truss theory. A theory that implausibly speculates that fire high up in the building caused a "final straw" failure of a single truss support and gravity did the rest. Please remember that there is zero empirical evidence for this "truss theory" and it remains just a theoretical hypothesis.

Since buildings 1 and 2 survived the impact of the aircraft without collapsing (or signs of undue stress) and fire and gravity are claimed to have caused their collapse instead, then the aircraft are irrelevant as a mechanism for collapse except that they obviously caused some initial damage. In WTC7 aircraft are totally irrelevant to the mechanism of collapse since no aircraft ever hit the building. As the aircraft are irrelevant as the final mechanism of collapse, they are therefore simply a military deception "magician style visual pretext" for a collapse and not an ultimate cause of the collapse. Many eyewitnesses reported seeing and hearing explosions!

Turning to the video of where the collapse starts in all three buildings the timing sequence for the demolition appears to start around the area of the fires high up in buildings 1 and 2. However in the case of building 7, this building appears to have been demolished in a more conventional manner from the bottom, below the rather small fires that were in that building. Explosives used in the controlled demolition of buildings have to be detonated in precisely the correct order to achieve the desired collapse effect. When you carefully view the video of the collapse of buildings 1 and 2, (and 7) you will see "squibs" (or puffs of smoke shooting out sideways from the building). These squibs were several floors below the falling dust cloud and these slightly early detonations are an indication that explosives were used in the demolition of the buildings, not gravity alone.

The observed near free-fall times of the Twin Towers (and WTC7) were a dramatic signature of a controlled demolition. US (war criminal) regime measured times are around 10 to 12 seconds for WTC 1 & 2 and 6.6 seconds for the shorter WTC 7, which is close to calculated free-fall time in air, indicating the tower floors fell without much impediment. They essentially fell into air because the buildings had already lost all structural integrity. The collapse of WTC 7 in 6.6 seconds is just 0.6 of a second longer than it would take an object dropped from the roof to hit the ground so where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum, one of the foundational laws of physics? That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors and intact steel support columns the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. How do the upper floors fall so quickly and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings? The implausible theory put forth by "establishment" engineers is that while no steel members actually melted or failed in WTC 1 & 2, it was the "floor assemblies", bolted at their joists to the outer walls and inner core structures, that did fail. The floor joist attachment bolts were weakened by heat and gave way, twisting sideways and allowing the initial truss and then initial floor to "instantly unzip" itself all the way round the building and collapse onto the floor below. The remaining floors then "pancaked" all the way down at a speed of around 10 floors per second. Never mind that floor joist cross members, placed to resist twisting, and additional support structures were not included at all in the MIT/FEMA/NOVA/NIST calculations and presentations nor was a collapse mechanism for the very robust inner core of columns explained at all. Building WTC 7 has been totally ignored in the TV propaganda "expert documentary explanations" provided for the plebeian masses purporting to reassure us all that Saudis (mainly) and razorblades caused 9/11.

But consider the following; if the "pancaking" effect caused the total building failure, why is it that no video of either of the WTC 1 and 2 collapses shows any sign of stutter between floor collapses? Stutter should have been very apparent, especially in the first few floors of collapse when the speed of gravitational collapse had not accelerated for long. The first "unzipped" floor would only have fallen around 12 feet before hitting the next floor below. The exterior of the building should have been sliding down around the inner core, which should have remained largely sticking up in the air after the collapse. Consider also that apologists for the official Bush-Cheney conspiracy theory propose that 30% of the gravitational collapse energy was necessary to create the "pyroclastic" cloud of debris. That is, in the "official" analysis, this pulverising energy came out of the gravitational energy. This means that the time of fall would have been slowed further than what was observed. When a body of mass m falls from a height h, acted upon by gravitational acceleration g, it converts its potential energy PE = m x g x h into kinetic energy KE = (1/2) x m x (v exp2). Here h = (1/2) x g x (t exp2), t = time of fall, and v =g x t, where v = velocity. Removal of 30% of the PE to turn the concrete and asbestos into fine powder essentially reduces the amount of energy available from falling, effectively reducing the gravitational acceleration to something less than g. Substituting, in the above equations we have (1.0 - 0.3) x PE = 0.7 x PE = m x g' x h, where PE, m and h are as before and g' = the effective gravitational acceleration. Hence, comparing terms for PE, g' = 0.7 g. The time of collapse under g' will also increase. If we let the effective collapse time be t', then comparing terms for constant h, (1/2) x g x (t exp2) = (1/2) x g' x (t' exp2) = (1/2) x 0.7g x (t' exp2). Hence, (t exp2) = 0.7 x (t' exp2), or (t/t') = SQRT (0.7) = 0.837. Or, t' = 1.195 t. Now the observed time t = 10 seconds, a free fall time, the fastest possible time under g = 9.8m/sec/sec. For the dust cloud debris creation to absorb 30% of the gravitational energy, the observed time of fall would be 10s x 1.195, or almost 12 seconds, but on page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the government's "complete and final report" of 9/11 that the South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds. Here is the exact quote: "At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds". Clearly, there are serious flaws in the "official" explanation/conspiracy theory. The implication from the above is that there were major energy sources other than gravitational forces involved in the WTC tower collapses. In any event "common-sense" should tell us that gravity causing all the damage and providing the energy could not possibly propel steel beams out of the building sideways and even upwards towards space and away from the planet generating the gravity. In conclusion, the buildings could not possibly, following the laws of physics, have collapsed like that without explosives and/or the use of something like a thermite reaction. Nineteen disaffected Muslims (nine reportedly still strangely alive) armed with razorblades could not possibly have been involved in preparing WTC 1, 2 and 7 for demolition by those means and so perhaps we still need to catch and bring to justice the real terrorists of 9/11.



It's 2009 and you still think some of the hijackers didn't die? When did Bush and Cheney give the details of their "theory"?

[beachnut]

I can't speak for others but to me it is sooo obvious that most of you guys know what happened on 9/11 the same as we do. But for your own reasons you defend the perps.
I can’t speak for other but since your first evidence free post to this off topic evidence free post you have a perfect record of no evidence. You also have a failed sig you can’t live up to.

19 terrorists killed 8 pilots and flew 3 planes into building. The perps are dead despite your apologizing for them with delusions, hearsay, and lies.

Heiwa and his pizza box engineering is pathetic and you have fallen for another fraud on 911. You could clearify what Heiwa means for me since I am not up to your level of stupid ideas yet.

Nineteen disaffected Muslims (nine reportedly still strangely alive) armed with razorblades could not possibly have been involved in preparing WTC 1, 2 and 7 for demolition by those means and so perhaps we still need to catch and bring to justice the real terrorists of 9/11. At least you have the smartest help to uncover more delusion like AndrewIlluminatus has on 911. Where do you guys come from? Is there a special school to make sure you fall for dumbed-down Internet twaddle so stupid it hurts? Physics challenged 911Truth fails to produce evidence, just a few people who believe the dumbest ideas possible on 911.

Once again the simple plot of killing pilots and flying planes into buildings is much too complex for 911Truth delusion seekers.
Bill, help Andrew with the topic, you have the most evidence of all 911Truth; I mean you have just as much evidence as all of 911Truth; you can help Heiwa double his evidence. 2x0=0 … Got math?

[FineWine]

No, I just explained what happens at a bounce or 100% damping/arrest of C by A.

Anyway, bounce, jolt, entanglement - part C can never crush down part A. Topic is Why a one way Crush down is not possible. I just explain why!

It is nothing new. A one-way Crush down has never taken place on Earth. Ever.


I have asked you a few times what stops the collapsing floors when they hit the ceiling of the next floor. You never answer. The collapse is gathering weight and speed. What stops it?

[FineWine]

I can't speak for others but to me it is sooo obvious that most of you guys know what happened on 9/11 the same as we do. But for your own reasons you defend the perps.

The perps were the hijackers. It is very obvious that there was no inside job. Why do you deny something that all the facts point to?

[Tony Szamboti]

Conversely I have never seen a coherent overall explanation of demolition from anyone on the "truther side"

On another forum I met one person prepared to test his explanation of how demolition could have been achieved - we discussed for weeks or longer. Eventually we were down to that one last issue where I rely on probability. He claimed victory and departed.

Now as anyone knows "you cannot prove it so GawdDidIt" is the classic creationists false dilemma...

So if anyone here wants to put there explanation of how demolition could have been achieved let him now speak or, else, henceforth forever hold his peace*

From "your" side I am not aware of a single truther who can explain how demolition could have been employed. Look at the "is it thermate" debate. Has anyone tried to suggest how thermate could have been used? In a mechanism which caused the collapse which actually happened?

I do not know evert 9/11 protagonist so there may be some out there. If so produce the link and I will see what I think.

Gordon Ross articulated a fairly well thought out probable demolition sequence quite a while ago. He maintains that the outer core columns and the corners of the perimeter columns were taken out to effect the demolitions of the twin towers. I agree with him that this is highly probable and answers a number of questions.

You can google "How the towers were demolished" to find his website, where he discusses it in detail.

[alienentity]

Gordon Ross articulated a fairly well thought out probable demolition sequence quite a while ago. He maintains that the outer core columns and the corners of the perimeter columns were taken out to effect the demolitions of the twin towers. I agree with him that this is highly probable and answers a number of questions.

You can google "How the towers were demolished" to find his website, where he discusses it in detail.

Except that it doesn't fit with the actual observed collapses, it's a fine idea. For a fictional book perhaps.....

The external perimeter columns of the towers clearly were NOT cut with explosives. That theory was dead before Ross articulated it. You guys just don't realize it for some odd reason.

Tony, that theory is already disproven. Time to move on. It's 2009.

[alienentity]

This is a question for Tony Szamboti. Tony, you've spent a lot more time than I have studying the WTC collapses, I'm sure.
Can you tell us, as precisely as possible, how many seconds the collapses for each tower took?
Also, can you tell us WHERE in each tower the collapse was initiated?

Thanks in advance.

ps are you aware of the views of the original SE of the towers regarding collapse?

[bill smith]

Gordon Ross articulated a fairly well thought out probable demolition sequence quite a while ago. He maintains that the outer core columns and the corners of the perimeter columns were taken out to effect the demolitions of the twin towers. I agree with him that this is highly probable and answers a number of questions.

You can google "How the towers were demolished" to find his website, where he discusses it in detail.

This is not exactly an integrated collapse theory but it contains some components that could fill in a few blanks.


We were arguing here a week or two back about the fireproofing upgrade in WTC1- apparently only on the floors where the plane went in or ones that showed excessive amounts of fire. I call this 'extra fireproofing' rather than a 'fireproofing upgrade'.


You see I think some of the core columns had nano-thermite sprayed INSIDE them....drill a hole, charge the column and spray on however many layers you like. Fill it up even. The extra fireproofing may have been to stop the jet fuel igniting the thermite prematurely as nano-thermite ignites at only 430 degrees C. The extra-thick fireproofing may also have acted as 'lightproofing' against the characteristic bright glare of the ignited thermite.


This might have ocurred in an entire column from bottom to top- all 1300 feet draining the molten steel down into the basements. If this happened with many selected columns there might be hundreds or even thousands of tons of molten steel in the basements which could explain why it stayed molten for months and why there was so little steel on the ground outside after the
collapse.

The steel that poured out of WTC2 might point to a similar process going on there.. Also this would explain the hundreds of tons of thermite that would have been needed to provide such an even distibution of unreacted thermite chips in the WTC dust.

[dudalb]

I can't speak for others but to me it is sooo obvious that most of you guys know what happened on 9/11 the same as we do. But for your own reasons you defend the perps.


I think we have reached a new level of delusion in the Truth Movement, folks.

[dudalb]

This is not exactly an integrated collapse theory but it contains some components that could fill in a few blanks.


We were arguing here a week ortwo back about the fireproofing upgrade in WTC1- apparently only on the floors where the plane went in or ones that showed excessive amounts of fire. I call this 'extra fireproofing' rather than a 'fireproofing upgrade'.


You see I think some of the core columns had nano-thermite sprayed INSIDE them....drill a hole, charge the column and spray on however many layers you like. Fill it up even. The extra fireproofing may have been to stop the jet fuel igniting the thermite prematurely as nano-thermite ignites at only 430 degrees C. The extra-thick fireproofing may also have acted as 'lightproofing' against the characteristic bright glare of the ignited thermite.


This might have ocurred in an entire column from bottom to top- all 1300 feet draining the molten steel down into the basements. If this happened with many selected columns there might be hundreds or even thousands of tons of molten steel in the basements which could explain why it stayed molten for months and why there was so little steel on the ground outside after the
collapse.

The steel that poured out of WTC2 might point to a similar process going on there.. Also this would explain the hundreds of tons of thermite that would have been needed to provide such an even distibution of unreacted thermite chips in the WTC dust.


:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:eye-poppi:eye-poppi

[alienentity]

there was so little steel on the ground outside after the
collapse.

The steel that poured out of WTC2 might point to a similar process going on there.. Also this would explain the hundreds of tons of thermite that would have been needed to provide such an even distibution of unreacted thermite chips in the WTC dust.

So you're thinking that hundreds of tons of thermite were brought into the impact floors to prepare for the planes? ok..... I wonder if they wore grey tanks on their backs full of liquid thermite?

And there was so little steel on the ground outside? gee, how much is 'little'?
FEMA says over 300,000 tons, don't they?

[Grizzly Bear]

I think we have reached a new level of delusion in the Truth Movement, folks.

Are you sure about that?... it seems to be getting weirder.... a record set with each new post....

[beachnut]

Gordon Ross articulated a fairly well thought out probable demolition sequence quite a while ago. He maintains that the outer core columns and the corners of the perimeter columns were taken out to effect the demolitions of the twin towers. I agree with him that this is highly probable and answers a number of questions.

You can google "How the towers were demolished" to find his website, where he discusses it in detail.
Total garbage. Why do you post such delusions based on junk science and pure fantasy. Gordon Ross says the WTC can't fall as they did on 911. It is funny to see Gordon wrong before he made up his failed ideas.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/Sag1.jpg

oops the columns just bowed, not explode. Darn, there goes your failed explosive junk along with Heiwa's no plane no gravity crap.

[Crungy]

This is not exactly an integrated collapse theory but it contains some components that could fill in a few blanks.


We were arguing here a week or two back about the fireproofing upgrade in WTC1- apparently only on the floors where the plane went in or ones that showed excessive amounts of fire. I call this 'extra fireproofing' rather than a 'fireproofing upgrade'.


You see I think some of the core columns had nano-thermite sprayed INSIDE them....drill a hole, charge the column and spray on however many layers you like. Fill it up even. The extra fireproofing may have been to stop the jet fuel igniting the thermite prematurely as nano-thermite ignites at only 430 degrees C. The extra-thick fireproofing may also have acted as 'lightproofing' against the characteristic bright glare of the ignited thermite.


This might have ocurred in an entire column from bottom to top- all 1300 feet draining the molten steel down into the basements. If this happened with many selected columns there might be hundreds or even thousands of tons of molten steel in the basements which could explain why it stayed molten for months and why there was so little steel on the ground outside after the
collapse.

The steel that poured out of WTC2 might point to a similar process going on there.. Also this would explain the hundreds of tons of thermite that would have been needed to provide such an even distibution of unreacted thermite chips in the WTC dust.

Was this from the same episode where Shaggy rescued Scooby just as the evil doers were about throw him down the elevator shaft?

[Seymour Butz]

You see I think some of the core columns had nano-thermite sprayed INSIDE them....drill a hole, charge the column and spray on however many layers you like. Fill it up even. The extra fireproofing may have been to stop the jet fuel igniting the thermite prematurely as nano-thermite ignites at only 430 degrees C. The extra-thick fireproofing may also have acted as 'lightproofing' against the characteristic bright glare of the ignited thermite.




Rube Goldberg ain't got nuttin' on you, son...

LMAO......

[bill smith]

So you're thinking that hundreds of tons of thermite were brought into the impact floors to prepare for the planes? ok..... I wonder if they wore grey tanks on their backs full of liquid thermite?

And there was so little steel on the ground outside? gee, how much is 'little'?
FEMA says over 300,000 tons, don't they?

Do you mean hat FEMA claim that here was 100,000 tons MORE steel than went into the construction of both Towers together ? lol.....only on 9/11....

[Furcifer]

Oh my, you're so smart. Thanks for the lesson. I suppose you can tell us all what the terminal velocity is for an 11 story building?

(crickets)

The physics classes at Truther University are all lecture and no homework.

[alienentity]

Do you mean hat FEMA claim that here was 100,000 tons MORE steel than went into the construction of both Towers together ? lol.....only on 9/11....

That was the total from all the WTC buildings. Have you read the FEMA report and seen all the WTC tower steel? It is documented if you care to look.

Or you could just make more fact-free statements if you find that convenient.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Total garbage. Why do you post such delusions based on junk science and pure fantasy. Gordon Ross says the WTC can't fall as they did on 911. It is funny to see Gordon wrong before he made up his failed ideas.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/Sag1.jpg

oops the columns just bowed, not explode. Darn, there goes your failed explosive junk along with Heiwa's no plane no gravity crap.
Here's how NIST measured the inward bowing.
http://i625.photobucket.com/albums/tt332/JREFImages/InwardBowing.jpg
http://i625.photobucket.com/albums/tt332/JREFImages/Inwardbowing3.jpg
http://i625.photobucket.com/albums/tt332/JREFImages/InwardBowing2.jpg

[WildCat]

Here's how NIST measured the inward
Voodoo!

/bill smith

[bill smith]

Night night boys

[Furcifer]

Was this from the same episode where Shaggy rescued Scooby just as the evil doers were about throw him down the elevator shaft?

No, this is the one where the kooky Sir Isaac Newton shows up and uses his brand of wacky ideas about gravity to help the gang solve the mystery. Other guests included Dmitri Mendeleev- "That's not possible Velma, the amount of thermite needed to melt all that Fe would be staggering :yikes:" and Marie Curie- "There's no measurable amount of radioactivity in the pile Fred :rolleyes:"

[Tony Szamboti]

This is a question for Tony Szamboti. Tony, you've spent a lot more time than I have studying the WTC collapses, I'm sure.
Can you tell us, as precisely as possible, how many seconds the collapses for each tower took?
Also, can you tell us WHERE in each tower the collapse was initiated?

Thanks in advance.

ps are you aware of the views of the original SE of the towers regarding collapse?

Alienentity, the collapses initiated at the 98th floor of the North Tower and the 82nd floor of the South Tower. In both cases it was just above the aircraft impact zones on floors with fires but little impact damage.

As for the speed of collapse, we know the acceleration was approximately 0.7g for the first 114 feet of the fall of the North Tower's upper block where it is visible. Assuming that acceleration was consistent for the remainder of the fall, then the North Tower would have collapsed in approximately 11 seconds.

I haven't been involved in or heard of any actual measurements of the fall of the South Tower. I know the NIST figure is something like 8 seconds. However, I believe they are talking about the time for the first collapsed material to hit the ground, and since that would have come from the 82nd floor then it would have been at least several more seconds for the full collapse to be complete.

As for the SE on the towers you are speaking of I assume you mean Leslie Robertson. If so, yes I am aware that he supports the NIST report and doesn't think anything untoward happened. However, in his debate with Steven Jones, which took place in Oct. 2006, he admitted that he had not done any calculations on the speeds of collapse to confirm his view that nothing untoward could have occurred. The link to a transcript of the debate, which also contains a link to a podcast of the debate which you can listen to, is here http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/Roberts_AnnotatedJones-RobertsonTranscript.pdf

[beachnut]

You see I think some of the core columns had nano-thermite sprayed INSIDE them....drill a hole, charge the column and spray on however many layers you like. Fill it up even. The extra fireproofing may have been to stop the jet fuel igniting the thermite prematurely as nano-thermite ignites at only 430 degrees C. The extra-thick fireproofing may also have acted as 'lightproofing' against the characteristic bright glare of the ignited thermite. ...
That is one dumb post; bravo for having real dumb delusions on 911.

[beachnut]

As for the SE on the towers you are speaking of I assume you mean Leslie Robertson. If so, yes I am aware that he supports the NIST report and doesn't think anything untoward happened. However, in his debate with Steven Jones, which took place in Oct. 2006, he admitted that he had not done any calculations on the speeds of collapse to confirm his view that nothing untoward could have occurred. The link to a transcript of the debate, which also contains a link to a podcast of the debate which you can listen to, is here http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/Roberts_AnnotatedJones-RobertsonTranscript.pdf
Robertson knows the collapse is how the tower would behave because he is the expert and you are a person with explosive delusions and 7 years of failure. Good for you.

Robertson design the towers and thinks your ideas are pure delusions. He thinks you guys are nut cases. Sorry, but you should avoid bringing up people who are the real experts and make your work look like a monkey throwing poop.

The annotated transcript of stupid; my goodness how do you put up with being in group that supports dirt dumb ideas on 911 only dolts can believe and apologize for terrorists. You guys produce the biggest pile of anti-intellectual tripe. How can you do it so effortlessly?

Why is your work so stupid? It must be related to why you are supporting the dirt dumb ideas of Heiwa?

[Tony Szamboti]

Robertson knows the collapse is how the tower would behave because he is the expert and you are a person with explosive delusions and 7 years of failure. Good for you.

Robertson design the towers and thinks your ideas are pure delusions. He thinks you guys are nut cases. Sorry, but you should avoid bringing up people who are the real experts and make your work look like a monkey throwing poop.

The annotated transcript of stupid; my goodness how do you put up with being in group that supports dirt dumb ideas on 911 only dolts can believe and apologize for terrorists. You guys produce the biggest pile of anti-intellectual tripe. How can you do it so effortlessly?

Why is your work so stupid? It must be related to why you are supporting the dirt dumb ideas of Heiwa?

Beachnut, I am starting to think you could have knocked down the towers with that mouth of yours. How many tons of TNT does it take to equal each one of your verbal blasts?

[Heiwa]

I note that there are 438 posts Why a one-way Crush down is not possible and none explains that a structural one-way crush down is possible.
Reason is that it is not possible.
Try to build a structure 1, 2 and 5 meters tall and then try to one-way crush it down! NASA, NIST, FEMA have tried. It is not possible. Same actually applies to 100, 200 and 500 meters tall structures. It has nothing to do with scale or size. Structures cannot simply be one-way crushed down by a little top part of itself! Thanks for attending this thread.

[beachnut]

Beachnut, I am starting to think you could have knocked down the towers with that mouth of yours. How many tons of TNT does it take to equal each one of your verbal blasts?
How many explosives does it take to make your failed ideas and delusions on 911 come true. You can't calculate what it takes to have your delusions. How much thermite? You know Jones just made that scam up. Why don't you have your own original ideas on 911? Yes, it is easier to use Jones failed thermite scam than to think up a new fraud.

You bring up stupid delusional work by failed people who have junk ideas on 911. You were missing until now and you think the new super thermite will save your failed lies and hearsay based on junk science. You post I guess in support of another pizza box engineer Heiwa and his delusions. Not one piece of evidence in 7 years and you pin your next big "loaded gun" (more like a loaded diaper) on a vanity paper published in a vanity journal. It is funny as you guys fool idiots on the internet with your pay to publish trash.

Your failed work has proved you to me you can't figure out 911 with all the evidence given to you after 7 years.

Heiwa will wonder why no one can prove him wrong as I publish the WTC failing due to steel being compromised from office fires set with 66,000 pounds of fuel with the heat energy of 315 TONS of TNT and all you can do is say there is no jolt in a low resolution, both in time and space, video. What great engineering expertise have you brought to support the failed ideas of Heiwa?

Will you and Heiwa be posting your delusions in 7 years? If this is the best you and Heiwa can do you need to dig deep and try harder. I hate to see people fail due to lack of knowledge and not using sound judgment.

The WTC towers fell due to impact damage and fires. I am not sure if this means Heiwa's OP is failed or his OP is just pure garbage; what do you think; is the WTC gravity collapse proof Heiwa's OP is wrong; failed? Or does Heiwa OP have some other delusional goal?

[AndrewIlluminatus]

As a matter of interest - if you were correct we would not have progressed as far as the iron age.

It was extremely difficult for our ancestors to move from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age precisely because of the problems of creating sufficiently pressurised air input "blast furnaces" to raise the furnace temperature high enough. If a few oxygen starved underground fires fed by some wood and animal fat (and possibly some residual jet fuel) could melt steel so easily, our ancestors would have probably reached that particular stage of technological development a lot sooner IMO. Even if some kind of "chimney effect" feeding in higher rates of oxygen, raised localised temperatures to say 1000C, that was still not hot enough to account for molten steel reports or for the interesting (officially accepted) sulphur contamination and the eutectic reports.

To Seymour who asks "So why are you asking others to explain the molten steel when YOU already know that it can't be substantiated?" I would reply that I was not there, so any empirical data gathering was obviously done by other mind-body organisms than mine. Of course it cannot be substantiated by me as "fact", nothing really can be. I suspect that a great deal of bogus data has been dumped into the historical record of 9/11, for the deliberate reason that that would be the best way to confuse investigators and keep them entertained, pointlessly chasing unimportant details, for decades. So permitting the political Hegelian Dialectic objectives of the terrorist 9/11 provocation (problem or Thesis) to develop unmolested. Acts of war and terrorism like 9/11 are not pointless and as Clausewitz dryly observed "War is nothing but a continuation of politics with the admixture of other means."

Ron Suskind, 2002 conversation with Bush aide: "The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an EMPIRE now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality - judiciously, as you will - we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors. . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

[AndrewIlluminatus]

I can't speak for others but to me it is sooo obvious that most of you guys know what happened on 9/11 the same as we do. But for your own reasons you defend the perps.

Alternatively, hypothetically speaking, they may not be witting collaborators or conspirators in anything, but simply mind-control victims hypnotised to believe the "authorities" (media, politicians, teachers, parents, peers etc.) and to be good little patriots, nationalists and lovers of the great and infallible US of A. What any "US Regime Sponsored Conspiracy Theory Sceptics" like us are suggesting is literally inconceivable for them to accept. Google: "The Ultimate Revolution" lecture by Aldous Huxley at Berkley back in 1962 and you will see that this particular stage of human social development was fully predictable way back then. People who are suffering from having their minds hypnotically programmed for them by more "dominant alpha" types literally do appear to perceive what we might call "extrinsic reality" in a very odd manner. Watch any stage hypnotist at work or watch the literally ecstatic expressions and emotions shown on the faces of the German population in the brilliant propaganda movie "Triumph of the Will" by Leni Riefenstahl.

A Soviet correspondent based for five years in the U.S. observed: "I have the greatest admiration for your propaganda. Propaganda in the West is carried out by experts who have had the best training in the world in the field of advertising and have mastered the techniques with exceptional proficiency ... Yours are subtle and persuasive; ours are crude and obvious ... I think that the fundamental difference between our worlds, with respect to propaganda, is quite simple. You tend to believe yours ... and we tend to disbelieve ours."

Edward Bernays (nephew of Sigmund Freud), "father" of US mass-hypnosis propaganda, famously observed: "The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organised habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government, which is the true ruling power of our country. ... We are governed, our minds are moulded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organised. Vast numbers of human beings must co-operate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ... In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons ... who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind."

[AndrewIlluminatus]

How's this for a simple fact, Andrew? WTC7 did NOT collapse in 6.5 seconds, as you stated. That's a fact. It is not up for debate.


I suspect that this alleged "fact" is up for debate because it is rather difficult exactly to time when the roof level would have reached street level when that event in time was completely obscured, by the dust cloud. What was perhaps more interesting was the smooth resistance free drop of the roof line in the initial couple of seconds that showed no structural integrity in the entire building, whatsoever, remained, just after loud explosions were heard, that appeared to precede the "collapse process". Moreover we have video evidence that the building was about "to blow up" so people nearby should move back.

[Redtail]

Alternatively, hypothetically speaking, they may not be witting collaborators or conspirators in anything, but simply mind-control victims hypnotised to believe the "authorities" (media, politicians, teachers, parents, peers etc.) and to be good little patriots, nationalists and lovers of the great and infallible US of A. What any "US Regime Sponsored Conspiracy Theory Sceptics" like us are suggesting is literally inconceivable for them to accept. Google: "The Ultimate Revolution" lecture by Aldous Huxley at Berkley back in 1962 and you will see that this particular stage of human social development was fully predictable way back then. People who are suffering from having their minds hypnotically programmed for them by more "dominant alpha" types literally do appear to perceive what we might call "extrinsic reality" in a very odd manner. Watch any stage hypnotist at work or watch the literally ecstatic expressions and emotions shown on the faces of the German population in the brilliant propaganda movie "Triumph of the Will" by Leni Riefenstahl.



Or you guys could just be wrong.

[WilliamSeger]

It also explains why controlled demolition companies do not drop top parts of buildings to demolish them. It doesn't work.

Hmm.... you've "forgotten" about this, already?

syzKBBB_THE

Seems to work pretty well. Just my non-engineers opinion, but I'd guess that the reason that collapse looks remarkably to the WTC collapses is that it was remarkably similar: weakened columns were pulled out of the way, and gravity did the rest. And neither seems to be very similar to a stack of pizza boxes.

[Furcifer]

Even if some kind of "chimney effect" feeding in higher rates of oxygen, raised localised temperatures to say 1000C, that was still not hot enough to account for molten steel reports or for the interesting (officially accepted) sulphur contamination and the eutectic reports.


lol, what molten steel?

How far along are you on your terminal velocity calculations? We wait with anticipation. :D

[alienentity]

Alienentity, the collapses initiated at the 98th floor of the North Tower and the 82nd floor of the South Tower. In both cases it was just above the aircraft impact zones on floors with fires but little impact damage.

As for the speed of collapse, we know the acceleration was approximately 0.7g for the first 114 feet of the fall of the North Tower's upper block where it is visible. Assuming that acceleration was consistent for the remainder of the fall, then the North Tower would have collapsed in approximately 11 seconds.

I haven't been involved in or heard of any actual measurements of the fall of the South Tower. I know the NIST figure is something like 8 seconds. However, I believe they are talking about the time for the first collapsed material to hit the ground, and since that would have come from the 82nd floor then it would have been at least several more seconds for the full collapse to be complete.

As for the SE on the towers you are speaking of I assume you mean Leslie Robertson. If so, yes I am aware that he supports the NIST report and doesn't think anything untoward happened. However, in his debate with Steven Jones, which took place in Oct. 2006, he admitted that he had not done any calculations on the speeds of collapse to confirm his view that nothing untoward could have occurred. The link to a transcript of the debate, which also contains a link to a podcast of the debate which you can listen to, is here http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/Roberts_AnnotatedJones-RobertsonTranscript.pdf

Hi Tony,

Thank you for the reply. I was just trying to determine whether you had a basic grasp of the facts. You seem to be fairly close, although the video evidence on the N tower seems to contradict your assumption that 'acceleration was consistent for the remainder of the fall,' resulting in an 11 second collapse time. It appears more like 17 seconds or more. Slightly less for the S. Tower. Just look at the frames for yourself and you can see at 11 seconds the building is still visible....

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/ntc_frames.html

Generally truthers tend to underestimate the collapse times, for the towers and for WTC7. I hope you agree that building 7 required at least 14 seconds to collapse, based on the visual evidence.

Moving to Leslie Robertson, yes, I was referring to him. You correctly pointed out that he did not bother calculating the expected collapse time for the towers, but you skipped over the fact he DID calculate, or 'carried it far enough along' to determine that once the upper block began to move, nothing could have prevented the building from collapsing down essentially to the foundation.

He didn't see the necessity to calculate something which was already inevitable. The question whether the towers collapsed from structural failure due to impacts and fires was never a serious question for him, nor should it be for others who attempt to credibly study the collapses.

Unfortunately for those such as yourself, you are in a position of contradicting someone whose knowledge and expertise on the matter far exceeds your own.
The correct response is to abandon your incorrect approach and adopt the obviously superior one.

It is disappointing you haven't done that. That is the precise reason why the 9/11 truth movement is a failed concept - it refuses to learn from those who possess the greater knowledge and expertise. In fact it is hostile to that same knowledge. A fatal flaw if there ever was one.

[alienentity]

'
Originally Posted by AndrewIlluminatus
Even if some kind of "chimney effect" feeding in higher rates of oxygen, raised localised temperatures to say 1000C, that was still not hot enough to account for molten steel reports or for the interesting (officially accepted) sulphur contamination and the eutectic reports.'

No Andrew, you are once again in need of correction (where do you get your mangled data?) 1000c is the temperature expected for eutectic formation. It is a sulfidation process which occurs far below the normal melting point of steel.

[AndrewIlluminatus]

How much thermite? You know Jones just made that scam up. Why don't you have your own original ideas on 911? Yes, it is easier to use Jones failed thermite scam than to think up a new fraud.


What a weird way of thinking in my opinion! If there was any thermite at all used on 9/11 then it really does not matter how much was used. It was simply not supposed to be there at all! The jury is probably "still out", IMO, on the whether Jones has failed in disseminating a plausible sounding theory or not. I suspect that Jones did not create his theory and lose his job just because he wanted to create a mischievous scam to hoax people for a little bit of fun. If any thermite was used at all on 9/11 then the infamous 19 grumpy young men being responsible for all of the mayhem of the terrorist attack of 9/11 "official conspiracy theory" disappears in a puff of smoke faster than 1kg of thermite going of.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13189

Traces of explosives in 9/11 dust, scientists say
by Elaine Jarvik
Global Research, April 14, 2009
Tiny red and gray chips found in the dust from the collapse of the World Trade Center contain highly explosive materials — proof, according to a former BYU professor, that 9/11 is still a sinister mystery.
Physicist Steven E. Jones, who retired from Brigham Young University in 2006 after the school recoiled from the controversy surrounding his 9/11 theories, is one of nine authors on a paper published last week in the online, peer-reviewed Open Chemical Physics Journal. Also listed as authors are BYU physics professor Jeffrey Farrer and a professor of nanochemistry at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark.
For several years, Jones has theorized that pre-positioned explosives, not fires from jet fuel, caused the rapid, symmetrical collapse of the two World Trade Center buildings, plus the collapse of a third building, WTC-7.
The newest research, according to the journal authors, shows that dust from the collapsing towers contained a "nano-thermite" material that is highly explosive. Although the article draws no conclusions about the source and purpose of the explosives, Jones has previously supported a theory that the collapse of the WTC towers was part of a government conspiracy to ignore warnings about the 9/11 terrorists so that the attack would propel America to wage war against Afghanistan and Iraq.
The next step, Jones said in a phone interview on Monday, is for someone to investigate "who made the stuff and why it was there."
A layer of dust lay over parts of Manhattan immediately following the collapse of the towers, and it was samples of this dust that Jones and fellow researchers requested in a 2006 paper, hoping to determine "the whole truth of the events of that day." They eventually tested four samples they received from New Yorkers.
One sample was from a man who had swept up a handful of dust on the Brooklyn Bridge, where he was walking when the second tower fell. As the journal authors note, "It was, therefore, definitely not contaminated by the steel-cutting or clean-up operations at Ground Zero, which began later. Furthermore, it is not mixed with dust from WTC-7, which fell hours later."
Another man collected dust in his apartment, about five blocks from the World Trade Center, on the morning of Sept. 12. There was a layer about an inch thick on a stack of folded laundry near an open window.
Red/gray chips, averaging in size between .2 and 3 mm, were found in all four dust samples. The chips were then analyzed using scanning electron microscopy and other high-tech tools.
The red layer of the chips, according to the researchers, contains a "highly energetic" form of thermite. While normal thermite (a mixture of finely granulated aluminum and an oxide of metal) can be incendiary, "super thermite" is explosive. He says there is no benign explanation for the thermite in the WTC dust.
Jones made headlines in 2005 when he argued that the rapid and symmetrical fall of the World Trade Center looked like the result of pre-positioned explosives. He argued that fires alone wouldn't have been hot enough to crumble the buildings; and that even if struck by planes, the towers should have been strong enough to support the weight of the tops as they crumbled — unless they were leveled by explosives.
Essentially forced to retire, Jones says he is now paying for research out of his own pocket. He likens himself to Galileo and Newton, who stood by their consciences. "I would like to think I could stand up for the truth," he says.
The dust study vindicates his earlier theories, Jones says, but he has mixed feelings about the implications. "As a young student said to me a while back: 'It's exciting from a scientific point of view, because things are now making sense. But I feel sad for my country.’"

[bill smith]

Alternatively, hypothetically speaking, they may not be witting collaborators or conspirators in anything, but simply mind-control victims hypnotised to believe the "authorities" (media, politicians, teachers, parents, peers etc.) and to be good little patriots, nationalists and lovers of the great and infallible US of A. What any "US Regime Sponsored Conspiracy Theory Sceptics" like us are suggesting is literally inconceivable for them to accept. Google: "The Ultimate Revolution" lecture by Aldous Huxley at Berkley back in 1962 and you will see that this particular stage of human social development was fully predictable way back then. People who are suffering from having their minds hypnotically programmed for them by more "dominant alpha" types literally do appear to perceive what we might call "extrinsic reality" in a very odd manner. Watch any stage hypnotist at work or watch the literally ecstatic expressions and emotions shown on the faces of the German population in the brilliant propaganda movie "Triumph of the Will" by Leni Riefenstahl.

A Soviet correspondent based for five years in the U.S. observed: "I have the greatest admiration for your propaganda. Propaganda in the West is carried out by experts who have had the best training in the world in the field of advertising and have mastered the techniques with exceptional proficiency ... Yours are subtle and persuasive; ours are crude and obvious ... I think that the fundamental difference between our worlds, with respect to propaganda, is quite simple. You tend to believe yours ... and we tend to disbelieve ours."

Edward Bernays (nephew of Sigmund Freud), "father" of US mass-hypnosis propaganda, famously observed: "The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organised habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government, which is the true ruling power of our country. ... We are governed, our minds are moulded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organised. Vast numbers of human beings must co-operate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ... In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons ... who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind."





I believe all that applies to most of the public at large but not to many of the posters here. Many of those have been exposed to a range of alternative theories and strong evidence of government complicity in 9/11. They could not NOT know at this point. A person can only be an apologist up to a certain point which we are now long past. After that it becomes something else altogether.

Another famous individual said the following which also has a certain resonance;

"All this was inspired by the principle -- which is quite true in itself -- that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily, and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes."

[Redtail]

I believe all that applies to most of the public at large but not to many of the posters here. Many of those have been exposed to a range of alternative theories and strong evidence of government complicity in 9/11. They could not NOT know at this point. A person can only be an apologist up to a certain point which we are now long past. After that it becomes something else altogether.

Another famous individual said the following which also has a certain resonance;

"All this was inspired by the principle -- which is quite true in itself -- that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily, and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes."

A group of famous individuals said: We Don't Need No.. Education".

Seriously, the funny thing is, you really don't see that applying to yourself do you?

[dtugg]

I believe all that applies to most of the public at large but not to many of the posters here. Many of those have been exposed to a range of alternative theories and strong evidence of government complicity in 9/11. They could not NOT know at this point. A person can only be an apologist up to a certain point which we are now long past. After that it becomes something else altogether.


No such evidence exists, twoofer, except in the minds of moron terrorist apologists.

[beachnut]

.. A person can only be an apologist up to a certain point which we are now long past. After that it becomes something else altogether.

Another famous individual said the following which also has a certain resonance;

"All this was inspired by the principle -- ." Adolf Hitler? Wow, you need Einstein and you bring a dirt dumb NAZI quote to the debate. How 911Truth like. Dirt dumb NAZI quotes are the sign of people who apologize for terrorist well past the "certain point". Do you love lies like Hitler? In your case you have the lies of 911Truth which you spew as your bible, your faith, your delusions. "There comes a time when your ignorance on 911 enables your delusions".

Another famous individual? Is he your hero? The dirt dumb NAZI Hitler. No wonder you love Jones' lies and delusions. Like Hitler you and 911Truth are in a time, like MAY of 1945; 911Truth and you think you are winning. But you lost on 911 before you started; just like Hitler. Are you a NAZI like your famous individual?

Your post has all the evidence you ever need; zero.

There comes a time when your silence would have kept everyone from knowing you have dirt dumb delusions on 911. Cheer up there is a chance you can make a DVD and sell your delusions for 15 Bucks; you are proof there is a market for stupid ideas on 911. Blanks at bulk are less than 45 cents.

A great physicist diagnosed your problem understanding 911... Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. Albert Einstein,

Your famous individual did not like him and reflected the same anti-intellectualism 911Truth does.
Just like 911Truth to bring quotes from the biggest losers in history; bringing Hitler when you should have brought Einstein; is 911Truth's anti-intellectual hero Hitler and Thermite Jones?

Got anything from Hitler to support Heiwa's OP?

[bill smith]

Adolf Hitler? Wow, you need Einstein and you bring a dirt dumb NAZI quote to the debate. How 911Truth like. Dirt dumb NAZI quotes are the sign of people who apologize for terrorist well past the "certain point". Do you love lies like Hitler? In your case you have the lies of 911Truth which you spew as your bible, your faith, your delusions. "There comes a time when your ignorance on 911 enables your delusions".

Another famous individual? Is he your hero? The dirt dumb NAZI Hitler. No wonder you love Jones' lies and delusions. Like Hitler you and 911Truth are in a time, like MAY of 1945; 911Truth and you think you are winning. But you lost on 911 before you started; just like Hitler. Are you a NAZI like your famous individual?

Your post has all the evidence you ever need; zero.

There comes a time when your silence would have kept everyone from knowing you have dirt dumb delusions on 911. Cheer up there is a chance you can make a DVD and sell your delusions for 15 Bucks; you are proof there is a market for stupid ideas on 911. Blanks at bulk are less than 45 cents.

A great physicist diagnosed your problem understanding 911...

Your famous individual did not like him and reflected the same anti-intellectualism 911Truth does.
Just like 911Truth to bring quotes from the biggest losers in history; bringing Hitler when you should have brought Einstein; is 911Truth's anti-intellectual hero Hitler and Thermite Jones?

Got anything from Hitler to support Heiwa's OP?

You are a master of the cheap shot Beachnut.

[Dave Rogers]

Put garbage into a maths model and you get garbage out. To even suggest that a definitive and accurate model could be made when there are so many unknown variables involved indicates to me that you are evidently mind-programmed to believe what you have been told to believe.

I see. So the Twin Towers fell in 12 seconds, and a mathematical model predicts them falling in 12 seconds, but, because the mathematical model can't be definitive and accurate, that proves that the collapse was faster than it should have been. Well, that makes sense. I'm sure your wild guess is completely accurate.

Dave

[beachnut]

You are a master of the cheap shot Beachnut.
You are off topic. So where is your massive pile of evidence hiding? It is not surprising you quote a big loser when you have ideas on 911 to match Hitler’s anti-intellectual pinnacle. You bring Hitler; you should bring Einstein so you will understand Heiwa's junk science is just that.

...
What a weird way of thinking in my opinion! If there was any thermite at all used on 9/11 then it really does not matter how much was used. ....

If any thermite was used at all on 9/11 then the infamous 19 grumpy young men being responsible for all of the mayhem of the terrorist attack of 9/11 "official conspiracy theory" disappears in a puff of smoke faster than 1kg of thermite going of.


... Jones has theorized that pre-positioned explosives, ...

The newest research, according to the journal authors, shows that dust from the collapsing towers contained a "nano-thermite" material that is highly explosive. ... wage war against Afghanistan and Iraq.

Essentially forced to retire, Jones says he is now paying for research out of his own pocket. He likens himself to Galileo and Newton, who stood by their consciences. "I would like to think I could stand up for the truth," he says.

The dust study vindicates his earlier theories, Jones says, but he has mixed feelings about the implications. "As a young student said to me a while back: 'It's exciting from a scientific point of view, because things are now making sense. But I feel sad for my country.’"Why are you posting off topic? You failed to support your brother in delusion on 911 with an on topic support posting; you have nothing to add after that load of off topic tripe?

You can't figure out how much thermite because you just go along with the Thermite delusion without much thought?


Delusion - Jones is saying his rust is thermite? Reality - Real DNA from the bad guys, they are dead. Plot too complex? 19 terrorists you apologize for (spewing nut case ideas on 911) kill pilots, fly planes into building. Heroes on Flight 93 did in minutes what evade your keen skill at logic for over 7 years; they figured out 911! You wasted 7 years and messed up 911 into a deranged idiotic delusion with thermite. Heroes takes minutes; you have not figured out 911 in 7 years; minutes, 7 years! Now that is something.

Jones, 4 years after 911, outraged by Iraq war, makes up thermite to get back at Bush (does he hates Obama? no surprise save he may thing Bush is still in office). Jones acts like a nut case, makes the termite delusion, and is fired. Jones had no clue in September 2005, and nothing has changed.

Jones was fired because he made up nut case ideas on 911 not supported in fact, or evidence. Now he manufactures evidence with dust that has rust to fool weak-minded in 911Truthland.

Jones is not a Galileo, he is anti-intellectual fool who makes up lies about 911. A terrorist apologist with failed ideas.

His paper is in a pay to publish journal because it is junk. He does not have thermite, he has dust from the WTC.

Jones and the other frauds working on the paper are not out to figure out what the dust was, they were sure it was thermite. It is Jones holy grail.

I like what Dr G said - First of all, we really don’t have certified nano-thermite standards for comparison. And neither can anyone explain how such an unconventional material was used in the Twin Towers or indeed elsewhere in the WTC Complex. But one thing I have been able to determine is that a 100 micron coating of thermite on the WTC structural members is incapable of heating the steel columns by more than 50 deg C and is therefore insufficient to cause any significant thermal stress to any part of these buildings. See, you are wrong, you have to know how much thermite is needed to prove thermite did it. Got math and physics?

I found iron rust and Al in my back yard, it was a red chip; smaller than a mm. I see thermite... I see it everywhere... it does not know it is thermite... until I send it to Dr Thermite Jones and his team of delusion experts.

Why do paints and coatings have the same elements as Jones dust?
Why does debris from fires and just junk have the same elements as Jones dust?

When are you taking your evidence to the authorities? Or are you a typical 911Truth follower; full of action!
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/standup.jpg
So what do you have as evidence or support for Heiwa's OP? We need to get on topic and help Heiwa earn his Pulitzer Prize when he takes his massive paper, research, and piles of evidence in to the committee.

[bill smith]

You are off topic. So where is your massive pile of evidence hiding? It is not surprising you quote a big loser when you have ideas on 911 to match Hitler’s anti-intellectual pinnacle. You bring Hitler; you should bring Einstein so you will understand Heiwa's junk science is just that.

Why are you posting off topic? You failed to support your brother in delusion on 911 with an on topic support posting; bet you have nothing to add!

You can't figure out how much thermite because you just go along with the Thermite delusion without much thought?


Delusion - Jones is saying his rust is thermite? Reality - Real DNA from the bad guys, they are dead. Plot too complex? 19 terrorists you apologize for (spewing nut case ideas on 911) kill pilots, fly planes into building. Heroes on Flight 93 did in minutes what evade your keen skill at logic for over 7 years; they figured out 911! You wasted 7 years and messed up 911 into a deranged idiotic delusion with thermite. Heroes takes minutes; you have not figured out 911 in 7 years; minutes, 7 years! Now that is something.

Jones, 4 years after 911, outraged by Iraq war, makes up thermite to get back at Bush (does he hates Obama? no surprise save he may thing Bush is still in office). Jones acts like a nut case, makes the termite delusion, and is fired. Jones had no clue in September 2005, and nothing has changed.

Jones was fired because he made up nut case ideas on 911 not supported in fact, or evidence. Now he manufactures evidence with dust that has rust to fool weak-minded in 911Truthland.

Jones is not a Galileo, he is anti-intellectual fool who makes up lies about 911. A terrorist apologist with failed ideas.

His paper is in a pay to publish journal because it is junk. He does not have thermite, he has dust from the WTC.

Jones and the other frauds working on the paper are not out to figure out what the dust was, they were sure it was thermite. It is Jones holy grail.

I like what Dr G said - See, you are wrong, you have to know how much thermite is needed to prove thermite did it. Got math and physics?

I found iron rust and Al in my back yard, it was a red chip; smaller than a mm. I see thermite... I see it everywhere... it does not know it is thermite... until I send it to Dr Thermite Jones and his team of delusion experts.

Why do paints and coatings have the same elements as Jones dust?
Why does debris from fires and just junk have the same elements as Jones dust?

When are you taking your evidence to the authorities? Or are you a typical 911Truth follower; full of action!
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/standup.jpg
So what do you have as evidence or support for Heiwa's OP? We need to get on topic and help Heiwa earn his Pulitzer Prize when he takes his massive paper, research, and piles of evidence in to the committee.

Heiwa says that you cannot deop a small piece of something onto another larger piece of exactly the same construction and expect the smaller piece to crush the larger piece down to the ground using only gravity. This is exactly the oficial position on how the Towers collapsed.

Heiwa is so certain of his axiom hat he has offered one million dollars to anybody who can make an accurate model of this happening or provide a verifiable example in the history of the world of a comparable event taking place.

There are no takers Beachnut. Only talkers. Does that tell you nothing at all ?

[bill smith]

QUOTE=beachnut;4626375][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana] Quote: Dr. Griffin:
First of all, we really don’t have certified nano-thermite standards for comparison. And neither can anyone explain how such an unconventional material was used in the Twin Towers or indeed elsewhere in the WTC Complex. But one thing I have been able to determine is that a 100 micron coating of thermite on the WTC structural members is incapable of heating the steel columns by more than 50 deg C and is therefore insufficient to cause any significant thermal stress to any part of these buildings. [/QUOTE]

I wonder if Griffin ever considerd my theory of filling the columns with nano-thermite ? That would royally take care of the 100-micron problem wouldn't it ?

[beachnut]

Heiwa says that you cannot deop a small piece of something onto another larger piece of exactly the same construction and expect the smaller piece to crush the larger piece down to the ground using only gravity. This is exactly the oficial position on how the Towers collapsed.

Heiwa is so certain of his axiom hat he has offered one million dollars to anybody who can make an accurate model of this happening or provide a verifiable example in the history of the world of a comparable event taking place.

There are no takers Beachnut. Only talkers. Does that tell you nothing at all ?
Off topic again! You are the talker, I already offered 911 full scale models of the WTC as proof. Heiwa lost over 7 years ago and your complete lack of knowledge in physics and engineer is keeping you from understanding Heiwa is a fraud like Jones and all of 911Truth. And you can't present any evidence of any kind to prove me wrong, or support your failed partners in 911Truth delusions.

Wrong thread.

But it is closer than your Hitler quote.

I offer the WTC tower fell due to gravity after impacts and fires. I have support from the chief structural engineer of the WTC tower. So I win the money, but you see Heiwa does not have the money, and you don't have the knowledge to see Heiwa's ideas are pure delusions. Because you don't' have knowledge on any related topic to do with 911. No your quote from a dirt dumb NAZI is not related to 911.

So you can't help Heiwa prove his failed ideas. And I won the money showing two examples on 911 to win the money. Full scale model. I have proof of no explosives or thermite.

You have zero evidence, but you can talk delusions.

here is the on topic thread; do you have another Hitler quote to go with some more 911 delusions you have?
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=138715

Quote: Dr. Griffin
Funny! Wrong Dr G!

[Dave Rogers]

I can't speak for others but to me it is sooo obvious that most of you guys know what happened on 9/11 the same as we do. But for your own reasons you defend the perps.

The disintegration of the psyche is such a fascinating thing to watch.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

There are no takers Beachnut. Only talkers. Does that tell you nothing at all ?

It should tell you that nobody believes the million dollars exists.

Dave

[AndrewIlluminatus]

Originally Posted by AndrewIlluminatus
Alternatively, hypothetically speaking, they may not be witting collaborators or conspirators in anything, but simply mind-control victims hypnotised to believe the "authorities" (media, politicians, teachers, parents, peers etc.) and to be good little patriots, nationalists and lovers of the great and infallible US of A. What any "US Regime Sponsored Conspiracy Theory Sceptics" like us are suggesting is literally inconceivable for them to accept. Google: "The Ultimate Revolution" lecture by Aldous Huxley at Berkley back in 1962 and you will see that this particular stage of human social development was fully predictable way back then. People who are suffering from having their minds hypnotically programmed for them by more "dominant alpha" types literally do appear to perceive what we might call "extrinsic reality" in a very odd manner. Watch any stage hypnotist at work or watch the literally ecstatic expressions and emotions shown on the faces of the German population in the brilliant propaganda movie "Triumph of the Will" by Leni Riefenstahl.

Or you guys could just be wrong.

Yes of course, we may be wrong. It may just be a very simple case of 19 grumpy people who hated freedom (and life) hijacking 4 aircraft and getting very lucky indeed to cause so much damage with just 3. I rather doubt it, especially after looking into the life of Mr Atta and his behaviour over the car hire etc. which tends to indicate to me that he did not expect or intend to go dead on 9/11. What sceptics of the "19 grumpy men conspiracy theory" have on their side though is that they are often sceptics of everything, not just the official 9/11 conspiracy theory. Even my own theories, which is why I usually only voice my subjective suspicions and I do not talk of absolute "truth" or "facts". On the other hand anybody who has ever "served" in any military, been a member of a religious cult like Christianity or a "brotherhood", or believed (on faith) teachers, politicians, parents, the media etc. is a mind control victim. Anybody who has ever been a nationalist or patriot or has ever made a pledge of allegiance to anything is, by definition, a mind control victim, and is a brainwashed sheep, a member of the economically farmed, domesticated, tamed, mind-controlled animals, down on "Animal Farm". Those kinds of domesticated people lose a lot of credibility with feral-minded sceptics like us, because the tamed sheep have demonstrated a long history of being hoaxed all their lives, with their silly beliefs in invisible gods and patriotism etc., because they are not feral-minded sceptics.

[Heiwa]

Heiwa says that you cannot drop a small piece of something onto another a larger piece of exactly the same construction and expect the smaller piece to crush the larger piece down to the ground using only gravity. This is exactly the official position on how the Towers collapsed.

Heiwa is so certain of his axiom hat he has offered one million dollars to anybody who can make an accurate model of this happening or provide a verifiable example in the history of the world of a comparable event taking place.

There are no takers Beachnut. Only talkers. Does that tell you nothing at all ?

The offer was made in the Steel structures cannot globally collapse due to gravity alone thread with 2000+ posts and nobody was close. It does not need to be a model. Just a structure! Any size! It seems NASA, NIST, MIT, ASCE, &c have not been able to produce any structure that is close. If it exists, just take it out of the workshop and show it! Or the offer was too small? Maybe I should raise to 10?

[AndrewIlluminatus]

I see. So the Twin Towers fell in 12 seconds, and a mathematical model predicts them falling in 12 seconds, but, because the mathematical model can't be definitive and accurate, that proves that the collapse was faster than it should have been. Well, that makes sense. I'm sure your wild guess is completely accurate.
Dave

My position is that the towers should not, in my opinion, have fallen so explosively like that at all from a fire damage and gravity, so not 12 seconds, 30 seconds or 30 minutes. I am thus very sceptical of the very low resistance kinetic energy explosiveness theory (or implosive theory for WTC7). The official WTC collapse theory was internally flawed for WTC2 when they officially said it fell in 10 seconds instead of 12, which the 30% use of gravitational energy (for all of the explosiveness) model required. I find the way of getting to the "initiation of the collapse" via the "single final straw truss and pancake theory" pretty implausible. Thereafter, the empirical visual data, the videos of the events of WTC2 for example, does not appear to me to support in any way a "coherent symmetrical hammer-load" falling on the intact tower below because the top tipped over and exploded upwards during the first two seconds of the event. The ripple-down, symmetrical, sequential, explosive, violently ejecting demolition, racing ahead of the recently disintegrated top load of WTC2 suggests to me that gravity played virtually no part at all in the witnessed explosiveness.

[Dave Rogers]

On the other hand anybody who has ever "served" in any military,

Nope.

been a member of a religious cult like Christianity or a "brotherhood",

Nope.

or believed (on faith) teachers,

Nope, I tended to make myself unpopular at school by pointing out where they were wrong.

politicians,

Don't make me laugh!

parents,

If I believed them on faith, I think they'd be seriously disappointed in me.

the media etc.

Again, don't make me laugh.

is a mind control victim.


Sounds like I'm not one of them, then.

Anybody who has ever been a nationalist or patriot

I quite like living in the country I live in, but I think that's more to do with the fact that it's quite a comfortable place to live than any "my country right or wrong" attitude, which I suspect is what you mean.

or has ever made a pledge of allegiance to anything

I may have made some kind of pledge to the Cub Scouts in the mid-1960's, but I didn't really mean it.

is, by definition, a mind control victim, and is a brainwashed sheep, a member of the economically farmed, domesticated, tamed, mind-controlled animals, down on "Animal Farm".

No, none of those apply to me. Would you like to come up with a different flimsy and illogical pretext for believing I'm automatically wrong about everything?

Dave

[AndrewIlluminatus]

A group of famous individuals said: We Don't Need No.. Education".

Seriously, the funny thing is, you really don't see that applying to yourself do you?

We don't need no education
We don’t need no thought control
No dark sarcasm in the classroom
Teachers leave them kids alone
Hey! Teachers! Leave them kids alone!
All in all it's just another brick in the wall.
All in all you're just another brick in the wall.

Quite, educational brainwashing is an insidious state-sponsored mind control method of domesticating the "Animal Farm" sheep to be good little mindless, brainwashed, farmed, patriots, nationalists, religious cult followers like Christians/Jews/Muslims etc. Was that the point you wanted to make or do you think that being a mindless, domesticated and fully "educated" sheep (or an even stupider brick) is a good thing?

[Tony Szamboti]

The WTC towers fell due to impact damage and fires. I am not sure if this means Heiwa's OP is failed or his OP is just pure garbage; what do you think; is the WTC gravity collapse proof Heiwa's OP is wrong; failed? Or does Heiwa OP have some other delusional goal?

No, the WTC towers completely collapsed due to controlled demolition. That much is known and Heiwa is correct that the present official story is nonsense as part C would be destroyed before it ever accomplished the complete destruction of part A.

The only thing that isn't known for sure right now is exactly how it was done. We do know many of the possible methods and I think your mouth could certainly be a candidate. Were you in NYC that day? If so, it would explain a lot about your intransigent behavior towards those investigating this gigantic crime.

[AndrewIlluminatus]

Sounds like I'm not one of them, then.
Dave
Good.


I may have made some kind of pledge to the Cub Scouts in the mid-1960's, but I didn't really mean it.
Dave
No I was thinking more of vile stuff like the US Pledge, that US children are reportedly inflicted with.
I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation under God, indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.

[AndrewIlluminatus]

A group of famous individuals said: We Don't Need No.. Education".

Seriously, the funny thing is, you really don't see that applying to yourself do you?

We don't need no education
We don’t need no thought control
No dark sarcasm in the classroom
Teachers leave them kids alone
Hey! Teachers! Leave them kids alone!
All in all it's just another brick in the wall.
All in all you're just another brick in the wall.

Quite, educational brainwashing is an insidious state-sponsored mind control method of domesticating the "Animal Farm" sheep to be good little mindless, brainwashed, farmed, patriots, nationalists, religious cult followers like Christians/Jews/Muslims etc. Was that the point you wanted to make or do you think that being a mindless, domesticated and fully "educated" sheep (or an even stupider brick) is a good thing?

[twinstead]

Somebody else created a great phrase that applies here: "Pot calling the kettle black"

[bill smith]

No, the WTC towers completely collapsed due to controlled demolition. That much is known and Heiwa is correct that the present official story is nonsense as part C would be destroyed before it ever accomplished the complete destruction of part A.

The only thing that isn't known for sure right now is exactly how it was done. We do know many of the possible methods and I think your mouth could certainly be a candidate. Were you in NYC that day? If so, it would explain a lot about your intransigent behavior towards those investigating this gigantic crime.

I think that this woman's presence may have had something to do with the Towers burnng down.
http://www.cnhan.com/img/2003-05/16/ent051611.jpg

[AndrewIlluminatus]

Nope.

No, none of those apply to me. Would you like to come up with a different flimsy and illogical pretext for believing I'm automatically wrong about everything?

Dave

I am happy to hear that you are feral. I would not say that you are automatically wrong about everything (you are probably sometimes right and sometimes wrong I would guess) and I must admit that a feral-minded dismissive attitude of anything that the domesticated sheep may think is an example of prejudice. Just because so many people are evidently brainwashed domesticated sheep does not mean that we feral-minded sceptics should dismiss what they say they think without any further analysis. I have another prejudice to confess to, and that is that I distrust, with prejudice, the war criminal imperialist US Regime, because of history like The Maine, Northwoods, Tonkin Gulf and the USS Liberty and other Gleiwitz (Germany) or Manchurian Incident (Japan) type false pretexts for war. None of that means that the war criminal US regime necessarily lied about 9/11, but it does invite me to suspect that they might have. I might feel a little naïve if I trusted Imperialist Nazi Germany after Gleiwitz or Imperialist Nazi USA after Tonkin Gulf, hence a degree of prejudice. There is of course another reason why feral-minded people might find the 9/11 narrative offered right away by people like Jerome Hauer, within minutes on 9/11, attractive. That is because they actually sympathise with the aims of the 9/11 terrorist "chess move" and they wish to support people like Jerome Hauer and the other spokesmen for the terrorist narrative offered really rather too quickly to be accidentally "correct". These spokespeople for the 9/11 official terrorist Thesis famously reappeared, possibly with some embarrassment, in the short "9/11 Solutions" video, which "the powers that be" rather foolishly IMO tried, but failed, to suppress.
The 9-11 Solution -How the myth was sold
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GDa-L4hHHo

[Dave Rogers]

I am happy to hear that you are feral.

Personally, I'm rather surprised to hear it. Your worldview, in which everyone is either a rebel or a sheep, seems far too limited to be of any practical use.

I have another prejudice to confess to, and that is that I distrust, with prejudice, the war criminal imperialist US Regime, because of history like The Maine, Northwoods, Tonkin Gulf and the USS Liberty and other Gleiwitz (Germany) or Manchurian Incident (Japan) type false pretexts for war.

I see. So your opinion of the USA is based on three events whose conspiratorial nature has never been proven, one that never even happened, and two that are irrelevant. Could I remind you that this is a forum for discussing skepticism, and that self-referential and self-reinforcing belief systems aren't generally held in high regard?

Dave

[AndrewIlluminatus]

Personally, I'm rather surprised to hear it. Your worldview, in which everyone is either a rebel or a sheep, seems far too limited to be of any practical use.
Dave
I did not say "rebel or sheep", I said feral. Feral minded people also make up the most effective oligarchs to farm the sheep. They are not really "rebels" at all, but just very good managers of the "common herd" of profane cattle.


I see. So your opinion of the USA is based on three events whose conspiratorial nature has never been proven, one that never even happened, and two that are irrelevant. Could I remind you that this is a forum for discussing skepticism, and that self-referential and self-reinforcing belief systems aren't generally held in high regard?
Dave
Actually my rather low opinion of the "USA" imperialist entity is mainly based on the USA inventing the Tonkin Gulf pretext for war and then killing 3 or 4 million innocent people in a profitable war of aggression. That the Tonkin Gulf incident never actually happened is a matter of recorded history. I have admitted that I have a prejudice against the USA for being a genocidal and evil regime in history, but I have also said that being prejudiced does not mean that I think that the civilian US regime necessarily also conducted 9/11 in a Tonkin Gulf manner. That is, with the civilian guys like Bush "calling the shots", as in "inside job" theories. My suspicion is that 9/11 was possibly more of a coup, so it was not really like Tonkin Gulf at all. So yes I remain a sceptic of the "9/11 19 grumpy people Thesis theory" that you appear to favour and the broad "Inside job" theory that appears to me to be a managed Antithesis in the Hegelian dialectic.
"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves." Lenin
You, on the other hand, appear to me to be utterly convinced (or you seem to say you are) of the official 19 grumpy people conspiracy theory with absolutely no scepticism, or doubt in your own opinions, on show whatsoever.

French Circles Confirm Thesis:
Coup Attempt Unfolding In U.S.
by Helga Zepp LaRouche
November 15, 2001
http://www.schillerinstitute.org/strategic/hzl_lemonde_11-01.html
This statement was issued by Helga Zepp LaRouche, President of the International Schiller Institutue, and Chairman of the Civil Rights Movement Solidarity in Germany, from Mainz on November 15, 2001. It's full title was "French Intelligence Circles Confirm Thesis Of An Attempted Military Coup In The U.S.A.: Challenge to the legitimacy of use of Article 5 of NATO Treaty."

In a series of exposés (see appended extracts), the leading French daily newspapers Le Monde and Le Figaro have refuted the officially adopted theory that Osama bin Laden was the sole instigator of the Sept. 11 attacks. The French intelligence-linked newsletter Reseau Voltaire even went so far, in its Sept. 27 issue, as to explicitly confirm Lyndon LaRouche's thesis that the Sept. 11 attacks on Washington and New York were part of an attempted coup, being run by extremist military circles within the United States.

On Sept. 11, during a live radio interview, which happened to be on the air as the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were unfolding, Lyndon LaRouche presented the thesis that an operation on this scale, and with this degree of precision, could only have been coordinated by criminal elements within and around the military and security apparatus of the United States itself.

The fact that sources in French intelligence have now not only adopted this thesis, but have begun to elaborate it with a plethora of questions concerning the many features of the Sept. 11 events that simply do not add up, has the greatest possible bearing on the current debate whether Bundeswehr [German army] troops should participate in military action in Afghanistan. For, if the primary movers behind the attacks are not bin Laden and Islamic terrorist circles, but rather are circles in the U.S.A. itself, then, obviously, the entire rationale for invoking Article 5 of the NATO treaty, would crumble to nothing.

More important still: If, as Reseau Voltaire's Sept. 27 issue put it ("Informational Note 235-236"), it were to turn out that this attempted military coup was "carried out by American extremists who were capable of provoking a nuclear war," then, obviously, this would need to be thoroughly investigated, and would require a major debate on security policy. An extremely important question in this connection, would be to determine precisely what motivated Russian President Putin, immediately following the attacks, to phone President Bush to inform him that Russian nuclear forces had not been put into a heightened state of alert.

At a time such as today, when it is a question not merely of the vote on whether to deploy the Bundeswehr, and not merely of the future of the red-green coalition [government] in Berlin, but rather, of Germany's most vital security interests, it is these matters which must be placed at the center of all discussion. What we urgently require, is a sober analysis of the entire situation, drawing upon the knowledge of experienced forces in our military and security sectors.

Appendix:

Sept. 27, 2001: The monthly French newsletter Reseau Voltaire writes on its website (www.reseauvoltaire.com) that "extremist American circles attempted on Sept. 11 to carry out a military coup against the U.S. government." In its full printed text, Reseau Voltaire's Sept. 27, 2001 issue goes so far as to state that:

"From 10:00 A.M. to approximately 8:00 p.m. [on Sept. 11], U.S. government officials were not thinking that this was the work of Arab terrorists, but rather that it was an expression of a military coup being carried out by U.S.-based extremists who were capable of provoking a nuclear war."

Oct. 16: Reseau Voltaire publishes information on secret financial connections between American circles and bin Laden. Among these are mentioned the infamous Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), which had already been deeply involved in the Iran-Contra affair.

Oct. 31: The French newspaper Le Figaro reports on its front page, that official U.S. circles had ongoing relations with Osama bin Laden up through July 2001. This information is confirmed the following day by the French government-controlled station Radio France International.

Nov. 12: France's leading daily Le Monde takes up the threads of the same story, by prominently running an extensive review of the book La Verité interdite (The Forbidden Truth), whose two authors are well-connected to French intelligence and government circles. The review, titled "When Washington Negotiated with the Taliban," reports on how, prior to Sept. 11, the Bush Administration was engaged in intensive negotiations with the Taliban.

What is crucial about these media reports, is not whether or not they match the truth on every single point; what is crucial, is their intention to halt the process of a surreptitious coup in the United States that began with the Sept. 11 events. There are many political circles—not only in France, but also in other European countries, and in Russia—who know that the attacks on New York and Washington were not a "terrorist attack," but rather a political operation of truly staggering strategic dimensions.

Chapter IX in "9/11 Synthetic Terror, Made in the USA" by Webster Griffin Tarpley.
Excerpt:
IX: "ANGEL IS NEXT" – THE INVISIBLE GOVERNMENT SPEAKS
From 10:00 a.m. to approximately 8:00 p.m. (on Sept. 11), U.S. government officials were not thinking that this was the work of Arab terrorists, but rather that it was an expression of a military coup being carried out by U.S.-based extremists who were capable of provoking a nuclear war. Réseau Voltaire, Paris, September 27, 2001

"ANGEL IS NEXT"
According to Bob Woodward’s canonical mainstream account: "At about 10:30 AM Cheney reached Bush again on Air Force One, which was still on its way toward Washington. The White House had received a threat saying, ‘Angel is next.’ Since Angel was the codeword for Air Force One, it could mean that terrorists had inside information." Allegedly because of this report, Cheney argued that Bush should not return to Washington. "There’s still a threat," said Cheney. (Woodward 18) Within minutes, the plane turned away from Washington and flew to Louisiana instead. (Washington Post, January 27, 2002) Was this now a third threat, after the post-Booker threat and the "Air Force One is next" threat? Did the terrorist controllers now add the code word "Angel" to further document their insider status, and their possible access to nuclear codes? Or are we dealing with two versions of the same threat?

Apparent "whistle-blowing" attempts, possibly by counter-coup factions, before 9/11.
The Coup Party Music album cover of July 2001
http://www.arsenalofhypocrisy.com/911/9-11_Truth_files/image002.jpg

Lone Gunman Pilot Episode spring 2001
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tB6EWF3vulc

Bertram Byers: "Depends on who your terrorists are."
Byers: "The men who conceived of it in the first place. You're saying our government plans to commit a terrorist act against a domestic air..."
Bertram Byers: "There you go, indicting the entire government as usual. It's a faction, a small faction..."
Byers: "For what possible gain?"
Bertram Byers: "The Cold War's over, John. But with no clear enemy to stockpile against, the arms market's flat. But bring down a fully-loaded 727 into the middle of New York City; you'll find a dozen tin-pot dictators all over the world, just clamouring to take responsibility. And begging to be smart bombed."
Byers: "I can't believe it; this is about increasing arms sales?"
Bertram Byers: "Mm-hmm."
Byers: "When?"
Bertram Byers: "Tonight."
Byers: "How are you going to stop them? Why didn't you tell the world this? Go to the press?"
Bertram Byers: "You think I'd still be drawing breath 30 minutes after I made that call? The press? Who's going to run this story?"
Byers: "We would."
Bertram Byers: "This?" [He picks up one of the newspapers] "This is birdcage liner. Wild-eyed crap right up there with, Elvis is an alien and two-headed babies."
Byers: "You obviously read it."
Bertram Byers: "Don't be so damn naive. You think this is going to save the world? I'm doing what I can, John. I don't have all the specifics on Scenario 12D. But I think I know the flight they've chosen. You stay out of it. I don't want Overlord gunning for you too."

[twinstead]

I see. So your opinion of the USA is based on three events whose conspiratorial nature has never been proven, one that never even happened, and two that are irrelevant. Could I remind you that this is a forum for discussing skepticism, and that self-referential and self-reinforcing belief systems aren't generally held in high regard?


Self-referential/self-reinforcing belief systems ROCK!

[alienentity]

I suspect that this alleged "fact" is up for debate because it is rather difficult exactly to time when the roof level would have reached street level when that event in time was completely obscured, by the dust cloud. What was perhaps more interesting was the smooth resistance free drop of the roof line in the initial couple of seconds that showed no structural integrity in the entire building, whatsoever, remained, just after loud explosions were heard, that appeared to precede the "collapse process". Moreover we have video evidence that the building was about "to blow up" so people nearby should move back.

Sorry, Andrew. Again, you do not have a grasp of the facts. Simply observe one of my videos, for example
http://tinyurl.com/ctgt5z


and you can see this for yourself. If you're going to purport to deal in facts, shouldn't you have a few? So far you're batting a pretty poor average, dude.

[twinstead]

I did not say "rebel or sheep", I said feral. Feral minded people also make up the most effective oligarchs to farm the sheep. They are not really "rebels" at all, but just very good managers of the "common herd" of profane cattle.


You are an extremist, no less so than the worst right-wing globalist neocon. You're just the other side of the ideolgical coin.

Extremists are the worst investigators EVER. Like throwing out the high and low when figuring out a percentage, your opinions should be thrown out--you're bring the curve down.

[Seymour Butz]

as part C would be destroyed before it ever accomplished the complete destruction of part A.



Why would it need to?

All C needs to do is destroy a few floors, then C and the now-destroyed A parts destroy the lower parts of A. As material falls "over the side", it will be replaced by newly destroyed material from both A and C.

[nicepants]

Heiwa is so certain of his axiom hat he has offered one million dollars to anybody who can make an accurate model of this happening or provide a verifiable example in the history of the world of a comparable event taking place.

There are no takers Beachnut. Only talkers. Does that tell you nothing at all ?

It should tell *YOU* something.

It should tell you that Heiwa hasn't been able to convince any of us that he actually has one million dollars or would be willing to pay out anything at all.

Myriad offered to take the challenge provided that the terms are drawn up as a legal contract and 100,000 of the money held in escrow. Heiwa has not accepted.

[nicepants]

No, the WTC towers completely collapsed due to controlled demolition. That much is known and Heiwa is correct that the present official story is nonsense as part C would be destroyed before it ever accomplished the complete destruction of part A.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORqc1x3_Evg&feature=related

You must then think that the only mousetraps which should have gone off in this video are the ones that were initially hit by the first ball. One ball sets off one trap...

..but what happens with the ball from the 2nd trap? It joins the first and continues to bounce and set off additional traps...

Disclaimer to truthers: I'm not saying that the WTC towers were like mousetraps or ping-pong balls....I'm simply illustrating a CONCEPT which you seem to be unable to grasp.

[alienentity]

No, the WTC towers completely collapsed due to controlled demolition. That much is known.....

A nice demonstration of your incompetence, Tony. Remember this axiom - your inability to understand things which more qualified and competent people do makes your belief incorrect, not the other way around.

Again, as with Heiwa, your inability to recognize and accept the best analysis prevents you from reaching the correct conclusion. Further the errors you guys are making are not minor or trivial - they are fundamental.

I would hasten to add that, when you were preparing your last article to be published in J.O.N.E.S. (Journal of Nine Eleven Studies) you would have been well advised to consult with a top SE well versed in the area relevant to your inquiry - instead of relying on only yourself and Graeme MacQueen. (I've no idea what combined experience in high-rise design the two of you possess, but it appears to be zero.) Perhaps I'm wrong, but I can't find a list of buildings you've designed in your CV..

Anyway, I guess if accuracy and truth are not important to you, this is all irrelevant. If you want to be perpetually on the wrong side of the facts, that's your prerogative. Just don't expect any laurels from people who do care about those things, and who don't care to reward incompetence.

Hey, you probably have the admiration and respect of AndrewIlluminatus, for what that's worth....

[Grizzly Bear]

No, the WTC towers completely collapsed due to controlled demolition. That much is known and Heiwa is correct that the present official story is nonsense as part C would be destroyed before it ever accomplished the complete destruction of part A.

This argument is about as effective as saying 15% cannot destroy 85%. It's irrelevant. You and Heiwa are treating the global failure as a single failure. The nature of the collapse was progressive, meaning individual parts of the system that made up the structural integrity of the entire lower section failed in rapid succession. If the individual components of the structure could hold up against the mass, then maybe this argument would have some weight, but as it happened, this is not the case. Heiwa compares the towers to lemons and pizza boxes. I'll take it that you see nothing wrong with such comparisons, in which case you've lost any credibility you might have had with me. That's ignorance.

Were you in NYC that day? If so, it would explain a lot about your intransigent behavior towards those investigating this gigantic crime.
I don't condone Beach's approach to arguing... but frankly speaking I saw nothing surprising about the collapse of the towers when it happened, and I see nothing surprising about it now. The fact that architects & engineers who support this fantasy can't even do proper case studies when they choose their precedents, or in this case where Heiwa sees it fit to start comparing fruits to buildings frankly sad in my opinion. I would think professionals working in this field trying to expose a crime with percieved government complicity should have higher standards for the studies they perform. It doesn't look good when they make far simpler mistakes than the intentional cover up they accuse others of creating.

[alienentity]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORqc1x3_Evg&feature=related

You must then think that the only mousetraps which should have gone off in this video are the ones that were initially hit by the first ball. One ball sets off one trap...

..but what happens with the ball from the 2nd trap? It joins the first and continues to bounce and set off additional traps...

Disclaimer to truthers: I'm not saying that the WTC towers were like mousetraps or ping-pong balls....I'm simply illustrating a CONCEPT which you seem to be unable to grasp.

The video link doesn't seem to work!

ps, that's why I call this type of behavior ASDES (Attention Seeking Dead-Ender Syndrome)

[Heiwa]

This argument is about as effective as saying 15% cannot destroy 85%. It's irrelevant. You and Heiwa are treating the global failure as a single failure. The nature of the collapse was progressive, meaning individual parts of the system that made up the structural integrity of the entire lower section failed in rapid succession.

Single failure? Collision! Elastic compression of structural upper part C and lower part A, plastic deformation of elements in parts C and A, first failure of elements in either part C or part A - probably C, displacement of part C further down, modified contact between parts C and A, renewed local elastic compression, further plastic deformation and failures, probably in C with weakest elements and joints, &c, is my treatment of the start of the matter, if there is collision.

You see, it is very unlikely that the result would be that only individual elements of the entire lower section part A would fail in rapid succession, while the hero escapes to the upper part ... and then jumps out to tell the world. It only happens in Hollywood type action movies to impress the viewers.

[alienentity]

Single failure? Collision! Elastic compression of structural upper part C and lower part A, plastic deformation of elements in parts C and A, first failure of elements in either part C or part A - blah blah blah,

Full blown case of ASDES and endless repetition of bad ideas....that's Heiwa in a nutshell.

It's 2009, time to move on and let those people R.I.P.

Time to find another claim to fame buddy. Your nonsense is helping no one.

[WildCat]

Hmm.... you've "forgotten" about this, already?

syzKBBB_THE

Seems to work pretty well. Just my non-engineers opinion, but I'd guess that the reason that collapse looks remarkably to the WTC collapses is that it was remarkably similar: weakened columns were pulled out of the way, and gravity did the rest. And neither seems to be very similar to a stack of pizza boxes.
Heiwa? Heiwa? Heiwa?

Is this thing working?

[Heiwa]

Full blown case of ASDES and endless repetition of bad ideas....that's Heiwa in a nutshell.

It's 2009, time to move on and let those people R.I.P.

Time to find another claim to fame buddy. Your nonsense is helping no one.

Topic is Why a one-way Crush down is not possible. It is not a bad idea to know why.

[beachnut]

No, the WTC towers completely collapsed due to controlled demolition. That much is known and Heiwa is correct that the present official story is nonsense as part C would be destroyed before it ever accomplished the complete destruction of part A.

The only thing that isn't known for sure right now is exactly how it was done. We do know many of the possible methods and I think your mouth could certainly be a candidate. Were you in NYC that day? If so, it would explain a lot about your intransigent behavior towards those investigating this gigantic crime.
You are a liar without evidence.

Fire destroyed the WTC after aircraft impacts 7 and 11 times greater in kinetic energy than the design impact kinetic energy of 187 pounds of TNT. You can't do the physics or the research to figure out 911. You produce delusional papers. Good job pushing lies, hearsay, and fantasy.

The best you can do is fail at even insults. Your position on 911 is a lie proved wrong on 911. You don't understand structures and physics so you are off in super thermite land with the biased Jone made up scam or you need explosives. 19 terrorist did 911 and you fail when you try to apologize for them and blame others without one piece of evidence in 7 years. Welcome to Bigfoot status where pure faith in your failed opinions rules. You can't do the math, you can't do the physics but you can spew out the delusion.

For the new kids watching a CT as big as what Tony has would be bigger than Watergate; Watergate was solved and a Pulitzer Prize was in less than two years; it is year 7 and Tony and 911Truth have no viable story, no evidence, and no Pulitzer Prize. Poor Heiwa can't even get published with his scam and will also fail to earn the Pulitzer.

[alienentity]

Topic is Why a one-way Crush down is not possible. It is not a bad idea to know why.

Enough of these red herring concepts already. It doesn't matter if the upper block collapses and compresses also, which it does eventually. The density and velocity of the collapse wave increases with time, only adding to the destruction.

Perhaps you've never seen the effects of a landslide. Where I come from the most famous one it the Hope slide. In spite of the fact that the mass of material was not a single block, it had mind-boggling destructive energy, thanks to its mass and the gravitational acceleration.

Once the mass of the upper block of the WTC tower starts to accelerate, there is no need for additional explosives to obliterate the rest of the structure. There is also no need to endlessly explain this concept to the world - it's long past time to move on and let the dead rest in peace.

If you wish to make your name, perhaps you can find something more constructive and worthwhile besides dredging up a false theory that your own government blew up the WTC buildings. You clearly have no respect for the truth, nor respect for the judgments of people with far more qualifications and knowledge than yourself, and are little more than a quasi-academic low life.

You sir, do not deserve respect. You are a disgrace to to scientific inquiry and a disingenuous charlatan.

[alienentity]

Honestly, I don't know why anybody gives these idiots the time of day. They are self-appointed 'experts' who have in no way earned the right to become world authorities on the subjects at hand.
They have absolutely NOT gone thru the careful and necessary training in the fields they are now involved with, have not mentored with the relevant experts to hone their skills, have not started their current inquiries by publishing in respected, peer reviewed publications. (Sorry Tony S., the Journal of 9/11 Studies doesn't qualify as a respected, peer reviewed journal - we know who the editorial board are. You're not fooling anyone but the ignorant and gullible)

In short, they have bypassed all the academic checks and balances which are there to establish some quality control, some basic scientific standard, and instead are presenting themselves as world-leading experts.

This is a fraudulent, shallow, and blatantly dishonest approach. There is no point in mincing words about it. It is pseudo-science masquerading as legitimate research, because it has already reached the doctrinal conclusion of:
Controlled demolition
Vast government conspiracy

and is now setting out to skew any analysis in favour of the desired conclusion.

It would be fair to term these efforts as 'anti-science', for their success would mean the adoption of false conclusions, faulty reasoning and ignorance over enlightenment and wisdom. The triumph of the modern witch hunt over fair and rational inquiry.

The 9/11 'truth' movement is an oxymoronic title for a modern-day witch hunt. The henchmen of this witch hunt, posting on this thread, should be vilified accordingly.

[alienentity]

The Controlled Demolition theory put forward by the likes of Heiwa and Tony S. is an outright falsehood.
Two of the most qualified demolition experts in America, Mark Loiseaux and Brent Blanchard have dismissed this idea as completely implausible. They are of course ignored by the witch-hunt specialists who are now haunting the internet with their morbid conspiracy myths and pseudo-science.

[Heiwa]

Once the mass of the upper block of the WTC tower starts to accelerate, there is no need for additional explosives to obliterate the rest of the structure. There is also no need to endlessly explain this concept to the world - it's long past time to move on and let the dead rest in peace.

One reason Why a one-way Crush down is not possible (Topic) is that the upper part C has no chance to accelerate, because part A structure acts as a very effective damper. Unless it is obliterated by, e.g. explosives, of course, which would make the dead turn in their graves.

[Heiwa]

The Controlled Demolition theory put forward by the likes of Heiwa ... is an outright falsehood.


Topic is Why a one-way Crush down is not possible! Controlled demolition experts know this very well and thus uses other methods to demolish structures.

[AndrewIlluminatus]

Sorry, Andrew. Again, you do not have a grasp of the facts. Simply observe one of my videos, for example
http://tinyurl.com/ctgt5z
and you can see this for yourself. If you're going to purport to deal in facts, shouldn't you have a few? So far you're batting a pretty poor average, dude.
I have never "purported to be dealing" in "facts". Quite the opposite, I have no idea what the "facts" are and I suspect that there is a lot of bogus information out there. Which would be why we should really talk of competing theories, rather than "facts" IMO. Thank you for your interesting video but the problem is, of course, that video is open to manipulation in computers that could easily change the timing and frame rate. Unless we have actually taken the video ourselves then we cannot be certain that the video source that we are using or seeing has not been corrupted in some way to try to make a propaganda point either for the Thesis or Antithesis in the Hegelian Dialectic conflict. Yes, I was aware that the penthouse had apparently fallen first and that the rapid western parapet drop time did not take that part of the collapse into account. The implosion theory was of course that the centre of the building should drop first, to pull the exterior walls inwards to fall on top of the pile, to protect Verizon and the Post Office from damage. Because unlike WTC1 & 2 that had usefully exploded to create fallout to damage to 3, 4, 5 and 6, WTC7 should not explode to cause damage outside the WTC complex. The WTC complex that was scheduled for redevelopment and for the necessary human sacrifice to act as a "Casus belli" pretext for war.

Now whether or not this kind of stuff is aired on TV in the USA or not (I would not know), this is the kind of video stuff that Europeans get to see on the WTC7 event.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58h0LjdMry0

Indira Singh was a volunteer civilian Emergency Medical Technician at the World Trade Centre on September 11th. She was a Senior Consultant for JP Morgan Chase in Information Technology and Risk Management. Singh was responsible for setting up triage sites for the seriously injured and walking wounded. These sites were closed down and consolidated one by one as the day wore on. Appearing on the Pacifica show Guns and Butter, Singh describes her experience to host Bonnie Faulkner.
http://prisonplanet.com/audio/090207groundzero1.mp3

SINGH: "After midday on 9/11 we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down. If you had been there, not being able to see very much just flames everywhere and dark smoke - it is entirely possible - I do believe that they brought Building 7 down because I heard that they were going to bring it down because it was unstable because of the collateral damage. That I don't know I can't attest to the validity of that all I can attest to is that by noon or one o'clock they told us we had to move from that triage site up to Pace University a little further away because Building 7 was going to come down or be brought down."

HOST: "Did they actually use the word "brought down" and who was it that was telling you this?"

SINGH: "The fire department. The fire department. And they did use the words 'we're gonna have to bring it down' and for us there, um, observing the nature of the devastation it was, it made, total sense to us that this was indeed a possibility, given the subsequent controversy over it I don't know."

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/090207broughtdown.htm
"The following video from CNN clearly shows fire fighters and police telling the public to get back because Building 7 was about to come down and in the words of the cameraman was about to "blow up.""

[alienentity]

Topic is Why a one-way Crush down is not possible! Controlled demolition experts know this very well and thus uses other methods to demolish structures.

Heiwa - again, you are not learning. There were no explosives detonated to destroy the perimeter columns. Your theory fails instantly. It is bogus.

Stop the madness and move on. Do it now.

[alienentity]

Heiwa's current red herring is based on the false premise that the outer columns didn't bow and fail as seen on the video evidence.

As it is based on a false assumption, easily demonstrated as such, it must be discarded as nonsense.

There were no explosive detonations, Heiwa. We know this. You cannot dissemble your way out of the facts except on a truther site, where 'facts' are fit to the conspiracy doctrine.

You fail. You have lost.

[beachnut]

I have never "purported to be dealing" in "facts". ...You make up the dumbest posts on 911 and we know you have no fact or evidence to support the idiotic ideas you have on 911. This is a skeptic forum and you bring lies, hearsay, and delusions. Good job.
You are off topic and using prisonplanet claptrap as your source for failed stupid delusions.

Please post on topic and help Heiwa's failed ideas on 911, not random posting of junk. I know you have not fact you use hearsay, cherry-picked junk, and fantasy to weave your half-baked tripe.

Topic is - Big clue time -
Many persons take for granted that steel structures of certain types, e.g. WTC Twin Towers, collapse from top down - one-way crush down - if you start a fire up top. The fire is supposed to weaken support steel structure up top and then the structure above displaces down and one-way crushes the complete steel structure below.
Bazant and Zhou explained this already 2 days after 911.
However, the one-way crush down process is not possible under any circumstances. I explain why at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/mac5.htm (http://heiwaco.tripod.com/mac5.htm) .
Can you help the pizza box engineer? He needs some.

[bill smith]

Heiwa's current red herring is based on the false premise that the outer columns didn't bow and fail as seen on the video evidence.

As it is based on a false assumption, easily demonstrated as such, it must be discarded as nonsense.

There were no explosive detonations, Heiwa. We know this. You cannot dissemble your way out of the facts except on a truther site, where 'facts' are fit to the conspiracy doctrine.

You fail. You have lost.

Alien entity csn you explain how the 250-odd columns that till remained connecting the upper 10% of WTC1 to the lower 90% failed ? They represented about 85% of the original supporting columns after the plane had destroyed the other 15% . Did they kneel or did they squash down in a concertina fashion ? It's just that people say the top 10% 'dropped' but I can't see how.

[Seymour Butz]

One reason Why a one-way Crush down is not possible (Topic) is that the upper part C has no chance to accelerate, because part A structure acts as a very effective damper. Unless it is obliterated by, e.g. explosives, of course, which would make the dead turn in their graves.

Do you agree with Tony's figure that the lower block must resist a 31G hit in order to halt the collapse? This is what your "bounce" statement is based on, correct?

So to use Tony's model of the 30 legged/100lb table with a FOS of 3, you are saying that the table would be able to take 3100lbs without breaking/buckling the legs.

I guess this is where your belief that if you dropped the upper block from 2 miles up, the lower block would survive comes from, eh?

Also, can you explain to us why you say that the upper block would bounce, and not progress, and yet still claim on your website that entanglement would halt the collapse? Aren't they contradictory models?

[Grizzly Bear]

I have never "purported to be dealing" in "facts". Quite the opposite, I have no idea what the "facts" are and I suspect that there is a lot of bogus information out there.
Apparently the video you posted is no exception. Commission report not covering the building, the first time in history canard, Jowenko's impression without being given any of the context, misleadingly leaving out the first 8 seconds of the collapse of bldg 7, upper corner damage being confused with squibs... that's the way to convince people.... :rolleyes:


and not really part of this thread that I am aware of







Indira Singh was a volunteer civilian Emergency Medical Technician at the World Trade Centre on September 11th. She was a Senior Consultant for JP Morgan Chase in Information Technology and Risk Management. Singh was responsible for setting up triage sites for the seriously injured and walking wounded. These sites were closed down and consolidated one by one as the day wore on. Appearing on the Pacifica show Guns and Butter, Singh describes her experience to host Bonnie Faulkner.
http://prisonplanet.com/audio/090207groundzero1.mp3

SINGH: "After midday on 9/11 we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down. If you had been there, not being able to see very much just flames everywhere and dark smoke - it is entirely possible - I do believe that they brought Building 7 down because I heard that they were going to bring it down because it was unstable because of the collateral damage. That I don't know I can't attest to the validity of that all I can attest to is that by noon or one o'clock they told us we had to move from that triage site up to Pace University a little further away because Building 7 was going to come down or be brought down."

HOST: "Did they actually use the word "brought down" and who was it that was telling you this?"

SINGH: "The fire department. The fire department. And they did use the words 'we're gonna have to bring it down' and for us there, um, observing the nature of the devastation it was, it made, total sense to us that this was indeed a possibility, given the subsequent controversy over it I don't know."

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/090207broughtdown.htm
"The following video from CNN clearly shows fire fighters and police telling the public to get back because Building 7 was about to come down and in the words of the cameraman was about to "blow up.""

Well you tell me... I've seen prisonplanet's articles before that deal with the fires, and claiming that other examples confirm that the towers should not have collapsed. What I found was that they just show whatever examples they think are worthy and don't even pay attention to whether not their examples had any design differences that would lead to variant performance. They also have a nasty habit of taking every statement that has the word "explosion" in it as meaning that it was absolutely demolition. Context didn't seem to make any difference to them. I read these articles.... can you tell me where they changed these mannerisms that would qualify them for my undivided attention and trust?

[alienentity]

Heiwa misrepresents Bazant. I have the pdf 'What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse
of WTC Twin Towers in New York ' published in the 'Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE , Vol. 134 (2008), May 27, 2007
Revised June 22, December 15, 2007, and March 31, 2008

It's not two days after 9/11.

And Heiwa misrepresents the main thesis of the paper, which clearly states on page 3 'The gravity-driven progressive collapse of a tower consists of two phases—the crush-down, followed by crush-up (Fig. 2 bottom).'

Crush-down AND crush-up. Well established and covered in Bazant and Verdure 2007, pp. 312-313.

Again, not two days after 9/11, as Heiwa insists. By my reckoning, 2007 and 2008 are some 6 and 7 years after the event.

And Heiwa still is at a loss to account for the video offered in post 485 by WildCat.

Heiwa, you're busted bad, dude! Your theories are epic fails contradicted by the most basic evidence from 9/11.

Stop flogging this dead horse already. You've lost.