Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

[Furcifer]

So why did it give up those inherent properties suddenly to become super-brittle in the low resistance symmetrical gravity fed kinetic energy explosive destruction theory?

Heat + time = sagging
No Heat + smashing = super brittle explosive destruction

You don't really expect the floor system to sag like that as the weight of the upper section comes crushing down on it do you?

[Heiwa]

Heat + time = sagging
No Heat + smashing = super brittle explosive destruction

You don't really expect the floor system to sag like that as the weight of the upper section comes crushing down on it do you?

OK, this is one floor of WTC 2 on opposite side of plane impact. The floor connections could simply have sheared off at plane impact. Local failures. Don't change anything in my damage analysis = A one-way Crush down is not possible.

[Dave Rogers]

That would be steelwork behaving gradually in an asymmetrically failing, plastic, ductile manner then, still immensely strong in compression as well as tension. So why did it give up those inherent properties suddenly to become super-brittle in the low resistance symmetrical gravity fed kinetic energy explosive destruction theory?

I'm not sure what the question is, but the answer is probably Euler buckling. A vertical column that is behaving in an asymmetrically failing, plastic, ductile manner will buckle sideways, at which point its structural strength is drastically reduced. There are plentiful samples on record of columns recovered that showed clear signs of that behaviour. There's no reason to suppose that the steel suddenly became unusually brittle, and every reason to believe that it simply behaved the way steel behaves.

Dave

[AndrewIlluminatus]

Pay more attention to the posts that other people make. We have pictures of floor slabs visible through the windows. They sagged.

OK but that does not really help your theory though IMO, because that would be steelwork behaving gradually in an asymmetrically failing, plastic, ductile manner then, still immensely strong in compression as well as tension. So why did it give up those inherent properties, that steel has, so suddenly, to become super-brittle in the low resistance symmetrical gravity fed kinetic energy explosive destruction theory?


And. like a drumhead every inch is attached to, reinforced by, and dependent on the structural integrity of the rest.

OK, so you admit then that the floors were holding, by immensely strong tension means, the perimeter columns to the core columns every 12 feet down the building like 110 West Indian steel pan drumheads.


Bull flops. You break a few slabs loose, over-pressurize the interior with falling debris so that outward pressure is placed on the perimeter columns and the weight of the perimeter columns adds to the energy exerted on the rest and soon you have a cascading effect.
Friction on the outer edges? Why? The perimeter cloumns were forced outward, out of the way, thus unable to impede the fall in any way.

Rubbish. The hypothetical (already explosively destroyed, by nano-thermite apparently) falling floors, have to break all the immensely strong tension bonds linking the perimeter columns to the core columns every 12 feet to get the perimeter columns to peel out sideways and break out the "tube barrel" horizontal banding effect. Also the core columns go where? Magically offer no compression resistance to the collapse process? That internal core to external "tube" strongly bonded severance process would take time and use energy and inevitably create considerable resistance to the collapse process. You make the building sound like a pack of slippery cards collapsing, with absolutely no kind of "glue" bonds sticking the cards together offering any resistance and any structural integrity.

Un-reacted hi-tech nano-thermite was found in WTC dust for which there is really no plausibly innocent explanation. Un-reacted nano-thermite was not just "rust dust" as some deniers appear to think, it was apparently an indication of nano-technology at work in the WTC event, including nano-aluminium particles ("nano" as in very, very small and hard to make). Something not technically possible to even make before about the 1990s and it is an example of some very expensive technology, suggesting some First World state-sponsored terrorism, not amateur civilian terrorism from the Third World. Just as the 2001 nano-tech anthrax weapon attack was evidently an example of First World state-funded military technology and not amateur low-tech Third World terrorist technology. In any event it would not be clear to me how high-tech, nano-tech, thermite, or any other kind of explosive residue should have been present in the dust under the "Third World Terrorist Osama (or KSM) and nineteen grumpy suicidal young men, acting alone, Conspiracy Theory". Nano-technology, shortened to "Nano-tech", is the study of the control of matter on an atomic and molecular scale. Generally nano-technology deals with structures of the size 90 nano-metres or smaller, and involves developing materials or devices within that size. Nano = billionth (10 to the -9th power). Scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratories are apparently exploring the potential to release energy from nano-particles to make nano explosives. Nano-energetics is a new field in which nano-aluminium particles are used as more effective explosives. The nano-aluminium presents a higher surface area to volume of the material. This means that when ignited a greater volume of the aluminium achieves the chemical reaction, releasing its energy, and generating a larger explosion per pound of material. Nuclear weapons achieve their destructive power in this same way at the very lowest atomic level. This means that nano-aluminium and the "super-thermite" that is made from it present significantly more powerful weapons than with older and cruder thermite formulations going back more than 100 years.

[AndrewIlluminatus]

Heat + time = sagging
No Heat + smashing = super brittle explosive destruction


No sorry but steelwork is not "super brittle" with "no heat" during a "smashing" impact. If it were it would not gradually crush during a vehicle impact to decelerate the occupants of the car. If steelwork were brittle it would disintegrate like a toughened bit of glass and the car occupants would hit the thing they were going to hit a lot harder and faster.

[bill smith]

OK but that does not really help your theory though IMO, because that would be steelwork behaving gradually in an asymmetrically failing, plastic, ductile manner then, still immensely strong in compression as well as tension. So why did it give up those inherent properties, that steel has, so suddenly, to become super-brittle in the low resistance symmetrical gravity fed kinetic energy explosive destruction theory?


OK, so you admit then that the floors were holding, by immensely strong tension means, the perimeter columns to the core columns every 12 feet down the building like 110 West Indian steel pan drumheads.


Rubbish. The hypothetical (already explosively destroyed, by nano-thermite apparently) falling floors, have to break all the immensely strong tension bonds linking the perimeter columns to the core columns every 12 feet to get the perimeter columns to peel out sideways and break out the "tube barrel" horizontal banding effect. Also the core columns go where? Magically offer no compression resistance to the collapse process? That internal core to external "tube" strongly bonded severance process would take time and use energy and inevitably create considerable resistance to the collapse process. You make the building sound like a pack of slippery cards collapsing, with absolutely no kind of "glue" bonds sticking the cards together offering any resistance and any structural integrity.

Un-reacted hi-tech nano-thermite was found in WTC dust for which there is really no plausibly innocent explanation. Un-reacted nano-thermite was not just "rust dust" as some deniers appear to think, it was apparently an indication of nano-technology at work in the WTC event, including nano-aluminium particles ("nano" as in very, very small and hard to make). Something not technically possible to even make before about the 1990s and it is an example of some very expensive technology, suggesting some First World state-sponsored terrorism, not amateur civilian terrorism from the Third World. Just as the 2001 nano-tech anthrax weapon attack was evidently an example of First World state-funded military technology and not amateur low-tech Third World terrorist technology. In any event it would not be clear to me how high-tech, nano-tech, thermite, or any other kind of explosive residue should have been present in the dust under the "Third World Terrorist Osama (or KSM) and nineteen grumpy suicidal young men, acting alone, Conspiracy Theory". Nano-technology, shortened to "Nano-tech", is the study of the control of matter on an atomic and molecular scale. Generally nano-technology deals with structures of the size 90 nano-metres or smaller, and involves developing materials or devices within that size. Nano = billionth (10 to the -9th power). Scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratories are apparently exploring the potential to release energy from nano-particles to make nano explosives. Nano-energetics is a new field in which nano-aluminium particles are used as more effective explosives. The nano-aluminium presents a higher surface area to volume of the material. This means that when ignited a greater volume of the aluminium achieves the chemical reaction, releasing its energy, and generating a larger explosion per pound of material. Nuclear weapons achieve their destructive power in this same way at the very lowest atomic level. This means that nano-aluminium and the "super-thermite" that is made from it present significantly more powerful weapons than with older and cruder thermite formulations going back more than 100 years.

Good post Andrew. The presence of any significant volume of highly engineered nano particles in the WTC dust is incriminating on it's own. I think the floors may have been impregnated with nano thermite. The particles can even enter human cells so to get it into the microstructure of concrete shooud not have been a problem. The sudden release of heat would have pulverised the cncrete floors instantly explaining why there was virtually no concrete in the rubble. Amazing when you think that there was 110 ACRES of concrete to start with along with 110 acres of reinforcing, very little- if any of which survived.

[Dave Rogers]

OK but that does not really help your theory though IMO, because that would be steelwork behaving gradually in an asymmetrically failing, plastic, ductile manner then, still immensely strong in compression as well as tension. So why did it give up those inherent properties, that steel has, so suddenly, to become super-brittle in the low resistance symmetrical gravity fed kinetic energy explosive destruction theory?

Of course, this is a classic truther strawman argument, as there is no such theory. The steel didn't become super-brittle, or change its properties in any way; it's possible to calculate a limiting case for the structural resistance of the columns, based on the known physical properties of steel, that reproduces the collapse time exactly, as Frank Greening, Newtons Bit and Gregory Urich have all done. There's no "low resistance" theory, just one with the expected resistance; and perhaps we should all remember that the "explosive destruction theory" is the one generated by the fantasists who don't understand engineering enough to produce a coherent theory of anything.

Now, please continue pulling your strawman apart, but don't cry when the rest of us can't be bothered to put it back together again.

Dave

[T.A.M.]

No sorry but steelwork is not "super brittle" with "no heat" during a "smashing" impact. If it were it would not gradually crush during a vehicle impact to decelerate the occupants of the car. If steelwork were brittle it would disintegrate like a toughened bit of glass and the car occupants would hit the thing they were going to hit a lot harder and faster.

Different steel, different characteristics. Some steels are much more brittle that others...do you not agree?

TAM:)

[AndrewIlluminatus]

The sudden release of heat would have pulverised the concrete floors instantly explaining why there was virtually no concrete in the rubble. Amazing when you think that there was 110 ACRES of concrete to start with along with 110 acres of reinforcing, very little- if any of which survived.

Jim Hoffman (October 16th, 2003) actually calculated that:
* 111,000 KWH is generated by the collapse of each tower.
* 135,000 KWH is needed to crush the concrete.
* 2,682,000 KWH is needed to create the dust cloud (this assumes a sufficient source of water or this figure increases dramatically).
This means that 122% of the total gravitational collapse energy available was necessary just to pulverise the concrete (let alone create the dust cloud), that is, more energy was needed just to pulverise the concrete than was generated by the collapse. This, of course, means that explosives, thermite or some other energy source must have supplied the extra energy.

I theorise that since WTC 1 and 2 were open plan office spaces they would have had raised technical services metal square flooring. In open plan office spaces you need to be able to wire the office services (electricity, telephone, Ethernet etc.) to a spot underneath each workstation desk. This means that you need raised removable square-panel technical flooring (and normally cosmetic decoration square carpet tiles on that) which leaves a gap above the concrete floor slab, beneath your feet, where the wires can run. This convenient technical services space would be a good place in which to spread your hypothetical nano-thermite compound, during out of office-hours periods (nights, weekends and public days-off work festivals like Christmas etc.) Such building (sophisticated First World militaristic) sabotage efforts would of course be completely invisible to the office workers using the office space, if carried out during the weeks before the extravagant 9/11 terrorist "shock and awe" event.

[AndrewIlluminatus]

Different steel, different characteristics. Some steels are much more brittle that others...do you not agree?

TAM:)

The steel used in constructing skyscrapers is not brittle, but ductile, and very strong indeed in compression and tension. That is why skyscrapers around the world do not shatter, explosively, as frequently as they did on 9/11 in New York. It would be extraordinarily dangerous to build skyscrapers out of brittle steel and since they could not move, flex and sway in winds or earthquakes, I expect we would have all witnessed the folly of using brittle steel in skyscrapers many times, a long time ago.

[phil76]

Andrew, relative to your post 763

No need to have "brittle" steel : connections between columns and floors are destroyed in at last two floors, so "buckling resistance" (sorry I don't know how to translate exactly "résistance au flambement") is divided by 9, if you add loss of strength due to heat, figure what happens !

[Furcifer]

No sorry but steelwork is not "super brittle" with "no heat" during a "smashing" impact. If it were it would not gradually crush during a vehicle impact to decelerate the occupants of the car. If steelwork were brittle it would disintegrate like a toughened bit of glass and the car occupants would hit the thing they were going to hit a lot harder and faster.

Holy strawman. Those were your words, not mine.

FYI- You guys need to take a closer look at controlled demolitions.The dust cloud is ejected by the collapse, not the explosives.

[Dave Rogers]

Jim Hoffman (October 16th, 2003) actually calculated that:
* 111,000 KWH is generated by the collapse of each tower.
* 135,000 KWH is needed to crush the concrete.

That figure is highly sensitive to the starting assumptions about how finely crushed the concrete was, and can vary by several orders of magnitude either way. Hoffman assumed that all the concrete was crushed to a particle size of 140µm, based on the samples of wind-borne dust collected half a mile from the WTC, and ignored the fact (since highlighted by, of all people, Steven Jones) that a very large proportion of the dust was in fact found in much larger fragments, typically several centimetres in size. Re-calculate Hoffman's numbers with a larger particle size distribution, based on what was actually observed rather than a biased guess, and this energy requirement becomes much more negligible.

* 2,682,000 KWH is needed to create the dust cloud (this assumes a sufficient source of water or this figure increases dramatically).

This is based on the completely unsupportable assumption that the dust clouds cannot have exceeded the original volume of the towers by any means other than thermal expansion or vapourisation of water from some unknown source. In fact, if the possibility is considered that the dust cloud could have expanded by mixing with air outside the towers, a process Hoffman has never advanced an argument against, other than the strange assertion that the dust cloud appeared to have a well-defined boundary and hence could not have mixed with ambient air, then this energy requirement becomes zero.

But let's imagine that Hoffman's numbers were correct; how much explosive (or thermite; the energy content is about the same) would be needed to release this amount of energy? You're arguing that an additional energy of 2,700,000kWh is needed. Converting that into sensible units at 1kWh=3.6MJ, we need an additional 9700GJ of energy. Thermite and most explosives have an energy density of around 4-5MJ/kg; let's assume 100% efficient energy release and the upper limit, so we need 1940000kg of explosive to supply the energy Hoffman claims was released.

That's TWO KILOTONS of high explosive.

I'll say that again.

TWO KILOTONS.

Your claim is therefore that two kilotons of explosives was packed into the Twin Towers, and exploded in the course of their collapses.

I'm going to stop there, because nobody sane could view the videos of the events, listen to the soundtracks, and read the accounts of the witnesses, and believe that the limited-scale explosions heard by firefighters and the small dust ejections obsessed over by truthers were caused by two kilotons of high explosive going off.

Really. Two kilotons. That's what you're asking us to believe.

Dave

[tsig]

Jim Hoffman (October 16th, 2003) actually calculated that:
* 111,000 KWH is generated by the collapse of each tower.
* 135,000 KWH is needed to crush the concrete.
* 2,682,000 KWH is needed to create the dust cloud (this assumes a sufficient source of water or this figure increases dramatically).
This means that 122% of the total gravitational collapse energy available was necessary just to pulverise the concrete (let alone create the dust cloud), that is, more energy was needed just to pulverise the concrete than was generated by the collapse. This, of course, means that explosives, thermite or some other energy source must have supplied the extra energy.

I theorise that since WTC 1 and 2 were open plan office spaces they would have had raised technical services metal square flooring. In open plan office spaces you need to be able to wire the office services (electricity, telephone, Ethernet etc.) to a spot underneath each workstation desk. This means that you need raised removable square-panel technical flooring (and normally cosmetic decoration square carpet tiles on that) which leaves a gap above the concrete floor slab, beneath your feet, where the wires can run. This convenient technical services space would be a good place in which to spread your hypothetical nano-thermite compound, during out of office-hours periods (nights, weekends and public days-off work festivals like Christmas etc.) Such building (sophisticated First World militaristic) sabotage efforts would of course be completely invisible to the office workers using the office space, if carried out during the weeks before the extravagant 9/11 terrorist "shock and awe" event.

Wouldn't all those workers packing explosives under the floor interfere with those who are installing the 2 million explosive tiles?

[Disbelief]

No sorry but steelwork is not "super brittle" with "no heat" during a "smashing" impact. If it were it would not gradually crush during a vehicle impact to decelerate the occupants of the car. If steelwork were brittle it would disintegrate like a toughened bit of glass and the car occupants would hit the thing they were going to hit a lot harder and faster.

Obviously, you know nothing about cars either. You do realize that they are engineered to crumple in a certain way for passenger safety. You should also realize that many of the components do shear to accommodate this crumpling.

Comparing steel used in the WTC to steel in cars is laughable.

[ozeco41]

....I theorise that since WTC 1 and 2 were open plan office spaces they would have had raised technical services metal square flooring. In open plan office spaces you need to be able to wire the office services (electricity, telephone, Ethernet etc.) to a spot underneath each workstation desk. This means that you need raised removable square-panel technical flooring (and normally cosmetic decoration square carpet tiles on that) which leaves a gap above the concrete floor slab, beneath your feet, where the wires can run. This convenient technical services space would be a good place in which to spread your hypothetical nano-thermite compound, during out of office-hours periods (nights, weekends and public days-off work festivals like Christmas etc.) Such building (sophisticated First World militaristic) sabotage efforts would of course be completely invisible to the office workers using the office space, if carried out during the weeks before the extravagant 9/11 terrorist "shock and awe" event.

That is certainly a novel way to demolish a building. By attacking the concrete floor decks.

And it gets around all the difficulties associated with conventional explosives with their need to contact/close proximity to steel they are to cut AND "det cord wiring" which has to remain invisible.

Yes the idea needs a special place in the ranking of "truther demolition schemes".


:D

[bill smith]

Jim Hoffman (October 16th, 2003) actually calculated that:
* 111,000 KWH is generated by the collapse of each tower.
* 135,000 KWH is needed to crush the concrete.
* 2,682,000 KWH is needed to create the dust cloud (this assumes a sufficient source of water or this figure increases dramatically).
This means that 122% of the total gravitational collapse energy available was necessary just to pulverise the concrete (let alone create the dust cloud), that is, more energy was needed just to pulverise the concrete than was generated by the collapse. This, of course, means that explosives, thermite or some other energy source must have supplied the extra energy.

I theorise that since WTC 1 and 2 were open plan office spaces they would have had raised technical services metal square flooring. In open plan office spaces you need to be able to wire the office services (electricity, telephone, Ethernet etc.) to a spot underneath each workstation desk. This means that you need raised removable square-panel technical flooring (and normally cosmetic decoration square carpet tiles on that) which leaves a gap above the concrete floor slab, beneath your feet, where the wires can run. This convenient technical services space would be a good place in which to spread your hypothetical nano-thermite compound, during out of office-hours periods (nights, weekends and public days-off work festivals like Christmas etc.) Such building (sophisticated First World militaristic) sabotage efforts would of course be completely invisible to the office workers using the office space, if carried out during the weeks before the extravagant 9/11 terrorist "shock and awe" event.

Do you not think that he stuff would have to be inside the concrete to do such a uniform job of the pulverisation ? And to vapourise all the reinforcing mats of steel mesh ? If the heat had been applied from only one side I get the impression we would see as much fragmentation as pulverisation.And where are the floor pans ?

[GlennB]

Jim Hoffman (October 16th, 2003) actually calculated that:
* 111,000 KWH is generated by the collapse of each tower.
* 135,000 KWH is needed to crush the concrete.
* 2,682,000 KWH is needed to create the dust cloud (this assumes a sufficient source of water or this figure increases dramatically).
This means that 122% of the total gravitational collapse energy available was necessary just to pulverise the concrete (let alone create the dust cloud), that is, more energy was needed just to pulverise the concrete than was generated by the collapse. This, of course, means that explosives, thermite or some other energy source must have supplied the extra energy.

Hoffman withdrew these theories/calculations years ago

[Dave Rogers]

Hoffman withdrew these theories/calculations years ago

Well, no, he didn't, exactly. He announced that he was working on a revision to account for the two minor problems with his theory; namely, that the dust cloud wasn't hot enough that anyone caught within it was instantly boiled to death, and that even if the concrete in the floors had somehow been still wet from pouring over thirty years earlier it still would have a few orders of magnitude too little water in it. As far as anyone can tell, he's still working on that revision, but version 3 is still available online as a trap for those unable to assess the sanity of its conclusions.

Dave

[tsig]

Do you not think that he stuff would have to be inside the concrete to do such a uniform job of the pulverisation ? And to vapourise all the reinforcing mats of steel mesh ? If the heat had been applied from only one side I get the impression we would see as much fragmentation as pulverisation.And where are the floor pans ?


http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/plans/table.html

Just google let your fingers do the walking.

[T.A.M.]

The steel used in constructing skyscrapers is not brittle, but ductile, and very strong indeed in compression and tension. That is why skyscrapers around the world do not shatter, explosively, as frequently as they did on 9/11 in New York. It would be extraordinarily dangerous to build skyscrapers out of brittle steel and since they could not move, flex and sway in winds or earthquakes, I expect we would have all witnessed the folly of using brittle steel in skyscrapers many times, a long time ago.

My point is that brittle is a relative variable.

So is your contention (I am detecting "no-planer" territory here) that the planes could not have passed through the outer frame of the building because the steel columns were ductile?

TAM:)

[GlennB]

Well, no, he didn't, exactly. He announced that he was working on a revision to account for the two minor problems with his theory; namely, that the dust cloud wasn't hot enough that anyone caught within it was instantly boiled to death, and that even if the concrete in the floors had somehow been still wet from pouring over thirty years earlier it still would have a few orders of magnitude too little water in it. As far as anyone can tell, he's still working on that revision, but version 3 is still available online as a trap for those unable to assess the sanity of its conclusions.

Dave

Yeah, that rings a bell now. Thanks.

Didn't Hoffman originally use the Lioy et al 60micron average particle size and extrapolate it right back to the entire concrete contents of WTC, thus calculating an insane amount of energy sunk into concrete dustification? Is that the same Hoffman that Andrew quotes?

Andrew ... perhaps you can clear this up?

[GlennB]

Off topic but the Nose Out theory complains that the UA175 aircraft (theoretically assumed CGI artefact) passed through the building and the nose popped out amazingly unharmed and with no loss of momentum.

Who on earth would be so stupid as to think that the lightweight (carbon fibre?) nose cone would be the object seen as the first item exiting WTC2? Had to be an engine, landing gear or - conceivably - some dense object from within WTC2 itself.

eta: are you Andrew Johnson, once of the UK 9/11 forum?

[leftysergeant]

Who on earth would be so stupid as to think that the lightweight (carbon fibre?) nose cone would be the object seen as the first item exiting WTC2? Had to be an engine, landing gear or - conceivably - some dense object from within WTC2 itself.

Looking at the shadows and the way that it all turned to flame when they kept the video running, I would say it was just a thin layer of jet fuel expelled from one floor only, caught edge-on by the camera.

[Tricky]

Folks, I'm getting tired of moving blocks of posts to AAH (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4634172#post4634172). I hate handing out infractions for Rule 11 but you are making it difficult to do anything else.

So instead, consider this a strongly worded mod directive:


Stay on topic (even if someone else has started the derail).
Stop bickering
Ignoring this mod directive may result in infractions or more severe penalties.

I don't know how to make this any more clear.

[bill smith]

Looking at the shadows and the way that it all turned to flame when they kept the video running, I would say it was just a thin layer of jet fuel expelled from one floor only, caught edge-on by the camera.

You can check it out on this link.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4641115&posted=1#post4641115

[six7s]

Yesterday I posted the statement below thinking that it paraphrased Newton's similar law. 'Every action has an equal and opposite reaction'. However several posters came back and told me that my statement is in fact incorrect. So thinking as I still do that it is applicable and immutable let it henceforth be known as 'Smith's Law'

Smith's Law
''Whatever downwards force the moving body exerts on the stationary body of identical construction fixed in the ground is reciprocated by the stationary body equally and oppositely. After that it depends which is used up first.''

Smith's Nightmare
For every simple aspect of reality supported by conclusive evidence there is an overwhelmingly complicated explanation supported by paranoid self-deluding conjecture

[AJM8125]

Deleted, didn't see Tricky's mod box.

[AndrewIlluminatus]

Off topic but the Nose Out theory complains that the UA175 aircraft (theoretically assumed CGI artefact) passed through the building and the nose popped out amazingly unharmed and with no loss of momentum.



Who on earth would be so stupid as to think that the lightweight (carbon fibre?) nose cone would be the object seen as the first item exiting WTC2?

I will try to drag this detour that I did not invite back on topic (not easy, but read on). Nobody thought that, nobody thought that the lightweight (carbon fibre?) nose cone could do that, which is precisely why it became a "theoretically assumed CGI artefact". The problem is that most people naively, automatically, apparently will assume that "TV is reality", but as the fictional "Wag the Dog" movie warned us, that is not necessarily so.


Had to be an engine, landing gear or - conceivably - some dense object from within WTC2 itself.

A UA175 designated engine turned up at Church and Murray, some people claimed that it was from a smaller aircraft than the one advertised in the official narrative. Quite why that should be the case, if this size issue is a genuinely valid criticism, escapes me, since it sounds like a grotesquely careless and stupid "military deception" operational error; unless it was not an error at all, but a political Hegelian Dialectical "Easter Egg". The wingspan entry wound was also apparently not wide enough, for the aircraft that was advertised in the official narrative.

However, the lack of a loss of momentum on the Nose Out video would still be a problem if the "nose" were something else from a genuinely video recorded "material object" aircraft, rather than the nose. The pixel shape was apparently of the "nose leaving the WTC2 north face unscathed", without slowing down inside the building, not of an engine which would have been behind the nose and should have exited the building later anyway. It looks to me rather like either a massively important video fraud happened on 9/11 itself, or a relatively minor video fraud has happened since 9/11, by some mischievous troublemakers. I do not know and I cannot know which theory is correct, because video is obviously not very reliable as a form of evidence.

Topic link. So we have the steel frame of the building behaving apparently rather strangely on 9/11, but in a somewhat consistent manner. When an apparent aircraft flies into the steel frame building it does not seem to decelerate inside the building. If the object that flew out the other side was not the nose (the nose was the apparent shape) but an engine, then the engine actually accelerated whilst inside the building.

Vertical crush down collapse topic. When the top load suddenly falls on the intact tower below (by whatever process, exploding pancake, tiredness, magic) it crushes down the building in an amazing low resistance manner. Even though the WTC2 top load disintegrated upwards faster than it could fall downwards and the top was more weakly constructed than the tower below that it was theoretically impacting. So, the "gathering snowball effect" theory is that 40% of the top load was ejected outside the tower footprint during the first couple of seconds of the collapse process when the top load disintegrated. This left 60% of the normal static weight (mass x gravity) of a loosely arranged "snowball of disassembled building components" falling as a dynamic "heavy rain" load on the intact, redundantly over-engineered and very robust tower below. Not falling as a contiguous robust "sledgehammer load", but as heavy rain. Not like as a "sandbag" dropped from the top of a building on the head of an unsuspecting person below, but as the contents of a sandbag dropped from the top of a building. What is the difference? An intact sandbag would kill you, break lots of bones in your body, but loose dry sand falling on you would put sand down the back of your neck and probably only irritate you.

So when the WTC2 tipped-over-top disintegrated upwards faster than it could fall down, it did so explosively, which is to say stuff flew in all directions at once, up, down and sideways. The ripple-down explosive collapse process below the exploding top, in the initial stages, was also faster than the now disassembled top-load components could keep up, as they fell out of the sky, 40% outside of the tower footprint. It is difficult for me to see how gravity alone could achieve all of these strange effects. The hypothesised gravity motivated "heavy rain snowball" was evidently not causing the ripple down explosive collapse process, or causing the apparently explosive (presumably mistimed) squibs even lower down the tower than the main rapidly descending demolition wave front. How did the hypothetical "heavy rain" break the lateral floor connections between the core columns and perimeter columns so easily? Or break out the "barrel banding effect" of the perimeter column tube, or crush down the core columns, or crush the concrete etc. in such an apparently effortless resistance-free manner in such a short time frame? I really do not know but I think that the distortion of space called "gravity" only really supplied the energy to get the already disassembled, by some other energy means, building down to the ground.


eta: are you Andrew Johnson, once of the UK 9/11 forum?

No.


Looking at the shadows and the way that it all turned to flame when they kept the video running, I would say it was just a thin layer of jet fuel expelled from one floor only, caught edge-on by the camera.

The quick "fade to black" part of the theory was that the video did not actually keep running, because the terrorists made a semi-live "Wag the Dog" type video error during the 17-second time delay. Which the terrorists, in charge of this "shock and awe media propaganda narrative", corrected by the quick fade-to-black, when they spotted the unfortunate SNAFU "nose out" problem developing.

[Dave Rogers]

Didn't Hoffman originally use the Lioy et al 60micron average particle size and extrapolate it right back to the entire concrete contents of WTC, thus calculating an insane amount of energy sunk into concrete dustification?

Yes, but that's a fairly common truther misconception. Kenneth Kuttler makes a similar assumption in his paper, and subtracts the required energy from the kinetic energy at each floor impact, so he's not even considering the possibility that concrete could have been pulverised by its final impact with the ground. Where Hoffman really clears the shark's fin by about 30,000 feet is in his assumption that the dust cloud couldn't have mixed with ambient air, and therefore could only have got bigger by thermal expansion or by the generation of steam from an unknown source of water. The concrete pulverisation argument only inflates the energy requirements to just a little more than the potential energy available, which no doubt wasn't enough for Hoffman's agenda; the dust cloud expansion argument gives him a requirement for about 10-20 times the potential energy, which would be rather harder to explain if it had the slightest basis in reality.

Is that the same Hoffman that Andrew quotes?

Yes, no possible doubt that it's the same one. The numbers and publication date are the same.

Dave

[phunk]

Topic link. So we have the steel frame of the building behaving apparently rather strangely on 9/11, but in a somewhat consistent manner. When an apparent aircraft flies into the steel frame building it does not seem to decelerate inside the building. If the object that flew out the other side was not the nose (the nose was the apparent shape) but an engine, then the engine actually accelerated whilst inside the building.


Or, as any sane person might conclude, the engine did not accelerate while in the building, but just didn't decelerate as much as the other parts.

[alienentity]

[snip]



Vertical crush down collapse topic. When the top load suddenly falls on the intact tower below (by whatever process, exploding pancake, tiredness, magic) it crushes down the building in an amazing low resistance manner. Even though the WTC2 top load disintegrated upwards faster than it could fall downwards and the top was more weakly constructed than the tower below that it was theoretically impacting. So, the "gathering snowball effect" theory is that 40% of the top load was ejected outside the tower footprint during the first couple of seconds of the collapse process when the top load disintegrated. This left 60% of the normal static weight (mass x gravity) of a loosely arranged "snowball of disassembled building components" falling as a dynamic "heavy rain" load on the intact, redundantly over-engineered and very robust tower below. Not falling as a contiguous robust "sledgehammer load", but as heavy rain. Not like as a "sandbag" dropped from the top of a building on the head of an unsuspecting person below, but as the contents of a sandbag dropped from the top of a building. What is the difference? An intact sandbag would kill you, break lots of bones in your body, but loose dry sand falling on you would put sand down the back of your neck and probably only irritate you.

So when the WTC2 tipped-over-top disintegrated upwards faster than it could fall down, it did so explosively, which is to say stuff flew in all directions at once, up, down and sideways. The ripple-down explosive collapse process below the exploding top, in the initial stages, was also faster than the now disassembled top-load components could keep up, as they fell out of the sky, 40% outside of the tower footprint. It is difficult for me to see how gravity alone could achieve all of these strange effects. The hypothesised gravity motivated "heavy rain snowball" was evidently not causing the ripple down explosive collapse process, or causing the apparently explosive (presumably mistimed) squibs even lower down the tower than the main rapidly descending demolition wave front. How did the hypothetical "heavy rain" break the lateral floor connections between the core columns and perimeter columns so easily? Or break out the "barrel banding effect" of the perimeter column tube, or crush down the core columns, or crush the concrete etc. in such an apparently effortless resistance-free manner in such a short time frame? I really do not know but I think that the distortion of space called "gravity" only really supplied the energy to get the already disassembled, by some other energy means, building down to the ground.

[snip]



Andrew, your post was still responding to O/T subject, whatever excuse you gave. Just couldn't help yourself I guess.

Moving along... in a nutshell, regarding your crushdown comments; your assumptions are largely unsupported by hard evidence, your physics analogies are false.

Hence your conclusion is wrong. I'm not going to waste time and space going into any further detail.

[alienentity]

Or, as any sane person might conclude, the engine did not accelerate while in the building, but just didn't decelerate as much as the other parts.

It's OT anyway. Who really cares what Andrew thinks? I don't.

[Heiwa]

It seems this thread Why a one-way Crush down is not possible of the WTC 1 or any structure (small top crushing big bottom) has developed into a discussion about what happened to same structure, if it were crushed by an object laterally, e.g. a plane full of fuel (and people) up top at impact speed about 200 m/s. The vertical crush down is only initiated at 8.5 m/s, but let's compare lateral/vertical impacts.

Say lateral object has mass m and then the energy applied laterally on the wall is 20000m Joule. BANG! Quite a lot. It was applied on about 100 m² of the wall and it made a hole in the structure and unknown damages inside.

Now, let's say that upper part of WTC 1 has mass 400m that drops on lower part at 8.5 m/s. How much energy is involved? Yes, it is 144500m Joule. It is thus >7 times more but applied on a much bigger surface (4000 m²).

So lateral impact was 20000m Joule on 100 m² or 200m J/m² and the vertical impact later was 144500m Joule on 4000 m² or 36m J/m² or 5-6x less.

Everybody seems to agree that the lateral object with mass m arriving at 200 m/s stopped inside the structure (and then some fraction of m (fuel) caught fire). So the structure stopped it.

As Joule is same as Newton(force)meter, we find that the structure could stop 200m N/m laterally but not 36m N/m vertically.

The structure appears to be stronger laterally than vertically! Just some food for thought.

Actually, as this is not the case, it is another example Why a one-way Crush down is not possible.

[alienentity]

Everybody seems to agree that the lateral object with mass m arriving at 200 m/s stopped inside the structure (and then some fraction of m (fuel) caught fire). So the structure stopped it.

No, they don't. It has already been determined, unambiguously, that more massive and dense parts of the planes continued thru the towers, even after colliding with structure, and in fact ended up on NYC streets. These would include engines and landing gear.

Also, in fact, the fuel itself traveled thru the building, carrying so much energy that it managed to not only damage the internal structure but also make it to the opposite side and exit.

So your understanding is just plain wrong. It's no wonder you have difficulty coming to the right conclusions.

[Heiwa]

No, they don't. It has already been determined, unambiguously, that more massive and dense parts of the planes continued thru the towers, even after colliding with structure, and in fact ended up on NYC streets. These would include engines and landing gear.

Also, in fact, the fuel itself traveled thru the building, carrying so much energy that it managed to not only damage the internal structure but also make it to the opposite side and exit.

So your understanding is just plain wrong. It's no wonder you have difficulty coming to the right conclusions.

So how much of m went through and was not stopped? 5%? Engines and landing gear is maybe 0.05m? What could mass be of that famous noose that came out and disappeared that FOX edited away?

[Dave Rogers]

However, the lack of a loss of momentum on the Nose Out video would still be a problem if the "nose" were something else from a genuinely video recorded "material object" aircraft, rather than the nose. The pixel shape was apparently of the "nose leaving the WTC2 north face unscathed", without slowing down inside the building, not of an engine which would have been behind the nose and should have exited the building later anyway.

Having actually done some velocity analysis on the Chopper 5 video, I can state categorically that you are incorrect here. It's quite a simple matter to track the movement of the plane from frame to frame of the video, project its course to the far side of the tower, and extrapolate its position had the tower not been there, and the emerging object is a long way behind this position. It's also quite simple to determine that the airliner is moving at 26 pixels per frame prior to impact, and that the ejected object is moving at 6.5 pixels per frame, or about a quarter of the speed.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=82280 has further discussion.

The quick "fade to black" part of the theory was that the video did not actually keep running, because the terrorists made a semi-live "Wag the Dog" type video error during the 17-second time delay. Which the terrorists, in charge of this "shock and awe media propaganda narrative", corrected by the quick fade-to-black, when they spotted the unfortunate SNAFU "nose out" problem developing.

A crucial problem with this theory is that, as I understand it, the Chopper 5 feed was not shown live on 9/11. The live feed shown was from Chopper 7. Therefore, the theory being proposed is that the conspirators had a video clip that showed a compositing error, that was not shown live, but subsequently shown with a simple fade-to-black added a few frames too late to remove the error. This places too great a burden of incompetence on the conspirators, who could simply have cut a few more frames before releasing the clip for broadcast without arousing suspicion.

Dave

[AndrewIlluminatus]

Topic link. So we have the steel frame of the building behaving apparently rather strangely on 9/11, but in a somewhat consistent manner. When an apparent aircraft flies into the steel frame building it does not seem to decelerate inside the building. If the object that flew out the other side was not the nose (the nose was the apparent shape) but an engine, then the engine actually accelerated whilst inside the building.
Or, as any sane person might conclude, the engine did not accelerate while in the building, but just didn't decelerate as much as the other parts.
In the hypothetical vertical crush down hypothesis (not actually supported by empirical observation of the video data IMO) impact of the top ductile steel-frame block into the bigger/stronger bottom ductile steel-frame block IMO should result in some deceleration of the smaller/weaker top. The "engine of the movement" of the top block down is the distortion of space called "gravity", created by the mass of the planet existing in space and the standing start acceleration on offer for the top block, from gravity, is about 32ft/s/s at around sea level.

This weird video aircraft business is about a horizontal impact of a moving vehicle into a stationary steel-frame building. The aircraft was said to be moving at a final impact velocity considerably higher than the standing start acceleration on offer to the top block through gravity of course. Nevertheless, I suggest that when an aircraft impacts and penetrates a ductile steel frame building, it should start to decelerate and disintegrate (just as I would expect the falling top block to decelerate on impact).

Now the "nose" of the aircraft is the front end of the aircraft, I hope we can agree. When the helicopter video was examined in a frame by frame manner by the "Nose Out" theorists, it was found that the "image of the nose" of the UA175 object did not decelerate during the apparent passage of the "aircraft" whilst it was hypothetically inside WTC2. If the UA175 aircraft image was therefore a computer generated image (CGI) of an aircraft (not a video of the genuine impacting material object aircraft) then the "nose out" event reappeared at precisely the correct moment in time and in precisely the correct shape for it to be the "undamaged nose". The very soft nose of a then evidently video fraudulent CGI aircraft, that did not apparently decelerate or suffer any damage from impacting and penetrating and transiting the interior of the tower. The "nose" did not accelerate whilst "inside the tower" but neither did it decelerate. Therefore, if you wish to postulate that an engine transited the interior of the tower and the "nose out" is not the "nose" but the engine, then the "engine" (if a genuine material object) self-evidently must have exited the tower a little too soon. The engines being located under the wings further back down the aircraft than the nose. The fade to black was carried out perhaps just in time to avoid the embarrassment of not only the nose getting through the building unscathed but the wings, engines and possibly even the tail doing the same thing (major FUBAR). This of course also means that if a genuine aircraft hit the tower in the video and the "nose out" artefact was a genuine engine instead, then the engine must have accelerated inside the tower instead of decelerating (as I would expect). For this reason I cannot accept your proposition "as any sane person might conclude, the engine did not accelerate while in the building, but just didn't decelerate as much as the other parts" as having much merit.

Here is a list of strangely different UA175 impact speeds issued from official bodies that were presumably calculated using various different bits of official video footage of the WTC2 strike:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology - 503 mph / 436 knots / M0.653
British Royal Air Force - 575 mph / 500 knots / M0.750
Federal Aviation Administration - 586 mph / 510 knots / M0.765
National Institute of Standards and Technology - 546 mph / 475 knots / M0.714
Federal Emergency Management Agency - 590 mph / 514 knots / M0.771
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20III%20Aircraft%20speed.pdf
Eduardo Kausel, MIT – "the above data indicates that the terrorists flew towards the WTC close to the ground at nearly the full cruising speed of the planes, which is about 900 km/h (560 mph) at a normal altitude of 10km (33,000 feet). It is surprising that the inexperienced pilots that the terrorists were could still steer the planes at those speeds and hit their target head on. Also, considering that the air at low altitudes is much denser than that at normal cruising height, the pilots greatly exceeded Vne ("Velocity Never Exceed") and thereby risked disintegration of the aircraft by air friction."

Ahem, cough, cough! ;)

[Dave Rogers]

Now the "nose" of the aircraft is the front end of the aircraft, I hope we can agree. When the helicopter video was examined in a frame by frame manner by the "Nose Out" theorists, it was found that the "image of the nose" of the UA175 object did not decelerate during the apparent passage of the "aircraft" whilst it was hypothetically inside WTC2. If the UA175 aircraft image was therefore a computer generated image (CGI) of an aircraft (not a video of the genuine impacting material object aircraft) then the "nose out" event reappeared at precisely the correct moment in time and in precisely the correct shape for it to be the "undamaged nose".

As I just pointed out, this is untrue, and demonstrably so. The ejected object was both visually distinguishable from the nose of the airliner, exited at a significantly later time than the expected time for an object moving at constant speed (from my notes I've found it emerged seven frames later than expected), and was moving at a quarter of the speed. This hasn't been disputed by Ace Baker, who advanced a more complicated and absurdly impractical theory to account for it. I can go through what he claimed later if I have time, but it would actually have made the video synching considerably more difficult than using very much simpler methods.

Since your premise is incorrect on this point, could I suggest you re-evaluate your conclusion?

Dave

[AndrewIlluminatus]

Since your premise is incorrect on this point, could I suggest you re-evaluate your conclusion?
Dave
If you are correct about the video frame rate and that video was not live on 9/11 anyway then I agree that this theory looks more like a naughty post 9/11 hoax.

[AndrewIlluminatus]

LOL. This is a joke right? People like andrew don't EVER do that.

I am not actually terribly emotionally attached to any particular theory if that is what you think. Primarily because I suspect a great deal of fraud is going on in one way or another. For the dialectic to work the narrative generators need to create both a Thesis and Antithesis and I am rather more intrigued by the idea of what their intended Synthesis might be. As I said earlier: "It looks to me rather like either a massively important video fraud happened on 9/11 itself, or a relatively minor video fraud has happened since 9/11, by some mischievous troublemakers. I do not know and I cannot know which theory is correct, because video is obviously not very reliable as a form of evidence."

[Dave Rogers]

If you are correct about the video frame rate and that video was not live on 9/11 anyway then I agree that this theory looks more like a naughty post 9/11 hoax.

But it isn't anything of the sort. It's a misinterpretation of a well-understood phenomenon that someone with a mental illness has sincerely advanced as a genuinely-held belief about what happened on 9/11. Ace Baker is very committed, totally serious, and quite unwell.

Dave

[alienentity]

In the hypothetical vertical crush down hypothesis (not actually supported by empirical observation of the video data IMO) impact of the top ductile steel-frame block into the bigger/stronger bottom ductile steel-frame block IMO should result in some deceleration of the smaller/weaker top. The "engine of the movement" of the top block down is the distortion of space called "gravity", created by the mass of the planet existing in space and the standing start acceleration on offer for the top block, from gravity, is about 32ft/s/s at around sea level.

This weird video aircraft business is about a horizontal impact of a moving vehicle into a stationary steel-frame building. The aircraft was said to be moving at a final impact velocity considerably higher than the standing start acceleration on offer to the top block through gravity of course. Nevertheless, I suggest that when an aircraft impacts and penetrates a ductile steel frame building, it should start to decelerate and disintegrate (just as I would expect the falling top block to decelerate on impact).

Now the "nose" of the aircraft is the front end of the aircraft, I hope we can agree. When the helicopter video was examined in a frame by frame manner by the "Nose Out" theorists, it was found that the "image of the nose" of the UA175 object did not decelerate during the apparent passage of the "aircraft" whilst it was hypothetically inside WTC2. If the UA175 aircraft image was therefore a computer generated image (CGI) of an aircraft (not a video of the genuine impacting material object aircraft) then the "nose out" event reappeared at precisely the correct moment in time and in precisely the correct shape for it to be the "undamaged nose". The very soft nose of a then evidently video fraudulent CGI aircraft, that did not apparently decelerate or suffer any damage from impacting and penetrating and transiting the interior of the tower. The "nose" did not accelerate whilst "inside the tower" but neither did it decelerate. Therefore, if you wish to postulate that an engine transited the interior of the tower and the "nose out" is not the "nose" but the engine, then the "engine" (if a genuine material object) self-evidently must have exited the tower a little too soon. The engines being located under the wings further back down the aircraft than the nose. The fade to black was carried out perhaps just in time to avoid the embarrassment of not only the nose getting through the building unscathed but the wings, engines and possibly even the tail doing the same thing (major FUBAR). This of course also means that if a genuine aircraft hit the tower in the video and the "nose out" artefact was a genuine engine instead, then the engine must have accelerated inside the tower instead of decelerating (as I would expect). For this reason I cannot accept your proposition "as any sane person might conclude, the engine did not accelerate while in the building, but just didn't decelerate as much as the other parts" as having much merit.

Here is a list of strangely different UA175 impact speeds issued from official bodies that were presumably calculated using various different bits of official video footage of the WTC2 strike:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology - 503 mph / 436 knots / M0.653
British Royal Air Force - 575 mph / 500 knots / M0.750
Federal Aviation Administration - 586 mph / 510 knots / M0.765
National Institute of Standards and Technology - 546 mph / 475 knots / M0.714
Federal Emergency Management Agency - 590 mph / 514 knots / M0.771
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20III%20Aircraft%20speed.pdf
Eduardo Kausel, MIT – "the above data indicates that the terrorists flew towards the WTC close to the ground at nearly the full cruising speed of the planes, which is about 900 km/h (560 mph) at a normal altitude of 10km (33,000 feet). It is surprising that the inexperienced pilots that the terrorists were could still steer the planes at those speeds and hit their target head on. Also, considering that the air at low altitudes is much denser than that at normal cruising height, the pilots greatly exceeded Vne ("Velocity Never Exceed") and thereby risked disintegration of the aircraft by air friction."

Ahem, cough, cough! ;)

Andrew. You've derailed the thread AGAIN, one day after the MOD warning.

What's this thread about, again? Andrew? Andrew? Is there anybody home?

[AndrewIlluminatus]

What's this thread about, again? Andrew? Andrew? Is there anybody home?

Objects involved in a collision (or continuously resistant and disintegrating collisions) normally decelerate, along with whatever motivational energy is involved being converted into some other kind of work?

Which is faster, driving a heavy car flat-out downhill through a field of corn or down a smooth highway next to the field? The car engine keeps working either way, just as the "engine of gravity" keeps working in the "vertical crush down" and, by driving downhill, gravity is also assisting the motion of the car in this thought experiment. My guess is that driving downhill through the field of corn must take considerably longer than driving down the road, as the car has to use up motivational energy (and will thus decelerate) in doing a lot of extra work to get the corn out of the way. The hypothetical top load of the tower, as a moving vehicle, if it had been on wheels, would have found more resistance to its movement if it had been rolling downhill through a field of corn! Than through the still intact and highly robust (in comparison to corn) steel-frame tower below it. If it had been a combine harvester gathering in the corn to add to the weight of the machine as it rolled downhill it would have nevertheless have taken longer. How long "should" the tower have taken to collapse explosively via gravity and kinetic energy? Forever in my opinion, because it should not have collapsed like that at all.
Topic link. Heiwa: "It seems this thread Why a one-way Crush down is not possible of the WTC 1 or any structure (small top crushing big bottom) has developed into a discussion about what happened to same structure, if it were crushed by an object laterally, e.g. a plane full of fuel (and people) up top at impact speed about 200 m/s. The vertical crush down is only initiated at 8.5 m/s, but let's compare lateral/vertical impacts."

[beachnut]

... How long "should" the tower have taken to collapse explosively via gravity and kinetic energy? Forever in my opinion, because it should not have collapsed like that at all. ...
12.08 seconds for the higher impacted tower. Simple momentum model matches the initial collapse time.

I think of JFK and the moon when I see failed science and delusion like your ideas based on your own biased failed common sense. We do these things "not because they are easy, but because they are hard,". Taking physics is harder than regurgitating failed ideas of 911Truth like you do. JFK knew it is hard to step up to the knowledge needed to understand systems. You pathetically support anti-intellectual tripe without understanding or using physics.

The towers fell in times consistent with the momentum transfer. One tower fell in about 12.08 seconds exactly like the model of a momentum transfer. It is simple physics and math.

The worst part of your delusion is ignoring the facts and evidence. You should have asked the Chief Structural Engineer of the WTC towers; he agrees with me and only some people spewing delusions agree with your failed ideas on the WTC towers collapse.

The simple model closely matches the initial collapse time; did you realize a portion of the core was still standing for over 20 seconds. Did you know people survived in the core? Not sure with all your delusions on explosives why no one at the WTC was blown up? No thermite burns either.

Your opinion the towers should still be standing is a failed ideas based on your what? Lack of knowledge? You have no training in Physics so how can you make an educated guess on the WTC? Why have you failed so badly at understanding the WTC towers falling? Why can't you support the OP?

Did someone tell you the dust was mostly ceiling tiles, wallboard (gyp board), insulation, fire insulation, and just dust; not concrete? This makes Hoffman's stuff idiotic junk science. At least you are not alone with the delusions and Heiwa, and Bill Smith are trying to compete with you for the dumbest ideas in physics and engineering on things about 911. Good luck, I think you can win this contest to see who can accelerate faster than free-fall down the pit of 911Truth ignorance.

AI you have to be able to calculate something if you are going to claim your ideas are true. You can't, so why are you spreading lies, false information, hearsay, and delusions?

[alienentity]

Objects involved in a collision (or continuously resistant and disintegrating collisions) normally decelerate, along with whatever motivational energy is involved being converted into some other kind of work?

[/I]

Look Andrew. Here's Heiwa's original post, ok?
'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.'

It wasn't about planes. If you want to make believe it is, you're in lala land.


And, in response to your comment about deceleration, you're spot on: the towers fell at LESS than freefall speed, due to the resistance of the building structures.

Call it deceleration if that's the way you view it. Case closed. End of story.

Next issue.

[Heiwa]

The towers fell in times consistent with the momentum transfer. One tower fell in about 12.08 seconds exactly like the model of a momentum transfer. It is simple physics and math.

The simple model closely matches the initial collapse time; did you realize a portion of the core was still standing for over 20 seconds. Did you know people survived in the core? Not sure with all your delusions on explosives why no one at the WTC was blown up? No thermite burns either.



Good, back on topic Why a one-way Crush down is not possible.

So momentum transfer suddenly makes one-way crush down possible of a small part C of a bigger part A of same structure? Simple physics and math?

Say A = 10C

OK, C transfers with its velocity v (8.52 m/s) a certain momentum to A, but what is A doing in turn with this momentum? Transfers it to ground! Right.

Assume C has mass m and A has mass 10m. The momentum of C is mv (kgm/s), so the velocity of A after momentum transfer is only 0.1v or 0.852 m/s. That's not a lot!

Then A transfers the momentum to ground with a very big mass so the velocity of ground is virtually zero.

Simple physics and math.

Where is the one-way crush down due to momentum transfer?

Aha, A was not strong enough to transfer the C momentum mv to ground!

But THAT should be easy to demonstrate. Just produce a structure A that is not strong enough to transmit a momentum transfered to it from a similar structure C smaller in size, e.g. 1/10A but same internal structure.

You'll find that C is not strong enough to do it (even with a hat truss, if that matters)!

Now I take a month vaccation or what it is. Real work? See you end May.

[phil76]

A little experience :

Take 4 steel tubes, put them vertically so they form a square.
Take several square sheets of paper and attach them to the steel tubes at equal distance (for example one sheet at height/10, one sheet at 2xheight/10, and so on) .
Take an object which weight is higher than the weight that can be supported by the connections between your sheets of paper and your column.
Let fall your object on the uppermost sheet of paper from a distance equal to the distance between your sheets of paper....

Does your construction hold or do you observe a "one way crush down" ? Do the sheets of paper slow the fall of your object ?

[Dave Rogers]

What we saw on 9/11 was the opposite of that, the demolition wave on WTC2, at the start, shot down, symmetrically, faster than the asymmetrical load and tipped top load (already explosively demolished) could keep up with the fall.

Again, this is factually incorrect, and demonstrably so to anyone who has seen videos and photographs of the collapse. Have you actually done so, and had you been told what to see before you did?

Dave

[phil76]

Andrew, I am French, so I am not "a mind-controlled American" (not meant as an insult toward americans) . It doesn't makes me a truther and it doesn't make me think that there is something suspect in the way the towers fell.

Steel strutures are very strong, but contrary to other structures they are also very "fragile" (meaning that when they fail, the failure is almost instantaneous).

[Grizzly Bear]

I think that Heiwa understood the analogy when he said:
Topic link. Heiwa: "It seems this thread Why a one-way Crush down is not possible of the WTC 1 or any structure (small top crushing big bottom) has developed into a discussion about what happened to same structure, if it were crushed by an object laterally, e.g. a plane full of fuel (and people) up top at impact speed about 200 m/s. The vertical crush down is only initiated at 8.5 m/s, but let's compare lateral/vertical impacts."
Um... wha!? Wow... just wow... is Heiwa seriously trying to differentiate events purely through acceleration and velocity? :eye-poppi

I get this itchy feeling that you both are missing some issue dealing with mass... That might be kind of important...


Practically no resistance whatsoever! Galileo is reported to have dropped a ten-pound mass and a one-pound mass off the top of Leaning Tower of Pisa in Italy, and he showed that both fell at the same speed. Of course, a more general principle was being demonstrated that objects of any weight (mass) fall at the same speed (with the same acceleration).

Suppose he dropped a strong cubic 10lb magnet off the top that crashed down through 90 steel 1lb plates suspended on sheets of glass, spaced at 1ft intervals on the way down?


The weight of the accumulating mass of the falling magnetic object would end up as 100lb but the 1lb mass in free fall would beat it by a long time difference, and "stutter" would be very apparent early on at the start of the "collapse process".

Like the falling debris in this picture? (http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/USYDENR/DOCS/wtc_collapse7.jpg)


Now IMO you probably genuinely do believe, with absolute certainty and blind faith, that you are correct and that virtually resistance free kinetic energy explosiveness accounts for the phenomena that we witnessed on 9/11
You're certainly entitled to your opinions... however you're basing your opinion on a wrongful interpretation of facts.

and were virtually instantly told was the result of low-resistance-gravity-fed-kinetic-energy-explosiveness
I have no idea where explosiveness comes into play as far as the collapse progression is concerned... What do you think should have happened when the impact regions failed? I ask because Ct'ists often have varying answers; some argue that the top should have fallen off like a tree, and others argue that it should have arrested in place. Others still argue that it would "bounce" on the lower structure... and still others argue that the top would have been totally disintegrated leaving everything below the impact regions unharmed.

[Dave Rogers]

After the top of WTC2 started to tip over Eastwards (perhaps due to some mistimed North South oriented core demolition work with cutter charges) I would NOT have expected the top to explode in all directions at once, up, down, sideways, "because of gravity".

That's nice, because it didn't.

I might have expected it to continue to topple over rather than explode, had the event been caused and had developed by "natural causes".

That's nice, because it did.

Look, the idea is to try and start from what did happen on 9/11 and develop a conspiracy theory from it. If you start by making up stuff that didn't happen, it makes the game too easy.

Dave

[GlennB]

.... Now, if you genuinely perceive the same visual data "on offer" in a radically different manner from the way that I do (or "my camp" or "political party" in this Hegelian Dialectic does) then we do not need a "conspiracy theory". We need a theory of human psychology, perception and altered states of consciousness....

No. You need to be able to look at a photo or video and see that a cloud of dust was left hanging behind the collapse zone, rather than being blown out above the collapse zone. No complex mind-control psychological theory is required.

p.s. do you think "The Coup" had secret advance info on the 9/11 plot?

[leftysergeant]

Good, back on topic Why a one-way Crush down is not possible.

So momentum transfer suddenly makes one-way crush down possible of a small part C of a bigger part A of same structure? Simple physics and math?

The stupid just reeks here. Ten floors are bigger than one. End of that nonsense.

Now, before you go any further, tell me why the top of the Balzac-Vitry buildiong didn't bounce off or go into arrest.

[alienentity]

Heiwa: 'Say A = 10C

OK, C transfers with its velocity v (8.52 m/s) a certain momentum to A, but what is A doing in turn with this momentum? Transfers it to ground! Right.'


Facepalm followed by groan....

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_3047049f1082acd25b.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16123)

[KreeL]

The stupid just reeks here. Ten floors are bigger than one. End of that nonsense.

Now, before you go any further, tell me why the top of the Balzac-Vitry buildiong didn't bounce off or go into arrest.

Explosives were used. The lower supports were removed in sequence and the top half continued to the ground.

[six7s]

Explosives were used. The lower supports were removed in sequence and the top half continued to the ground.Expletives were used. The basic facts were removed at random as the eleventyists buried their heads in the ground

[beachnut]

Explosives were used. The lower supports were removed in sequence and the top half continued to the ground.
That is your delusion supported with lies, hearsay, junk science, failed opinions and dirt dumb fantasy.

You can't do the math to prove your point. Good for you.

[KreeL]

If you can't keep up with this simple thread, why do you continue to post blather here, beachnut?

[beachnut]

If you can't keep up with this simple thread, why do you continue to post blather here, beachnut?
You can't prove your statement of woo? Why?
Explosives were used. The lower supports were removed in sequence and the top half continued to the ground.
Prove it.
You have had 7 years, 7 months, and 13 days to prove it and the best you can do is repeat a lie.

Prove you are more than blather and present your evidence to prove your opinion based on lies, hearsay, junk science and dirt dumb delusions. Prove it. You have evidence right?

I can answer that for you. No you have nothing.

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf

Here is a paper that Heiwa can't refute with all his hand waving and pizza box failed physics and lemon engineering. Can you do something to refute anything beside talk? Do you do math, physics, and engineering, or just regurgitate failed 911Truth ideas?

[KreeL]

Nano-thermite has been found and verified. Empirical scientific proof.

The only peeps without proof are the non-toofers because they simply believe the pseudo-scientists bought and paid for by the government.

I guess the real question is why has it taken you over 7 years to understand what happened?

[Grizzly Bear]

Nano-thermite has been found and verified. Empirical scientific proof.
Uh-huh... right....... you keep having faith... :)


The only peeps without proof are the non-toofers because they simply believe the pseudo-scientists bought and paid for by the government.
I'm neither a scientist, nor affiliated with the government. I guess that means I don't fit in that category...

I guess the real question is why has it taken you over 7 years to understand what happened?
I guess the real question is why are people trying to compare the towers to a stack of deliciously cheesy pizza boxes or painfully sour stacks of lemons nearly 7 and a half years after the collapse. One would think after this length of time such individuals could have gone to college majoring in either architecture and engineering to understand specific details about why such analogies are so lost from reality... There's was an opportunity to learn over those years, some people clearly did not use the opportunity...

[beachnut]

Nano-thermite has been found and verified. Empirical scientific proof.

The only peeps without proof are the non-toofers because they simply believe the pseudo-scientists bought and paid for by the government.

I guess the real question is why has it taken you over 7 years to understand what happened?
There is no such thing as Nano-thermite. Please define this new substance? Jones called it super-thermite, it was not found on any steel and there is no thermite products found at the WTC. So your failed idea remain failed. Jones made up the thermite and his samples are not thermite; just dust found around NYC after 911.

peeps? What is peeps?

Please list the pseudo-scientists? This is pathetic to make up lies about people you can't prove. Sad.

I understood 911 as it happened. The passengers on Flight 93 beat everyone to understand 911 in minutes and take action and you spew lies with no evince and no clue 7 years, 7 months, and 13 days after 911; will you gain the knowledge to fix your anti-intellectual statements? Skeptical?

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf Your rebuttal?

If you insist prove Bazant paper wrong and please state the amount of your nano-thermite needed to do the job?
Plus how much more heat in joules was your super-nano-thermite than the simple office fires?
Plus how much more heat in joules was your nano-thermite than the jet fuel in the WTC? Joules? Got physics? Got math? Good luck

Failure to provide insight into these questions means you are simply regurgitating lies.

[KreeL]

As for Bazant's failed paper. The inconsistancies are numerous. He unjustly assumes that all the core columns reached a temperature that has by no means been proven. NIST says that the cores never reached temps hotter than your stove at home.

So who's lying?

[beachnut]

As for Bazant's failed paper. The inconsistancies are numerous. He unjustly assumes that all the core columns reached a temperature that has by no means been proven. NIST says that the cores never reached temps hotter than your stove at home.

So who's lying?
As expected, zero math, no physics, zero engineering; you just say Bazant paper is failed and can't prove your explosives!

Explosives were used. The lower supports were removed in sequence and the top half continued to the ground.

And you can't refute Bazant so you just say it is crap and you change to nano-thermite did it! What?!
Nano-thermite has been found and verified. Empirical scientific proof. ...?

Which is it? You can't refute Bazant with math, physics and engineering? Explosives did it? OR the super nano-thermite did it? Which is it; your talk is not going to hack as a rebuttal to work of NIST or Bazant or other independent work. Even the chief structural engineer of the WTC agrees with me that your thermite is nonsense.

Source for NIST saying the fires in the WTC were not hot? Please the temperature reached and source. Good luck.

[Grizzly Bear]

Source for NIST saying the fires in the WTC were not hot? Please the temperature reached and source. Good luck.
"Columns did not reach temperatures higher than 250oC anywhere in the building" canard in 3...2....1....

[FineWine]

Explosives were used. The lower supports were removed in sequence and the top half continued to the ground.


Nope, there were no explosives. Game over.

[KreeL]

No explosives.

Are you counting Rodriguez's testimony of the huge explosion in the sublevel? Oh, of course not because....why that would mean....uhhhh....ummmm....

Join the cognitive dissonance club, FineWine. http://illiweb.com/fa/i/smiles/icon_cheers.png

[beachnut]

"Columns did not reach temperatures higher than 250oC anywhere in the building" canard in 3...2....1....
It is sad.

Now we will hear of explosions that never killed anyone; in real explosions people die, on 911 the explosions just made explosive like noises and left no blast evidence, no blast effects, no brains turned to mush (save 911Truth).

No evidence 911Truth; evidence free for 7 years, 7 months, and 14 days in less than 2 hours PST. 7 plus 7 is 14; is this part of the CT?

[six7s]

Are you counting Rodriguez's testimony of the huge explosion in the sublevel?No

Oh, of course not because....why that would mean....uhhhh....ummmm....Because I have never heard of them

Here's a challenge for you, KreeL:

I know next to nothing about 9/11; not because I am stupid (I'm not) - instead its simply because I live in a world where the need to know is, practically, zero

However, I am not averse to learning new stuff

So... teach me some stuff

Be concise, coherent and only use reality-consistent evidence to support your 'theory'

Reckon you can?

Then go ahead, please, teach me

Otherwise, please stop with what seems nothing more than a naive, self-deluding attempt to hijack teh interwebs with half truths (aka lies)

TYIA :)

--------
ETA

Please keep it simple - as I am not an engineer/physicist/etc nor am I much of a mathematician... although I can read and understand well-presented calculations

[KreeL]

Well according to NIST the heat in the core wasn't that bad. Your turkey wouldn't have finished baking in the amount of time allowed, but so what?

Oh, that's right, a fire enhanced global collapse requires mucho fire. So much fire that all the supports give way at the exact same time spontaneously. http://illiweb.com/fa/i/smiles/kopfschuettel.gif

Care to model that for us?

[WildCat]

So who's lying?
The truthers, as always.

[WildCat]

No explosives.

Are you counting Rodriguez's testimony of the huge explosion in the sublevel? Oh, of course not because....why that would mean....uhhhh....ummmm....

Join the cognitive dissonance club, FineWine. http://illiweb.com/fa/i/smiles/icon_cheers.png
How's lyin' Willie doing these days?

He posted here for a little bit, then left in a hissy fit when we kept asking him about his ever-changing story. I totally understand why his fragile feelings are more important than revealing his smoking gun evidence of inside jobby-job that has killed thousands of innocents... :rolleyes:

[WildCat]

Well according to NIST the heat in the core wasn't that bad. Your turkey wouldn't have finished baking in the amount of time allowed, but so what?
So we can rule out thermite/ate/nano-thermite/ate in the core, correct?

[KreeL]

Weren't there victims in the sublevels? Oh yeah, nevermind that his story is backed by facts. I wonder if he was the only one that heard and felt explosions that day.

No explosives... http://illiweb.com/fa/i/smiles/lol.gif

[KreeL]

So we can rule out thermite/ate/nano-thermite/ate in the core, correct?

Can we? Did NIST check for thermite? Maybe you should ask them.

[WildCat]

Weren't there victims in the sublevels? Oh yeah, nevermind that his story is backed by facts. I wonder if he was the only one that heard and felt explosions that day.

No explosives... http://illiweb.com/fa/i/smiles/lol.gif
You mean the people burned by the jet fuel igniting in the elevator shafts? The people who reported a strong smell of kerosene?

Is Willie describing it as a bomb now? Do you know how he described it the first time? Do you know when he suddenly started smelling dollar signs and became a truther?

Why do you think he ran out of here in a hissy fit?

[WildCat]

Can we? Did NIST check for thermite? Maybe you should ask them.
You just claimed no high temps of the core columns, this rules out thermite yes?

Oh dear, it sucks being a truther and having to claim so many things that contradict each other, doesn't it?

[KreeL]

Do the elevator shafts go all the way from the top down to the sublevel? That's odd. Please give us a link.

[KreeL]

Wildcat --have you ever seen the demonstration of thermite going through an engine block on a car?

How hot did the tailpipe get?

[six7s]

Well according to NIST the heat in the core wasn't that bad. Your turkey wouldn't have finished baking in the amount of time allowed, but so what?

Oh, that's right, a fire enhanced global collapse requires mucho fire. So much fire that all the supports give way at the exact same time spontaneously. http://illiweb.com/fa/i/smiles/kopfschuettel.gif

Care to model that for us?As this post immediately follows mine, I guess you might be replying to me...

If so: huh? :confused:
Otherwise: huh? :confused:

[WildCat]

Do the elevator shafts go all the way from the top down to the sublevel? That's odd. Please give us a link.
You're new at this, aren't you?

You admit no thermite on the core columns, correct? Let's do one thing at a time.

[Redtail]

Wildcat --have you ever seen the demonstration of thermite going through an engine block on a car?

How hot did the tailpipe get?

Were the engine block and tail pipe made out of the same metal?

[KreeL]

Sure....and neither were connected to a 110 story heatsink.

Go figure.

[leftysergeant]

As for Bazant's failed paper. The inconsistancies are numerous. He unjustly assumes that all the core columns reached a temperature that has by no means been proven. NIST says that the cores never reached temps hotter than your stove at home.

So who's lying?

You. Stop it. Bring some science or go find some WACof friends to hang with
on a kiddy board. You will nerver be taken seriously if you can present no scientific evidence. Jones is not scientific. He's delusional.

The premise of this thread is delusional. We have even presented examples of other structures collapsing in the same manner as the towers.

You want to be taken seriously? Suppose you start by looking at the video of the Balzac-Vitry job and describing why the top of THAT one did not bounce off, as Heiwa thinks the towers should have.

Otherwise, be prepared to be greeted in much the same manner as a pork roast is welcomed at an Eid feast.

[Gaspode]

Some posts moved to AAH (http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=58).

Keep it civil and on-topic from now on please.

[WildCat]

Well according to NIST the heat in the core wasn't that bad.
KreeL, this rules out thermite on the core columns, correct?

[Dog Town]

Wildcat --have you ever seen the demonstration of thermite going through an engine block on a car?


The aluminum engine block?

[leftysergeant]

Can we? Did NIST check for thermite? Maybe you should ask them.

You can't have it both ways outside of WACworld. You said the temperatures in the cores were not high enough to cause damage, then you natter on about thermite. Do you realize that this makes you look even less intelligent than we had taken you to be earlier?

Thermite works entirely by heat and you just stated that the report had examined the temperatures to which the steel had beenb exposed, so, in effect, they had been tested for thermiite with a clearly and indisputably negative indicator.

No thermite could possibly have been used to result in such low levels of heat exposure as you claim for any of the structural elements.

Now, if you chose to ignore that fact, others reading this forum could very well conclude that you are acting not out of lack of evidence, or of knowledge, but of mental capacity.

[KreeL]

Lefty, for your own sake, please go find out how they tested the core steel for temperature values.

I've already answered your question, wildcat.

[WildCat]

I've already answered your question, wildcat.
This is a lie, which is pretty much what we've all come to expect from the "truth" movement.

Now, after we resolve this issue we can move on to the elevator shafts.

You claim that the core columns did not reach high temps. This rules out thermite on the core columns, correct?

[FineWine]

No explosives.

Are you counting Rodriguez's testimony of the huge explosion in the sublevel? Oh, of course not because....why that would mean....uhhhh....ummmm....

Join the cognitive dissonance club, FineWine. http://illiweb.com/fa/i/smiles/icon_cheers.png


I have been reading about Rodriguez on Gravy's site. He is someone who changes his story often.

Speaking of cognitive dissonance, you are trying to pretend that an explosion when the plane hit had some connection to the building's collapse an hour later? What does that have to do with controlled demolition? You think that someone placed explosives in the basement and much later the building collapsed from the impact floors? Do you people think at all about what you write? How can you take yourselves seriously?

[leftysergeant]

Lefty, for your own sake, please go find out how they tested the core steel for temperature values.

Largely by the effects of heat on paint. (The paint which idiot boy Jones tries top call thermite.) There were no thermite effects in the paint, ergo, no need to test for thermite. There was nothing upon which to even perform tests. Get a clue. The grown-ups have been reminding twoofers from day one of the therm*te craze that they are talking about ambient items not specific to therm*te.

I've already answered your question, wildcat.

You merely think you did. No one else sees it as an answer.

[Mr X]

Thanks!

Hey Heiwa re "I will give Heiwa $1 million dollars if anything he has written about the WTC collapses ends up in a legitimate engineering journal."

get the karate kid to put that into writing

[KreeL]

I have been reading about Rodriguez on Gravy's site. He is someone who changes his story often.

Speaking of cognitive dissonance, you are trying to pretend that an explosion when the plane hit had some connection to the building's collapse an hour later? What does that have to do with controlled demolition? You think that someone placed explosives in the basement and much later the building collapsed from the impact floors? Do you people think at all about what you write? How can you take yourselves seriously?

If the explosion wasn't needed in the sublevel, why did it occur?:confused:

This wasn't simply Rodriguez's testimony as victims have been documented.

Other people have verified his testimony. Maybe I am mistaken, but are you claiming it didn't happen?

[six7s]

If the explosion wasn't needed in the sublevel, why did it occur?Please, pardon (and, if possible, alleviate) my ignorance on the whole issue*:

Which explosion in the sublevel ?

___________
* to me, when I see 9/11 written down, I still think its an equivalent for 0.81818181818181

[KreeL]

The first one.

On the morning of 9/11.

[six7s]

I promise, I ain't being obtuse

As far as I'm aware, the 1st explosion happened way way up high where and when the first plane hit... is that what you mean?

And, if so, what's the 'sub level'

[Dave Rogers]

If the explosion wasn't needed in the sublevel, why did it occur?:confused:

I approve of your choice of smiley. What level of confusion does it indeed require not to understand that what you have articulated is an argument against any conspiratorial explanation for the basement deflagration?

Dave

[WildCat]

If the explosion wasn't needed in the sublevel, why did it occur?:confused:

This wasn't simply Rodriguez's testimony as victims have been documented.

Other people have verified his testimony. Maybe I am mistaken, but are you claiming it didn't happen?
Oh good, you're back. Care to clear this up KreeL?
You claim that the core columns did not reach high temps. This rules out thermite on the core columns, correct?


I'll be happy to discuss lyin' Willie's basement bomb after we reesolve this issue.

[FineWine]

If the explosion wasn't needed in the sublevel, why did it occur?:confused:

This wasn't simply Rodriguez's testimony as victims have been documented.

Other people have verified his testimony. Maybe I am mistaken, but are you claiming it didn't happen?


I think you've made my point. A jet fuel explosion in the basement had no connection with the collapse of the building much later.

[SteveAustin]

I think you've made my point. A jet fuel explosion in the basement had no connection with the collapse of the building much later.

Let me get this straight..."jet fuel explosion in the basement"?

Really?

So when the plane crashed into the 93rd floor the jet fuel survived that big fireball, then it managed to find it's way all the way down into the basement through 93+ floors AND travel backwards in time while it's at it (because the explosions in the basement were heard before the plane impact) and then somehow ignited when it reached the basement?

Is that it? And no this is not an exaggeration of what you are saying, because this is what had to have happened for a "jet fuel explosion in the basement"

[Disbelief]

Let me get this straight..."jet fuel explosion in the basement"?

Really?

So when the plane crashed into the 93rd floor the jet fuel survived that big fireball, then it managed to find it's way all the way down into the basement through 93+ floors AND travel backwards in time while it's at it (because the explosions in the basement were heard before the plane impact) and then somehow ignited when it reached the basement?

Is that it? And no this is not an exaggeration of what you are saying, because this is what had to have happened for a "jet fuel explosion in the basement"

How would those in the basement know when the plane hit?

[SteveAustin]

How would those in the basement know when the plane hit?

They heard it!

[FineWine]

Let me get this straight..."jet fuel explosion in the basement"?

Really?

So when the plane crashed into the 93rd floor the jet fuel survived that big fireball, then it managed to find it's way all the way down into the basement through 93+ floors AND travel backwards in time while it's at it (because the explosions in the basement were heard before the plane impact) and then somehow ignited when it reached the basement?

Is that it? And no this is not an exaggeration of what you are saying, because this is what had to have happened for a "jet fuel explosion in the basement"


Yes, jet fuel poured down the elevator shafts. You are saying that THEY planted a bomb in the basement for no particular reason? Certainly the explosion had nothing to do with the collapse of the building an hour later.
Nobody heard an explosion before the plane hit because there was no explosion before the plane hit.

[beachnut]

Let me get this straight..."jet fuel explosion in the basement"?

Really?

So when the plane crashed into the 93rd floor the jet fuel survived that big fireball, then it managed to find it's way all the way down into the basement through 93+ floors AND travel backwards in time while it's at it (because the explosions in the basement were heard before the plane impact) and then somehow ignited when it reached the basement?

Is that it? And no this is not an exaggeration of what you are saying, because this is what had to have happened for a "jet fuel explosion in the basement"
911Truth can't post on topic if they tried. 911Truth posts off topic due to lack of knowledge or what?

Why is 911Truth always off topic? Can 911Truth read the OP and understand the topic? http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140047

911Truth always post stupid questions and zero evidence.

[Disbelief]

They heard it!

How could they differentiate between a bomb going off just before the plane hitting, and the actual plane hitting?

[WildCat]

Let me get this straight..."jet fuel explosion in the basement"?

Really?
Really.

So when the plane crashed into the 93rd floor the jet fuel survived that big fireball,
Yep. Can you think of any reason how jet fuel could survive the firerball without burning: Hint: what does jet fuel require to burn?

then it managed to find it's way all the way down into the basement through 93+ floors
Yes, jet fuel tends to flow down hill in our world. Don't know about the alternate universe truthers live in.

AND travel backwards in time while it's at it (because the explosions in the basement were heard before the plane impact) and then somehow ignited when it reached the basement?
No, the explosion didn't happen before the plane impact. That's just silly.

Is that it? And no this is not an exaggeration of what you are saying, because this is what had to have happened for a "jet fuel explosion in the basement"
No, that is the lie "truthers" tell to perpetuate their fantasy.

[KreeL]

Yes, jet fuel poured down the elevator shafts.

Since this seems to be the crux of your rebuttal, can you show us how you arrived at that conclusion?

[WildCat]

Since this seems to be the crux of your rebuttal, can you show us how you arrived at that conclusion?
Oh, good to see you are back KreeL.
You contend that none of the core columns got very hot, this rules out thermite on the core columns, correct?

Or will you continue to run away from this very simple question like a schoolgirl from a spider?

[KreeL]

Does it rule out thermite in the core? That would depend on the evidence. In the NIST analysis, they state the core pieces they tested didn't get over 250C. Logically, you could ask whether they tested ALL the core, some of the core, selective pieces, or whatever you read into that.

Do you believe NIST on their analysis?

[leftysergeant]

Since this seems to be the crux of your rebuttal, can you show us how you arrived at that conclusion?

All the burn victims were in or near elevator shafts. Schroeder saw an explosion occur in an elevator shaft as he was entering the building AFTER the impact.

There were shafts connecting all the way to the top. Over-pressurize a floor or three with jet fuel and I guarantee some of it will go down those shafts.

Willie heard two explosions and assumes they were pre-impact. Schroeder fixes at least one of them post-impact.

Thus, if Willie did hear the impact, the first event had to be the impact.

More likely, he did not hear the impact, but rather just the explosions of jet fuel in the shafts and their immediate surroundings.

[tsig]

Really.


Yep. Can you think of any reason how jet fuel could survive the firerball without burning: Hint: what does jet fuel require to burn?


Yes, jet fuel tends to flow down hill in our world. Don't know about the alternate universe truthers live in.


No, the explosion didn't happen before the plane impact. That's just silly.


No, that is the lie "truthers" tell to perpetuate their fantasy.

When you have to explain that liquids follow gravity it looks hopeless.

[WildCat]

Does it rule out thermite in the core? That would depend on the evidence. In the NIST analysis, they state the core pieces they tested didn't get over 250C. Logically, you could ask whether they tested ALL the core, some of the core, selective pieces, or whatever you read into that.
Ah, so you ARE open to ther possibility that NIST didn't actually test every single core column? Do you know why they tested the ones they did?

Do you believe NIST on their analysis?
Yes, absolutely. And unlike you, I know what they actually did and why. Would you care to guess, or better yet actually read the NIST report?

eta: And does NIST claim the core columns failed?

[tsig]

Since this seems to be the crux of your rebuttal, can you show us how you arrived at that conclusion?

Take an open container and fill it with gas. Light and pour. See results.

[KreeL]

All the burn victims were in or near elevator shafts. Schroeder saw an explosion occur in an elevator shaft as he was entering the building AFTER the impact.

There were shafts connecting all the way to the top. Over-pressurize a floor or three with jet fuel and I guarantee some of it will go down those shafts.

Willie heard two explosions and assumes they were pre-impact. Schroeder fixes at least one of them post-impact.

Thus, if Willie did hear the impact, the first event had to be the impact.

More likely, he did not hear the impact, but rather just the explosions of jet fuel in the shafts and their immediate surroundings.

So Schroeder witnessed an explosion when he arrived a good 5-10 minutes after impact. I thought you were an explosion denier? When Naudet arrived his camera captured no evidence of fire or smoke in the lobby.

Why would the first event Rodriguez witnessed HAVE to be the impact?

So the elevator shafts travel from the top all the way to the sublevel? Burning jet fuel traveled nearly a quarter mile through two fire floors, over and around the elevators, and exploded with enough force in the basement to cause all the damage witnessed by those in the sublevels?:confused:

[tsig]

Does it rule out thermite in the core? That would depend on the evidence. In the NIST analysis, they state the core pieces they tested didn't get over 250C. Logically, you could ask whether they tested ALL the core, some of the core, selective pieces, or whatever you read into that.

Do you believe NIST on their analysis?

Never read NIST never plan to.

I base my analysis on what I saw that day and the knowledge gained thru practical experience and college courses in structural analysis.

The energy to destroy the buildings was every piece lifted into place during construction.

[FineWine]

Since this seems to be the crux of your rebuttal, can you show us how you arrived at that conclusion?



I read it. Can you show us how you arrived at your conclusion that a random explosion was somehow connected with the collapse of the building an hour later?

[KreeL]

Random explosion? Were all the explosions witnessed simply random? How do you conclude that?

[KreeL]

There were shafts connecting all the way to the top. Over-pressurize a floor or three with jet fuel and I guarantee some of it will go down those shafts.

QUOTE

There were 99 passenger elevators in each tower, arranged in three vertical zones to move occupants in stages to skylobbies on the 44th and 78th floors. These were arranged as express (generally larger cars that moved at higher speeds) and local elevators in an innovative system first introduced in WTC 1 and WTC 2. There were 8 express elevators from the concourse to the 44th floor and 10 express elevators from the concourse to the 78th floor as well as 24 local elevators per zone, which served groups of floors in those zones. There were seven freight elevators, only one of which served all floors. All elevators had been upgraded to incorporate firefighter emergency operation per American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) A17.1 and Local Law 5 (1973)(NIST NCSTAR 1-1, p.50 - PDF)

[WildCat]

QUOTE

There were 99 passenger elevators in each tower, arranged in three vertical zones to move occupants in stages to skylobbies on the 44th and 78th floors. These were arranged as express (generally larger cars that moved at higher speeds) and local elevators in an innovative system first introduced in WTC 1 and WTC 2. There were 8 express elevators from the concourse to the 44th floor and 10 express elevators from the concourse to the 78th floor as well as 24 local elevators per zone, which served groups of floors in those zones. There were seven freight elevators, only one of which served all floors. All elevators had been upgraded to incorporate firefighter emergency operation per American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) A17.1 and Local Law 5 (1973)(NIST NCSTAR 1-1, p.50 - PDF)
And did any elevators share the same shaft KreeL?

[phunk]

There were seven freight elevators, only one of which served all floors.

Do you think the freight elevators that served the upper floors didn't go all the way down to the basement?

[KreeL]

What destroyed the WTC1 lobby? When Naudet arrived within minutes with his camera it recorded destruction in the lobby. A fireball? through the closed elevator doors? He pans over to the elevators and there isn't any fireball evidence at all. A first responder compared the lobby damage to the sublevel explosion back in '93. 20 eyewitnesses describe an explosion in the sublevels to the 911 Commission, yet all their testimony doesn't make the book.

So what was the purpose of the explosion in the sublevel?

[Dog Town]

So the elevator shafts travel from the top all the way to the sublevel? Burning jet fuel traveled nearly a quarter mile through two fire floors, over and around the elevators, and exploded with enough force in the basement to cause all the damage witnessed by those in the sublevels?:confused:

Probably, with an assist from a falling elevator car!
For an elevator’s cables to be cut and result in dropping the car to the bottom of the shaft, the cables would need to have been in the aircraft impact debris path, floors 93 through 98 in WTC 1 or floors 78 through 83 in WTC 2. Inspection of the elevator riser diagram and architectural floor plans for WTC 1 shows that the following elevators met these criteria: cars 81 through 86 (Bank B) and 87 through 92 (Bank C), local cars in Zone III; car 50, the freight elevator, and car 6, the Zone III shuttle. … Cars 6 and 50 could have fallen all the way to the pit in the sub-basement level, and car 50 in WTC 1 was reported to have done so. http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-7.pdf(PDF pg. 160)
http://911stories.googlepages.com/wtcelevatorshafts

[tfk]

Steve,

Let me get this straight..."jet fuel explosion in the basement"?

Really?

So when the plane crashed into the 93rd floor the jet fuel survived that big fireball, then it managed to find it's way all the way down into the basement through 93+ floors AND travel backwards in time while it's at it (because the explosions in the basement were heard before the plane impact) and then somehow ignited when it reached the basement?

Is that it? And no this is not an exaggeration of what you are saying, because this is what had to have happened for a "jet fuel explosion in the basement"

.
There were numerous accounts of the strong odor of jet fuel in the lobby. And of one elevator door being "blown out".

Clearly these fumes were not there prior to the impact. Otherwise, there would have been numerous calls to maintenance and the fire department reporting the smell of "gasoline or something like that" by those who don't know the smell of jet fuel.

If it made it to the Lobby as is well-documented, the fuel has made it AT LEAST 75/80ths of the way to the sub-basement. In concentrations high enough to still be explosive to something as sturdy as an elevator door.

I admit that it is surprising to me that this happened too. I long ago reached the point of realizing that the problem is not that the fuel reached the lobby. The problem is that I never ran into a situation that gave me the ability to accurately judge the probability for this sequence of events.

Being a very strong believer in "cause & effect", I see a plane crash into a building, and hear that - moments later - doors are blown off in the lobby & lots of people smell jet fuel, I tend to connect the two events.

And say to myself, "Tom, unexpected things happen."

That's just me...

tom

[WildCat]

What destroyed the WTC1 lobby? When Naudet arrived within minutes with his camera it recorded destruction in the lobby. A fireball? through the closed elevator doors? He pans over to the elevators and there isn't any fireball evidence at all. A first responder compared the lobby damage to the sublevel explosion back in '93. 20 eyewitnesses describe an explosion in the sublevels to the 911 Commission, yet all their testimony doesn't make the book.
Yes, a fireball through the elevator doors. Caused by jet fuel, the smell of which was overpowering. You do know that many people reportred smelling the fuel don't you?

So what was the purpose of the explosion in the sublevel?
It had no purpose. It was a by-product of airplanes loaded with fuel flying into the building.

Have you figured out the elevator shaft dynamics yet?

[KreeL]

So how did it 'get there' before the plane impact above?

[WildCat]

So how did it 'get there' before the plane impact above?
It didn't.

[KreeL]

Yes, a fireball through the elevator doors. Caused by jet fuel, the smell of which was overpowering. You do know that many people reportred smelling the fuel don't you?


It had no purpose. It was a by-product of airplanes loaded with fuel flying into the building.

Have you figured out the elevator shaft dynamics yet?

http://science.howstuffworks.com/question730.htm

I guess you don't understand elevators.

[Dog Town]

So how did it 'get there' before the plane impact above?

This would be better and on topic, in this thread.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=92099&highlight=elevators

[KreeL]

Can't any of you hypothesize why they would set off explosions in the sublevels roughly timed to the plane impact?

[Heiwa]

Funny how this thread goes on without me. Well, I was busy with a funny presentation for my kids' shows that you can study at
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/funnym.htm . Comments are always welcome.

[WildCat]

http://science.howstuffworks.com/question730.htm

I guess you don't understand elevators.
What does that link have to do with the shafts?

[WildCat]

Can't any of you hypothesize why they would set off explosions in the sublevels roughly timed to the plane impact?
:rolleyes:

[FineWine]

Random explosion? Were all the explosions witnessed simply random? How do you conclude that?


The random explosions didn't do anything. Explosions caused by explosives placed by demolition professionals do a bit more. I wonder why you won't explain the connection between the explosion in the basement and the collapse of the building an hour later.

[leftysergeant]

Funny how this thread goes on without me. Well, I was busy with a funny presentation for my kids' shows that you can study at
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/funnym.htm . Comments are always welcome.

That it survives without you may be in part a function of the intelligence of your input.

Now that you are back, start explaining why the top of the Balzac-Vitry building did not either bounce off or arrrest.

[leftysergeant]

Can't any of you hypothesize why they would set off explosions in the sublevels roughly timed to the plane impact?
No. It would not maketactical sense to do so.

That the spires existed and the towers did not topple shows clearly that there was no damage done to the cores, so we can probably rule out that they werte demolition charges.

They also suck as anti-personnel charges. They went off too soon to draw a crowd.

As a soldier and a fire fighter, given two scenarios, one predictable, one utterly Kafkaesque, I have to assume that the more predictable scenario was the one that was running.

Occam's razor and all that.

[Heiwa]

That it survives without you may be in part a function of the intelligence of your input.

Now that you are back, start explaining why the top of the Balzac-Vitry building did not either bounce off or arrrest.

You have to refer to Experiment 3 in my latest paper. The top part of the Balzac-Vitry building is the first to get destroyed at contact with the lower part after a several storeys 'near freefall' due to controlled demolition of intermediate storeys between top/bottom parts. Compare WTC 7!

[Dave Rogers]

Can't any of you hypothesize why they would set off explosions in the sublevels roughly timed to the plane impact?

That's the job of people constructing insane fantasies. Care to take a shot yourself? You see, we've got a hypothesis that explains the basement explosions; you're the one who hasn't.

Dave

[KreeL]

The random explosions didn't do anything. Explosions caused by explosives placed by demolition professionals do a bit more. I wonder why you won't explain the connection between the explosion in the basement and the collapse of the building an hour later.

You can't think of anything?

What if the explosion timed to coincide with the impact was only there to clear out the workers? They all left, did they not? Workers in the sublevels reported massive smoke and failing lights. They immediately evacuated.

A team of black ops take that opportunity to wrap the thermite cutting charges around the last remaining obstacles they faced --47 exposed cores at the bottom. The one thing they couldn't do without raising suspicion in the weeks leading up to 9/11.

Actually a pretty good plan.

[Dave Rogers]

A team of black ops take that opportunity to wrap the thermite cutting charges around the last remaining obstacles they faced --47 exposed cores at the bottom. The one thing they couldn't do without raising suspicion in the weeks leading up to 9/11.

That would be the ones that were left standing after the collapse, right? Maybe the thermite wasn't nano enough.

Dave

[stateofgrace]

You can't think of anything?

What if the explosion timed to coincide with the impact was only there to clear out the workers? They all left, did they not? Workers in the sublevels reported massive smoke and failing lights. They immediately evacuated.

A team of black ops take that opportunity to wrap the thermite cutting charges around the last remaining obstacles they faced --47 exposed cores at the bottom. The one thing they couldn't do without raising suspicion in the weeks leading up to 9/11.

Actually a pretty good plan.

Great plan.

So a black ops team planted explosives in the basement to clear the basement so a black ops team could……………plant more explosives in the basement.

:con2:

[KreeL]

A device in the sublevel area remotely detonated would assure evacuation. That wouldn't be much of a problem. Would it?

[stateofgrace]

A device in the sublevel area remotely detonated would assure evacuation. That wouldn't be much of a problem. Would it?

No Problem at all. So let we get this straight you reckon that a black op team planted a remotely detonated device in the sub level of each tower to clear this level so another black op team could rush in, once each plane had hit and plant more explosives on the core in the basement.

Since each building started to collapse many stories above at the point of impact and parts of each core actually survived the collapse, what exactly was the point of all this ?

[leftysergeant]

What if the explosion timed to coincide with the impact was only there to clear out the workers? They all left, did they not?

No. They were looking for co-workers, if they still had their wits about them. And then they had the fire department coming into the building because they knew that there was no immediate reason to evacuate the basement. They would, on hearing of the damage in the basement, have sent teams down there to look for further casualties.


After making a sweep of the area to ensure that everyone was out, they would not have let some bunch of dorks take a load of undisclosed whater down into the basement Your scenario makes no tactical sense.

[WildCat]

Your scenario makes no tactical sense.
It makes no sense of any kind.

[WildCat]

So KreeL, have you discovered yet how many of the the elevator shafts actually all the way to the top, even if the elevators themselves didn't? How the elevators were stacked on top of each other in the same shaft?

[FineWine]

You can't think of anything?

What if the explosion timed to coincide with the impact was only there to clear out the workers? They all left, did they not? Workers in the sublevels reported massive smoke and failing lights. They immediately evacuated.

A team of black ops take that opportunity to wrap the thermite cutting charges around the last remaining obstacles they faced --47 exposed cores at the bottom. The one thing they couldn't do without raising suspicion in the weeks leading up to 9/11.

Actually a pretty good plan.


Yeah, a "team of black ops" rushes into a building to do something with imaginary "thermite cutting charges." An hour later, the building collapses from the floors hit by the plane. I can see you've put a lot of thought into this stuff. When do you figure out that 9/11 was not an inside job?

[FineWine]

No Problem at all. So let we get this straight you reckon that a black op team planted a remotely detonated device in the sub level of each tower to clear this level so another black op team could rush in, once each plane had hit and plant more explosives on the core in the basement.

Since each building started to collapse many stories above at the point of impact and parts of each core actually survived the collapse, what exactly was the point of all this ?


He's having a little problem connecting the jet fuel explosion in the basement with the eventual collapse of the building.

[beachnut]

...
A team of black ops take that opportunity to wrap the thermite cutting charges around the last remaining obstacles they faced --47 exposed cores at the bottom. The one thing they couldn't do without raising suspicion in the weeks leading up to 9/11.

Actually a pretty good plan.
Dirt dumb nut case plan. Your attempt to apologize for terrorist is sophomoric. Failure. At least you stated an scenario! good for you



The collapse was from the top, not the bottom. You know the topic sort of.

[leftysergeant]

This whacky theory of charges placed in the lower levels to cause an evacuation is even more stupid when you consider that there had to have been huge containers of Class A accelerants of some sort placed in the elevator shafts to produce the effects observed, such as the massive burns to most of the victims in that area.

[Heiwa]

Suggest this thread is being Moderated to get back to topic!

[beachnut]

Suggest this thread is being Moderated to get back to topic!
Why, the OP is dirt dumb and makes no sense? WTC1 and WTC2 fell due to impacts, fire and gravity. You make up stupid statements and fail to prove me wrong and even deny aircraft were involved. The OP is a failure like all your work on 911. You can't get published in a journal with the tripe you peddle.

You are proved wrong twice 7 years, 7 months and 21 days ago. That is failure before the fact.

[TheRedWorm]

That doesn't address the issue of scale. Think about it this way: If I throw a bullet at a watermelon, what happens? Now what happens when I fire a bullet at the same melon? Remember, the only difference in my example is scale.
Is scale important in the way physical reality operates, "heiwa," yes or no?

Maybe KreeL could take a shot at this, too.

[KreeL]

What does that link have to do with the shafts?

Dogtown - "Probably, with an assist from a falling elevator car!"

If you thought I was replying to you, I can only take your ilk one at a time.

As for shafts, there were only 3 that went from the impact zone all the way to the bottom.

What you should explain is a roaring fireball traveling downward through a shaft for apx. 1/4 mile not snuffing itself out from lack of oxygen and retaining enough energy to blow up the sublevel and damage the lobby.

I'll wait for your reply, wildcat.

As this thread got off topic while Heiwa was gone, I will resume it in another thread so his can continue on topic.

[Dog Town]

As this thread got off topic while Heiwa was gone, I will resume it in another thread so his can continue on topic.

Psst over here...


http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=92099

[WildCat]

Dogtown - "Probably, with an assist from a falling elevator car!"

If you thought I was replying to you, I can only take your ilk one at a time.
I thought you were replying to me because you quoted me. :rolleyes:

As for shafts, there were only 3 that went from the impact zone all the way to the bottom.
There were actually 6 that went from the 78th floor to the ground level, and those were quite big and multiple elevators used them.

Glad to see you acknowledge that there was a way for fuel to get from the impact zone to the lobby and basement.

What you should explain is a roaring fireball traveling downward through a shaft for apx. 1/4 mile not snuffing itself out from lack of oxygen and retaining enough energy to blow up the sublevel and damage the lobby.
So close, and yet so far you are.

The fireball used up all the oxygen shortly after impact. This left a lot of fuel - most of it in fact - unburned and free to flow down the elevator shafts. It didn't just go down one shaft either, but multiple ones. It then ignited in the shafts, and quite explosively. Multiple people reported smelling fuel in the lobby and basement levels.

This is understood by every actual expert on the planet and most lay people as well. Truthers, OTOH, are unable to comprehend such basic things such as the fact that fuel needs oxygen to ignite.

[Typicallucas]

Heiwa,

Do you mean to say that you don't think the building would have fallen straight down, but would have fallen over?

I apologize if you have already explained this, I didn't read the entire thread and I couldn't figure it out from the link in your OP.

[Heiwa]

Heiwa,

Do you mean to say that you don't think the building would have fallen straight down, but would have fallen over?

I apologize if you have already explained this, I didn't read the entire thread and I couldn't figure it out from the link in your OP.

Please read tha title of this thread and post #1.

[beachnut]

Heiwa,

Do you mean to say that you don't think the building would have fallen straight down, but would have fallen over?

I apologize if you have already explained this, I didn't read the entire thread and I couldn't figure it out from the link in your OP.
He is saying the buildings can't fall even if you drop the top section from 2 miles up onto the bottom section.

He is saying the WTC can't fall down due to impacts, fire and gravity unlike the chief structural engineer who built the towers says they did.

He has zero ability to understand gravity, he welds ships and has a delusional web page.

He can't explain his delusions he will tell you to read the OP; which makes no sense anyway, but he has no clue.

[ozeco41]

Heiwa,

Do you mean to say that you don't think the building would have fallen straight down, but would have fallen over?

I apologize if you have already explained this, I didn't read the entire thread and I couldn't figure it out from the link in your OP.

The Topic Title is undefined as to what it means.
The key phrase in the OP is:...However, the one-way crush down process is not possible under any circumstances...

Now you have to choose whether or not you want to apply this to the collapses at the WTC on 9/11 because there are two (at least) possible contexts for Heiwa's poorly defined topic.

Context One: Global Context
If you take the statement as being global with no limit to WTC only it is a false claim. Such has been demonstrated many times. It is not GLOBALLY true and Heiwa has made multiple qualifications, limitations and equivocations on that scope in an attempt to limit the statement to situations where it may be true OR to avoid debate of the flaws in the statement.

Context Two: Limited to WTC Collapses on 9/11.
The use of the word "crush" is misleading and ambiguous. The WTC collapses were not "crush down" in any rational meaning of the word. They all occurred by selective removal of structural elements out of load bearing roles OR of weakening of those elements. The mechanisms overall were not "crush down" at the overall structural level though some component parts would have been subjected to crushing.

So the OP title and OP itself are ambiguous or undefined.

We can only surmise as to the reason - the posting member Heiwa has many times been advised of the true situation and the many faults in his suggestions whether global or related to WTC 9/11.

[Typicallucas]

My question was not answered, Heiwa. I didn't read the whole thread, but I did read the first few pages including the title and the OP.

Do you mean to say that you don't think the building would have fallen straight down, but would have fallen over?

[Heiwa]

My question was not answered, Heiwa. I didn't read the whole thread, but I did read the first few pages including the title and the OP.

Do you mean to say that you don't think the building would have fallen straight down, but would have fallen over?

If you read the link in post #1 you see that I don't think the building would have fallen down ... or over for that matter. The lower part of the building will simply damage the part above dropping down on it and arrest it. It happens every time.

Just go up to the top of any building and drop something on it. It is quite safe! The building will not collapse.

[FineWine]

If you read the link in post #1 you see that I don't think the building would have fallen down ... or over for that matter. The lower part of the building will simply damage the part above dropping down on it and arrest it. It happens every time.

Just go up to the top of any building and drop something on it. It is quite safe! The building will not collapse.


It's amazing that you never move past square one. Is dropping a bag of potato chips on the building the same as dropping a smaller building one-third as big as the first one? In both cases, the crush-up equals the crush-down.

The bag of chips will not cause a collapse. The smaller building will.

[Typicallucas]

Bolding mine
If you read the link in post #1 you see that I don't think the building would have fallen down ... or over for that matter. The lower part of the building will simply damage the part above dropping down on it and arrest it. It happens every time.

Just go up to the top of any building and drop something on it. It is quite safe! The building will not collapse.

Live and dead loads will flatten any building provided the force is large enough. Examples: Royal Plaza Hotel, Thailand 1993 / Sampoong Department Store, S. Korea 1995 / 11-story apt bldg, Konya Turkey 2004 / 12-story building, Alexandria Egypt 2007. All of them collapsed under their own weight. If you dropped a bowl of cereal on these buildings just before their collapse that might have triggered the failure.

I work with the engineering and construction industry and I can tell you that for every high-rise building there needs to be a lot of structural engineering using advanced software to make sure that the building will be able to withstand the dead-load, live-load, seismic, sheer, wind, roof loads, and other forces.

These buildings are engineered to withstand a certain percentage over the maximum forces they are expected to be subjected to and meant to have redundant support systems in case part of the building fails. But any building will be destroyed if subjected to enough force.

Buildings aren't special things that can withstand any force applied in a downward direction. I think you should revise your position to state "a building won't fall unless it is bearing a load greater than it has the capacity to support."

Then show that the force exerted by the sagging structure on the weakened structural members in the WTC towers wasn't great enough to cause a collapse. I think that you have jumped to an unfounded conclusion here, I don't see adequate evidence to support your claim.

[TheRedWorm]

That doesn't address the issue of scale. Think about it this way: If I throw a bullet at a watermelon, what happens? Now what happens when I fire a bullet at the same melon? Remember, the only difference in my example is scale.
Is scale important in the way physical reality operates, "heiwa," yes or no?

No more games, coward.

[Heiwa]

Buildings aren't special things that can withstand any force applied in a downward direction. I think you should revise your position to state "a building won't fall unless it is bearing a load greater than it has the capacity to support."

Then show that the force exerted by the sagging structure on the weakened structural members in the WTC towers wasn't great enough to cause a collapse. I think that you have jumped to an unfounded conclusion here, I don't see adequate evidence to support your claim.

Topic is a one-way crush down - small part C of structure crushing big part A below and if that can destroy a composite steel structure from top down. In my view it is not possible. A will destroy C! That flimsy buildings collapse for other reasons is not the topic.

[Typicallucas]

You seem to approach this like it is as simple as A is bigger and stronger than C so it will win in a fight.

Regardless of your view. Tens of thousands of tons of C dropping 3.7m had more than enough energy to overwhelm and defeat the integrity of A. Until you or someone else can provide credible evidence that there is a different cause for the collapse this remains the case.

In my view you should be more prudent when espousing opinions about something that has been covered by many competent engineers in applicable fields. Your defiant stance against the expert consensus while not having much to back it up except for musings and intuition is unflattering.

The other collapses are related to this topic. They failed because the load on the structure was greater than it could support. They all failed suddenly and completely. When the load (in the case of the WTC the uneven distribution of thousands of kg falling onto bent and broken supports) became greater than the structure could bear there was a chain of failures throughout the whole structure leading to complete collapse.

If you dropped a pack of playing cards from 3.7m onto a house of cards made out of 5 decks of playing cards. Do you think the "crush-down" would be equal to the "crush-up?" (4/5 of the house would remain standing.)

If you dropped 50 jenga blocks from 3.7m on a replica of the tower of pisa made out of jenga blocks. Do you think the "crush-down" would be equal to the "crush-up?" (all but 50 blocks still standing.)

If you dropped an aquarium from 3.7m onto the roof of the Empire State Building, the aquarium would be infinitely more "crushed" than the building. You could drop aquariums on the roof at a rate of 1000 per minute for the next 100 years and you would never see an equal amount of crushing of the building.

If we dropped a 1 story house on my 3 story house from 3.7m would you feel safe on the 2nd floor of my house during the experiment?

This whole idea of "crush-down = crush-up" is totally made up nonsense and doesn't apply to collapsing buildings.

[Heiwa]

1. You seem to approach this like it is as simple as A is bigger and stronger than C so it will win in a fight.

2. Regardless of your view. Tens of thousands of tons of C dropping 3.7m had more than enough energy to overwhelm and defeat the integrity of A. Until you or someone else can provide credible evidence that there is a different cause for the collapse this remains the case.

3. This whole idea of "crush-down = crush-up" is totally made up nonsense and doesn't apply to collapsing buildings.

1. Well, having investigated 100+ ship collisions it seems the bigger object A always wins. Compare little Titanic (C) with the big iceberg (A), etc.

2. No, hundred thousands of tons of A structure easily overwhelm and defeat the integrity of C structure. Iceberg (A) defeating (C) is a good example.

3. Pls inform Prof. Bazant & Co, and NIST. I fully agree.

Thanks for your comments.

[gmarshall]

2. No, hundred thousands of tons of A structure easily overwhelm and defeat the integrity of C structure. Iceberg (A) defeating (C) is a good example.

Thanks for your comments.

The difference is that the falling portion of the building (C) only needs to retain its mass and velocity to continue to destroy the larger undamaged portion of the building (A). It is unimportant whether (C) remains as an intact and usable office space. It progressively destroys (A) while becoming more massive and gaining more velocity. C need not destroy A in one instant, just floor by floor.

Alignment with gravity is an important distinction between falling buildings and ship/icebergs collisions.

[aggle-rithm]

1. Well, having investigated 100+ ship collisions it seems the bigger object A always wins. Compare little Titanic (C) with the big iceberg (A), etc.

2. No, hundred thousands of tons of A structure easily overwhelm and defeat the integrity of C structure. Iceberg (A) defeating (C) is a good example.

3. Pls inform Prof. Bazant & Co, and NIST. I fully agree.

Thanks for your comments.

Congratulations, you have just become the poster child for the folly of trying to make bold statements on subjects outside your area of expertise.

[Heiwa]

The difference is that the falling portion of the building (C) only needs to retain its mass and velocity to continue to destroy the larger undamaged portion of the building (A). It is unimportant whether (C) remains as an intact and usable office space. It progressively destroys (A) while becoming more massive and gaining more velocity. C need not destroy A in one instant, just floor by floor.

Alignment with gravity is an important distinction between falling buildings and ship/icebergs collisions.

Evidently C will always retain its mass but, in contact with A, at any velocity, A will start to shred this mass C into small pieces and decelarate and stop/arrest them. This happens at any collision small C against big A.

And it is evidently not unimportant. It is the simpe reason why C cannot progressively destroy big A.

Please, do not believe that little C becomes more massive while gaining velocity! This is just preached by religious fundamentalists and their associated engineers and physicians and politicians supporting OTC.

Do you suggest that Titanic and its engine (providing the force! - like gravity and properly aligned), part C, would just slice through the ice berg A?

[aggle-rithm]

Evidently C will always retain its mass but, in contact with A, at any velocity, A will start to shred this mass C into small pieces and decelarate and stop/arrest them. This happens at any collision small C against big A.

And it is evidently not unimportant. It is the simpe reason why C cannot progressively destroy big A.

Please, do not believe that little C becomes more massive while gaining velocity! This is just preached by religious fundamentalists and their associated engineers and physicians and politicians supporting OTC.

Do you suggest that Titanic and its engine (providing the force! - like gravity and properly aligned), part C, would just slice through the ice berg A?

Wow. You'd better get a handle on that analogy before it rages out of control.

[beachnut]

1. Well, having investigated 100+ ship collisions it seems the bigger object A always wins. Compare little Titanic (C) with the big iceberg (A), etc.

2. No, hundred thousands of tons of A structure easily overwhelm and defeat the integrity of C structure. Iceberg (A) defeating (C) is a good example. ...
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/shipskyscraper.jpg
Heiwa never welded in the z-plane.


A new approach to science, the "delusional method of ignoring gravity" - Heiwa Axiom.

Proved wrong twice on 911 our ship welder makes delusional axioms to support his theory of no planes, no gravity, no buildings can collapse even if you drop the upper section from 2 miles.

What do you call these failed statements? He never showed a momentum model to back up his stupid axiom. If he could do physics he would not be making up insane claims.

Did anyone tell him a single floor in the WTC can only hold 25,000,000 pounds? He doesn't use pounds? Lack of knowledge of the structure may be his major problem along with his lack of understanding of gravity.

With over 60,000,000 pounds of stuff above the lower section and more than 11 floors, all we need to have failure of the lower floor is 11 floors gently placed with zero impact on the lower floor and we have the lower floor instantly failing going to the next floor. This means there is nothing holding the shell to the core for the space of two floors and we still have part C coming down with over 60 million pounds of weight zipping apart the building and the floors can't even hold the weight as the building is destroyed. The strength of the WTC depends on the floors being attached to the shell and core and on 911 this was compromised by impacts and fires.

Heiwa axiom is clearly see by anyone who understand physics as an insane hand-waving rant based on biased junk Heiwa can't express, just anti-intellectual tripe he can't model or understand due to his 2-D water world experience welding boats.

When will you show us your rejection letter for your paper? When will you contact Robertson with your work for his comment?

[Typicallucas]

Heiwa,

Last time I checked gravity didn't accelerating ships at sea toward each other. Also, the last 100 or so ships I've seen haven't been anchored to a concrete foundation.

When we start use ships at sea for our office buildings, we'll come ask you for your opinion on collisions.

[Heiwa]

Heiwa,

Last time I checked gravity didn't accelerating ships at sea toward each other. Also, the last 100 or so ships I've seen haven't been anchored to a concrete foundation.

When we start use ships at sea for our office buildings, we'll come ask you for your opinion on collisions.

Just replace gravity by an engine/propeller you'll understand. A part C dropping/colliding vertically with a big part A is driven/accelerated by gravity; a ship C (Titanic?) colliding horizontally (with an ice berg A?) is driven/accelerated by an engine/propeller. No big difference actually. All explained at my excellent web page http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm .

In neither case little C one-way crushes down part A.

What fundamentalist sect do you belong to?

[six7s]

2. No, hundred thousands of tons of A structure easily overwhelm and defeat the integrity of C structure. Iceberg (A) defeating (C) is a good example.This reminds me of the Irresistible Force Paradox:
What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?
In this scenario, we have the Unrelenting Delusion Dilemma:
What happens when structurally weak arguments of an unrelenting delusion collides with the cold hard facts and universal constants of reality?
The answer: EPIC FAIL
http://tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:A4eGZzDo5DJQOM:http://www.shipmentoffail.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/hurdlefail.jpg (http://www.shipmentoffail.com/fails/2008/01/hurdle-fail/)

[twinstead]

What fundamentalist sect do you belong to?

It is rather silly for one in the very tiny minority to ask that question to one in the majority opinion. You appear to be the cult member here, not us.

[phunk]

Just replace gravity by an engine/propeller you'll understand. A part C dropping/colliding vertically with a big part A is driven/accelerated by gravity; a ship C (Titanic?) colliding horizontally (with an ice berg A?) is driven/accelerated by an engine/propeller. No big difference actually.

Huge difference actually. The propeller is only pushing on one part of the ship, and parts that break free are no longer being pushed. Gravity is pulling on all parts of both sections of the building, in the same direction (down). When a part breaks free, it's still being pulled downward and still applying load to the top of part A.

[WildCat]

Just replace gravity by an engine/propeller you'll understand. A part C dropping/colliding vertically with a big part A is driven/accelerated by gravity; a ship C (Titanic?) colliding horizontally (with an ice berg A?) is driven/accelerated by an engine/propeller. No big difference actually. All explained at my excellent web page http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm .

In neither case little C one-way crushes down part A.

What fundamentalist sect do you belong to?
Heiwa, how can a sabot round weighing less than 11 pounds destroy a tank weighing over 40 tons?

[aggle-rithm]

Just replace gravity by an engine/propeller you'll understand.

One that accelerates at 32 feet/sec/sec?

Do they make those now?

[Typicallucas]

Just replace gravity by an engine/propeller you'll understand. A part C dropping/colliding vertically with a big part A is driven/accelerated by gravity; a ship C (Titanic?) colliding horizontally (with an ice berg A?) is driven/accelerated by an engine/propeller. No big difference actually. All explained at my excellent web page http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm .

In neither case little C one-way crushes down part A.

What fundamentalist sect do you belong to?

No big difference? Your willful ignorance is laughable.

Your theory is absolutely ridiculous and without the slightest merit. I would describe your web page as the rantings of a misinformed armchair structural engineer using hand-waving physics. Ignoring challenging questions, accusing me of being part of a fundamentalist sect, and your inability to explain your position clearly shows that you are unable to defend your assertion.

If you had half a brain you would know that ships are not buildings and propellers are not gravity. You would also know that intuition, assumptions, and conspiracy thinking do not constitute scholarship.

[Heiwa]

One that accelerates at 32 feet/sec/sec?

Do they make those now?

Well, the ship in port has velocity 0 and at sea velocity X! So to change velocity from 0 to X you have to accelerate the ship and often a propeller is used for that. Ship also meets resistance so at all times equilibrium is maintained by the forces.
Same applies for airplanes with props or jet engines or rockets of all kinds. To get to the moon you have to accelerate > g. Quite basic actually.

[six7s]

Well, the ship in port has velocity 0 and at sea velocity X! So to change velocity from 0 to X you have to accelerate the ship and often a propeller is used for that. Ship also meets resistance so at all times equilibrium is maintained by the forces.
Same applies for airplanes with props or jet engines or rockets of all kinds. To get to the moon you have to accelerate > g. Quite basic actually.Sincere question:

Heiwa, have you ever paddled a boat, kayak, or similar by hand?

I ask because it seems to me that what you think/believe is so inconsistent with reality that you don't even begin to grasp let alone understand any of the fundamental forces

If you were John the Baptist, it wouldn't be that your unworthy to wash some socks by night (or whatever it was he did), you wouldn't be able to fill a bucket with water

[gmarshall]

Evidently C will always retain its mass but, in contact with A, at any velocity, A will start to shred this mass C into small pieces and decelarate and stop/arrest them. This happens at any collision small C against big A.

And it is evidently not unimportant. It is the simpe reason why C cannot progressively destroy big A.

Please, do not believe that little C becomes more massive while gaining velocity! This is just preached by religious fundamentalists and their associated engineers and physicians and politicians supporting OTC.

Do you suggest that Titanic and its engine (providing the force! - like gravity and properly aligned), part C, would just slice through the ice berg A?

Would you agree that when C impacts A after a fall of some distance, that parts of both A and C would be damaged to the point where they no longer can carry loads or are totally dislodged from the building? Any loose components of C would lose some kinetic energy due to momentum transfer but would continue to fall due to gravity. Any part of A that is dislodged from the undamaged section of the building would also fall due to gravity wither adding to the mass of C or being ejected over the side. As falling C only needs to damage the load bearing capacity of the structure at the A-C interface, it really isn’t a battle of small C vs. large A but a battle of small C versus a large number of very small structural connections.

Heiwa,
Could you do me a favor and pretend that I’ve convinced you that the WTC could actually collapse from fire and impact damage. It would go a long way towards raising my status here on the forum and would be a nice change from all the back and forth. If you’d like to back slide in a page or two, that would be fine.
G

[aggle-rithm]

Quite basic actually.

This describes perfectly your understanding of the natural world. It is why you fail.

[Heiwa]

Would you agree that when C impacts A after a fall of some distance, that parts of both A and C would be damaged to the point where they no longer can carry loads or are totally dislodged from the building? Any loose components of C would lose some kinetic energy due to momentum transfer but would continue to fall due to gravity. Any part of A that is dislodged from the undamaged section of the building would also fall due to gravity wither adding to the mass of C or being ejected over the side. As falling C only needs to damage the load bearing capacity of the structure at the A-C interface, it really isn’t a battle of small C vs. large A but a battle of small C versus a large number of very small structural connections.

Heiwa,
Could you do me a favor and pretend that I’ve convinced you that the WTC could actually collapse from fire and impact damage. It would go a long way towards raising my status here on the forum and would be a nice change from all the back and forth. If you’d like to back slide in a page or two, that would be fine.
G

G, 12 posts since 11/06 and you worry about your status at JREF!? LOL.

YES, I agree that weak elements in both parts C and A will fail unless both just deform elastically and C bounces. So what happens then? With the strong elements!
Well, the strong elements will continue to damage weak elements as long as they can do it. What does it mean?

The strong elements are evidently the columns - they carry the weak elements - the floors. But the strong elements can only carry out their jobs as long as the are connected to ... weak elements.

And as A>10C soon the strong elemenets of C are not strong any longer, i.e. when A strong elements (columns) have destroyed the weak elements of C.

At that time the destruction is arrested ... if not before. Quite basic, actually. I have described it at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm . And nobody seems to be able to debunk it.

Bazant, NIST, FEMA, &c, suggest that one weak element in C - its lowest floor - can one-way crush down everything below, i.e. part A, while C remains intact above. Utter nonsense, absurd religious, fundamentalist beliefs, sectarian bla, bla.

[Heiwa]

Sincere question:

Heiwa, have you ever paddled a boat, kayak, or similar by hand?

I ask because it seems to me that what you think/believe is so inconsistent with reality that you don't even begin to grasp let alone understand any of the fundamental forces.



Yes, I have paddled a boat by hand using a paddle. Next question, pls! Keep on topic, though.

[aggle-rithm]

Yes, I have paddled a boat by hand using a paddle. Next question, pls! Keep on topic, though.

I think the fact that you missed the point of the question, or pretended to miss the point, is very telling.

I think that a better analogue to gravity would be an industrial press rather than a propeller or a paddle. Gravity doesn't just push or pull an object at a single contact point, it acts on the entire mass of the object. The press doesn't really do this either, but it comes far closer than a propeller does.

Before you come back with some absurd response such as, "An industrial press couldn't crush an iceberg!", keep in mind that it also doesn't accelerate continuously and gain more mass/force as it crushes things.

Also keep in mind that a building is far more fragile than either an iceberg or an ocean liner, since it is neither a solid block of matter nor is it designed to move from place to place.

Perhaps it would be better if we dropped these inappropriate analogues altogether and tried to learn more about physics.

[FineWine]

G, 12 posts since 11/06 and you worry about your status at JREF!? LOL.

YES, I agree that weak elements in both parts C and A will fail unless both just deform elastically and C bounces. So what happens then? With the strong elements!
Well, the strong elements will continue to damage weak elements as long as they can do it. What does it mean?

The strong elements are evidently the columns - they carry the weak elements - the floors. But the strong elements can only carry out their jobs as long as the are connected to ... weak elements.

And as A>10C soon the strong elemenets of C are not strong any longer, i.e. when A strong elements (columns) have destroyed the weak elements of C.

At that time the destruction is arrested ... if not before. Quite basic, actually. I have described it at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm . And nobody seems to be able to debunk it.

Bazant, NIST, FEMA, &c, suggest that one weak element in C - its lowest floor - can one-way crush down everything below, i.e. part A, while C remains intact above. Utter nonsense, absurd religious, fundamentalist beliefs, sectarian bla, bla.


How can you possibly pretend that anyone is suggesting that only the lowest floor and not the entire collapsing mass is crushing the floors below? You think that anybody maintains that C remains intact? You must be kidding. You grossly distort what actual scientists and engineers are saying and then you rave about "fundamentalist" beliefs?? What is your problem?

[Heiwa]

Gravity doesn't just push or pull an object at a single contact point, it acts on the entire mass of the object.

Well, the propulsive force provided by the propeller acts on the whole ship mass. That's why the ship mass accelerates. And sometimes collides! Not easy to stop a moving ship with a propller.

Funnily enough, the propeller also acts on the water! It is accelerated in the opposite direction by the propeller.

Read my papers and you'll learn something about physics.

[Heiwa]

How can you possibly pretend that anyone is suggesting that only the lowest floor and not the entire collapsing mass is crushing the floors below? You think that anybody maintains that C remains intact? You must be kidding. You grossly distort what actual scientists and engineers are saying and then you rave about "fundamentalist" beliefs?? What is your problem?

??? But this is what experts like Bazant and Seffen suggest. And NIST!

They do not realise that upper part C - the entire mass - has uniform density <0.2 which is that of a bale of wool! So they have to invent something very solid that can one-way crush down part A below ... and they suggest the lowest floor of part C. Very thin concrete with air above ... but you know these religious, fundamentalist freaks. They make up anything.

Then they suggest that the thin floor compresses the lower part A to rubble with uniform density about 1 - like water! And that this rubble destroys the rest of part A.

Read my paper at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm and you'll learn more.

[Heiwa]

... keep in mind that it also doesn't accelerate continuously and gain more mass/force as it crushes things.

Also keep in mind that a building is far more fragile than either an iceberg or an ocean liner, since it is neither a solid block of matter nor is it designed to move from place to place.

Perhaps it would be better if we dropped these inappropriate analogues altogether and tried to learn more about physics.

So you suggest that when a fragile top part of a building drops and impacts the building below, the top part accelerates continuosly and gain more mass/force at it crushes things?

This is the TOPIC of this thread and it is impossible. Fragile top parts just destroy themselves. Cannot crush anything! Cannot gain mass!

Gain mass? Only fatties do it by eating too much.

Sorry, read the thread from start and do not produce this type of nonsense.

[BigAl]

??? But this is what experts like Bazant and Seffen suggest. And NIST!

They do not realise that upper part C - the entire mass - has uniform density <0.2 which is that of a bale of wool!

But the "average density" for the purposes of modeling collapse progression is irrelevant and a distraction by to common sense and what I learned in Theoretical Mechanics 101, 40 years ago. Call it finite element analysis with a slide rule.

I never used my MechE course in my chosen profession but I can read papers and some make sense and some don't. What you write doesn't.

[phunk]

So you suggest that when a fragile top part of a building drops and impacts the building below, the top part accelerates continuosly

Yes, it's called GRAVITY!

and gain more mass/force at it crushes things?


Yes, every piece of A that breaks off is also accelerated by gravity!

[phunk]

Well, the propulsive force provided by the propeller acts on the whole ship mass.

No, it only puts force on the driveshaft. The only thing affecting the entire ship equally is gravity.

[aggle-rithm]

So you suggest that when a fragile top part of a building drops and impacts the building below, the top part accelerates continuosly and gain more mass/force at it crushes things?


Yes, the top part gains mass as it breaks up the bottom part, the rubble of which adds to the total moving mass.

It's easy to see from a video that this is what is happening....but then, why am I telling you? You already know this.


This is the TOPIC of this thread and it is impossible. Fragile top parts just destroy themselves. Cannot crush anything! Cannot gain mass!

Gain mass? Only fatties do it by eating too much.

Sorry, read the thread from start and do not produce this type of nonsense.

You are pretending not to understand in order to protect a cherished, if twisted, belief. I find that highly irritating. And quite sad.

Goodbye.

[Heiwa]

Yes, the top part gains mass as it breaks up the bottom part, the rubble of which adds to the total moving mass.

...

Goodbye.

Top part gains mass???? As it breaks up the bottom part? Rubble adds to the total moving mass!!!

Halleluja! You really are a religious fundamentalist of sort!

[FineWine]

Top part gains mass???? As it breaks up the bottom part? Rubble adds to the total moving mass!!!

Halleluja! You really are a religious fundamentalist of sort!


And you really can't be an engineer! Write less and read more.

[six7s]

Yes, I have paddled a boat by hand using a paddle. Next question, pls! Keep on topic, though.I have no more questions for you as it is obvious that you have both the experience AND the capacity to formulate ideas based on reality, yet you persist in posting nonsense

This suggests that you are NOT here to think and share ideas

[Typicallucas]

Your willful ignorance is laughable. Your lack of understanding is immense. Your refusal to think is saddening.

Your theory is absolutely ridiculous and without the slightest merit. You ignore challenging questions, accuse your opposition of being part of a fundamentalist sect, and your inability to explain your position suggests that you are unable to defend your assertion.

I would describe your web page as the rantings of a misinformed armchair-structural-engineer using hand-waving physics. Your theory is poorly formulated and your writing is incomprehensible. When challenged you result to name-calling and there seems to be no limit to the insane gibberish you will spew to defend your prized conspiracy theory.

Debunking your web page would require your web page to be 1) based on reality and 2) make correct use of physics. Since neither of those conditions are met, we might as well spend our time "debunking" a science fiction novel.

If you had half a brain you would know that ships are not buildings and propellers are not gravity. You would also know that intuition, assumptions, and conspiracy thinking do not constitute scholarship.

[tfk]

Well, the ship in port has velocity 0 and at sea velocity X! So to change velocity from 0 to X you have to accelerate the ship and often a propeller is used for that. Ship also meets resistance so at all times equilibrium is maintained by the forces.
Same applies for airplanes with props or jet engines or rockets of all kinds. To get to the moon you have to accelerate > g. Quite basic actually.


And your silly fiziks is WRONG too.

You don't need ANY acceleration to get to the moon. All you need is a little velocity.

Quite basic, actually.

Shame that an alleged engineer can't comprehend.
__

Your ship:building :: propeller:gravity analogy is garbage.

Unless, of course, you can show me a building in which the vertical gravity load stays constant throughout its height. And a building with a weight vector component acting, not downward, but sideways.

As proven by the fact that the bow bulkheads are not 1/2" thick while the stern bulkheads are 6" thick.

Or is this one of your ship designs that the UN won't accept...??

Evasive and willfully incompetent, Heiwa. These are not admirable qualities.

[alienentity]

I haven't checked this thread in a while, I see Heiwa still doesn't know what he's talking about.
I also see too many people sucked into engaging him. Wouldn't it make perfect sense to simply ignore him and not play into his attention seeking delusions?

[tfk]

Yeah, you're right. :o

It's tough to ignore. One doesn't expect technical people being so perversely irrational.

Ah well. A bit more discipline on my part is called for.

Thanks for the reminder.

tom

[six7s]

One doesn't expect technical people being so perversely irrationalWho is the 'technical person'?

Heiwa?:eek:

If so, why do you describe him(?) so?

[KreeL]

Heiwa is absolutely correct. The top part cannot gain mass. Period.

Faith-based science is getting ridiculous.

[six7s]

Heiwa is absolutely correct. The top part cannot gain mass. Period.

Faith-based science is getting ridiculous.
Heiwa is completely, absolutely and demonstrably wrong. The top part can gain mass. Full stop, end of paragraph, end of story.

Ignorance-based delusions are and always will be stupid.

In contrast, it is highly probable that errors made in a rigorously scientific investigation will - by definition - be identified, acknowledged and corrected

[KreeL]

The 'foot of God' theory is laughable. Good luck with that.:rolleyes:

[six7s]

The 'foot of God' theory is laughable :confused:

What is the 'foot of God' theory and what relevance, if any, does it have to this thread?

[ozeco41]

Heiwa, how can a sabot round weighing less than 11 pounds destroy a tank weighing over 40 tons?

Obviously it cannot.

See Heiwa 2009. op. cit.

The worlds military could be a tad disappointed to hear of that fact.

[twinstead]

The 'foot of God' theory is laughable. Good luck with that.:rolleyes:

So are arguments from ignorant personal incredulity. Good luck with those

[aggle-rithm]

I haven't checked this thread in a while, I see Heiwa still doesn't know what he's talking about.


I think he does know what he's talking about. He's perfectly aware that he's spouting nonsense. He's feigning ignorance because he's either seriously deluded or a troll.


I also see too many people sucked into engaging him. Wouldn't it make perfect sense to simply ignore him and not play into his attention seeking delusions?

Way ahead of you!

[aggle-rithm]

Heiwa is absolutely correct. The top part cannot gain mass. Period.


Let's define what we mean by "top part".

We mean "the part that is moving". It really isn't a single part, but the sum total of all the moving rubble.

Do you deny that there is more mass moving near the end of the collapse than at the beginning?

Most of the building is clearly not intact. If it's not moving, then where is it?

[six7s]

Most of the building is clearly not intact. If it's not moving, then where is it?Its on YouTube

[FineWine]

Heiwa is absolutely correct. The top part cannot gain mass. Period.

Faith-based science is getting ridiculous.


How would you know if he was correct or not? You cling desperately and irrationally to absurd beliefs that have been disproved a thousand times. Talk about "faith-based"!

[Heiwa]

How would you know if he was correct or not? You cling desperately and irrationally to absurd beliefs that have been disproved a thousand times. Talk about "faith-based"!

Topic is Why a one-way Crush down is not possible, and nobody seems to be able to disprove it. Religious fundamentalists of various sects however seem to believe that one-way Crush downs are normal and frequent. Asking for any evidence to support their beliefs have failed, I am happy to conclude.

[Grizzly Bear]

Topic is Why a one-way Crush down is not possible, and nobody seems to be able to disprove it.
It's impossible to disprove something that is so fundamentally flawed in the first place...

[twinstead]

Topic is Why a one-way Crush down is not possible, and nobody seems to be able to disprove it. Religious fundamentalists of various sects however seem to believe that one-way Crush downs are normal and frequent. Asking for any evidence to support their beliefs have failed, I am happy to conclude.

Keep up, Heiwa. No disrespect intended, but like any fundamentalist you are totally unaware that it has been shown to just about anybody with half a brain that you don't know what you are talking about.

I see it. Lurkers see it. Everybody sees it. The only ones who don't are YOU, and a couple other cult members who also have no idea that you actually don't have any idea what you're talking about.

This is simple; in order to hold on to your beliefs you are accusing those who hold the majority opinion of being like Religious fundamentalists when it is quite apparent that it is YOU, a member of a tiny cult in the tiny minority of opinion, who are the fundamentalist.

I don't expect you to get it.

[FineWine]

Topic is Why a one-way Crush down is not possible, and nobody seems to be able to disprove it. Religious fundamentalists of various sects however seem to believe that one-way Crush downs are normal and frequent. Asking for any evidence to support their beliefs have failed, I am happy to conclude.


Why don't you stop the childish name-calling. Not one of the engineers who correct your errors is a religious fundamentalist. They understand physics, and you don't. Your absurd beliefs have been disproved repeatedly. Whose fault is it that you can't learn from people who understand the subject better than you do?

[WildCat]

Topic is Why a one-way Crush down is not possible, and nobody seems to be able to disprove it.
The answer is in this riddle:

When is a ship not a ship?
When it's a skyscraper!



I totally stole that from Captian Obvious!

[Heiwa]

Why don't you stop the childish name-calling. Not one of the engineers who correct your errors is a religious fundamentalist. They understand physics, and you don't. Your absurd beliefs have been disproved repeatedly. Whose fault is it that you can't learn from people who understand the subject better than you do?

So you also believe (!) that a one-way Crush down is possible? Prove it, then! See The Heiwa Challenge thread for details.

[Typicallucas]

Heiwa doesn't read anything we write... I could write anything and he would never know it. Neener-neener-neener.

We should just talk amonst ourselves.

Did anybody notice this?
I am happy to conclude.
If this was a typo, it's a juicily ironic one. I think it means he's happier coming to conclusions than actually doing any thinking.

We should start a satirical fundamentalist sect, it should be called Heiwatics. We will say tons of crazy things, ignore any rational opposition completely, announce that nobody has disproven any crazy thing we've said, and repeat ourselves constantly. We'll worship the God of Feigned Ignorance and his only begotten son Personal Incredulity. We will all argue about topics that have little or nothing to do with our area of study. We will reduce all confusing detail of a complicated interaction to very simple, intuitive, generalities. We will spend our free time making websites filled with absolute gibberish and point to them as evidence for our wonky claims!

It's impossible to disprove something that is so fundamentally flawed in the first place...
I agree. The only thing I can think to do is point out the fundamental flaws.

Heiwa, how can a sabot round weighing less than 11 pounds destroy a tank weighing over 40 tons?
Ooh ooh, can I answer? Is it because the sabot round has enough kinetic energy to blast a tank apart even though the tank thousands of times more massive?

Just replace gravity by an engine/propeller you'll understand...One that accelerates at 32 feet/sec/sec?

Do they make those now?
I wonder what it would take to get a 137,000 metric ton cargo ship to accelerate that fast. How many Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne RS-68A engines would you have to use? They generate 3.11 MN of thrust... anybody good with a calculator? Figure a 15 meter draft, though after a couple of seconds the whole ship should be planing over the water.

[replying to Heiwa]And you really can't be an engineer! Write less and read more.
Nice one! I couldn't have said it better myself.

...You don't need ANY acceleration to get to the moon. All you need is a little velocity.
...
Your ship:building :: propeller:gravity analogy is garbage.
...
Evasive and willfully incompetent, Heiwa. These are not admirable qualities.
Three nice points, good work!

The 'foot of God' theory is laughable. Good luck with that.:rolleyes:
First we had "one-way crush down" and now "'foot of God' theory." Are these guys just making things up?

You know, I have seen footage of at least a dozen building demolitions, and one in person. They were all very very loud. Lots and lots of loud explosions. Heiwa and his fellow conspiracy buddies seem to think that demolition charges can go off quietly when in fact they would have been heard for the better part of a mile around. Footage of the collapse (which records sounds better than the human mind in panic) didn't record any of these sounds.

On yet another note, if I ever get this fanatical about an imaginary conspiracy theory I would hope someone would talk me down. I imagine it must be agonizingly painful to be so deluded. To be so convinced that the government would conspire to kill thousands of it's own in an act of false flag terrorism must kill any hope for humanity.

[BasqueArch]

Evidently C will always retain its mass but, in contact with A, at any velocity, A will start to shred this mass C into small pieces and decelarate and stop/arrest them. This happens at any collision small C against big A.

And it is evidently not unimportant. It is the simpe reason why C cannot progressively destroy big A.

Please, do not believe that little C becomes more massive while gaining velocity! This is just preached by religious fundamentalists and their associated engineers and physicians and politicians supporting OTC.

Do you suggest that Titanic and its engine (providing the force! - like gravity and properly aligned), part C, would just slice through the ice berg A?



"Not only it's not right, it's not even wrong." - Wolfgang Pauli

[alienentity]

Hey do any of you follow the strange antics of Dr. Judy Wood? I noticed there's nothing on recent threads about her linkage of the WTC collapses and the 'Hutchison effect'.

Personally I think she's a lot more creative than Heiwa, who seems to drone on about the same thing on thread after thread.

I don't see why Dr. Wood is being neglected so.....combining her usual dustification stuff with Hutchison is just so interesting and nutty.

Sorry for the OT. Maybe I'll start a thread to drain attention away from Heiwa....hehe.

[Heiwa]

Heiwa doesn't read anything we write... I could write anything and he would never know it.

...

Heiwa and his fellow conspiracy buddies seem to think that demolition charges can go off quietly when in fact they would have been heard for the better part of a mile around. Footage of the collapse (which records sounds better than the human mind in panic) didn't record any of these sounds.

On yet another note, if I ever get this fanatical about an imaginary conspiracy theory I would hope someone would talk me down. I imagine it must be agonizingly painful to be so deluded. To be so convinced that the government would conspire to kill thousands of it's own in an act of false flag terrorism must kill any hope for humanity.

You are Off Topic! Topic is why a one-way Crush down is not possible, i.e. part C of a composite or isotropic structure A, where C<1/10A, cannot one-way crush down A from top down by gravity. Reason is that part A always destroys or arrests part C unless C just bounces off part A. A bounce is the simplest arrest.

To destroy part A you have to use other methods, e.g. some sort of controlled demolition. It is not a conspiracy theory, it is an established fact.

But if you can prove the opposite, that part C really can one-way crush down part A, you are welcome to do it. It has nothing to do with whether a government would conspire to kill thousands in an act of false flag terrorism, etc. On the contrary, it would be a nice contribution to structural safety; nobody likes a structure that self-destructs if a little part of it is dropped on and destroys it.

[stateofgrace]

You are Off Topic! Topic is why a one-way Crush down is not possible, i.e. part C of a composite or isotropic structure A, where C<1/10A, cannot one-way crush down A from top down by gravity. Reason is that part A always destroys or arrests part C unless C just bounces off part A. A bounce is the simplest arrest.

To destroy part A you have to use other methods, e.g. some sort of controlled demolition. It is not a conspiracy theory, it is an established fact.

But if you can prove the opposite, that part C really can one-way crush down part A, you are welcome to do it. It has nothing to do with whether a government would conspire to kill thousands in an act of false flag terrorism, etc. On the contrary, it would be a nice contribution to structural safety; nobody likes a structure that self-destructs if a little part of it is dropped on and destroys it.

On Sept 11th did 1/10 of the building appear to crush the other 9/10ths? YES or NO?

Just answer the question, please.

[alienentity]

This thread is off topic anyway as the forum is 9/11 conspiracy theories. The engineering question should be discussed on an engineering forum, not a conspiracy forum.

There's no conspiracy to discuss here. Just half-baked idiot engineering.

What is it about 9/11 truthers that makes them feel the need to park themselves on internet forums and hold court? Fascinating psychology. Cultists looking for a new cult to start/join?

Gravitational collapse of the WTC buildings was not due to a conspiracy, and there's no evidence to the contrary. There never was and never will be. Any good engineer should be able to tell you these things.

Time to move on.

[six7s]

So you also believe (!) that a one-way Crush down is possible? Prove it, then! See The Heiwa Challenge thread for details.Or just bang your head against a brick wall for two minutes

[six7s]

On yet another note, if I ever get this fanatical about an imaginary conspiracy theory I would hope someone would talk me down. I imagine it must be agonizingly painful to be so deluded. To be so convinced that the government would conspire to kill thousands of it's own in an act of false flag terrorism must kill any hope for humanity.How many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb?

[twinstead]

I also am amused by people like Heiwa coming on a relatively obscure internet forum and declaring "A one-way Crush down is not possible", being told he's wrong by numerous people who know what they are talking about, and then declaring victory.

I agree this is a subject for an engineering forum, not a conspiracy forum. If Heiwa insists on having his buttocks handed to him by real engineers that's his business, but he's harshing my buzz.

[aggle-rithm]

It's interesting that engineering woos have a similar modus operandi as do philosophy woos. When backed into a corner, they retreat to a position of increasingly abstract and hazy ideas, watering their argument down to the point that it is meaningless.

Of course, this doesn't prevent them from continuing to hammer away at it as if any of it really meant anything.

[aggle-rithm]

How many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb?

One, but the light bulb has to really want to change.

...

Oh, was that a rhetorical question?

[Typicallucas]

You are Off Topic! Topic is why a one-way Crush down is not possible, i.e. part C of a composite or isotropic structure A, where C<1/10A, cannot one-way crush down A from top down by gravity. Reason is that part A always destroys or arrests part C unless C just bounces off part A. A bounce is the simplest arrest.

To destroy part A you have to use other methods, e.g. some sort of controlled demolition. It is not a conspiracy theory, it is an established fact.

But if you can prove the opposite, that part C really can one-way crush down part A, you are welcome to do it. It has nothing to do with whether a government would conspire to kill thousands in an act of false flag terrorism, etc. On the contrary, it would be a nice contribution to structural safety; nobody likes a structure that self-destructs if a little part of it is dropped on and destroys it.

Did you guys hear something?

[FineWine]

You are Off Topic! Topic is why a one-way Crush down is not possible, i.e. part C of a composite or isotropic structure A, where C<1/10A, cannot one-way crush down A from top down by gravity. Reason is that part A always destroys or arrests part C unless C just bounces off part A. A bounce is the simplest arrest.

To destroy part A you have to use other methods, e.g. some sort of controlled demolition. It is not a conspiracy theory, it is an established fact.

But if you can prove the opposite, that part C really can one-way crush down part A, you are welcome to do it. It has nothing to do with whether a government would conspire to kill thousands in an act of false flag terrorism, etc. On the contrary, it would be a nice contribution to structural safety; nobody likes a structure that self-destructs if a little part of it is dropped on and destroys it.



You really can't grasp the idea that as the part of the building starting from the impact floors collapses, it ADDS to its falling mass each floor it smashes through. Do you seriously think the fractions 1/10 and 9/10 are set in stone? Don't you see--who doesn't see this?--that near the end of the collapse, 9/10 of the building is crushing the remaining 1/10?? The engineers keep showing you why the energy available was tremendous and why the collapse could not possibly be arrested. You can't understand a word they write.

[GlennB]

You really can't grasp the idea that as the part of the building starting from the impact floors collapses, it ADDS to its falling mass each floor it smashes through. Do you seriously think the fractions 1/10 and 9/10 are set in stone? ....

You're quite correct, of course, but Heiwa can only think in terms of ships hitting other ships in the horizontal plane. Where things work very differently. Where fragmented parts simply sink away from the action, for example, through gravity.
etc ...... etc ...... etc.....

[FineWine]

You're quite correct, of course, but Heiwa can only think in terms of ships hitting other ships in the horizontal plane. Where things work very differently. Where fragmented parts simply sink away from the action, for example, through gravity.
etc ...... etc ...... etc.....



But that goes back to my amazement that he is actually an engineer. Who could possibly compare two ships colliding with a building collapsing? Certainly not an engineer!

[alienentity]

You really can't grasp the idea that as the part of the building starting from the impact floors collapses, it ADDS to its falling mass each floor it smashes through. Do you seriously think the fractions 1/10 and 9/10 are set in stone? Don't you see--who doesn't see this?--that near the end of the collapse, 9/10 of the building is crushing the remaining 1/10?? The engineers keep showing you why the energy available was tremendous and why the collapse could not possibly be arrested. You can't understand a word they write.

Why bother engaging him at all? He's just been repeating the same robotic mantra for months.
He's here to waste your time and frustrate you, not to engage in serious discussion.

He also has apparently lied repeatedly about his one million dollar challenge, which demonstrates a basic lack of honesty and integrity.

He should be ignored, not humored IMHO.

[alienentity]

But that goes back to my amazement that he is actually an engineer. Who could possibly compare two ships colliding with a building collapsing? Certainly not an engineer!

Further to my last post, either he figures you guys are dumb enough not to remember that he's already been exposed as an intellectual fraud and worse, or he's dumb enough to forget that he's already been exposed as an intellectual fraud and worse, or both.

It really doesn't matter. The result is he's just wasting your time and getting attention. It's win/win for him every time.

He's been exposed, it's time to move on.

[Heiwa]

You really can't grasp the idea that as the part of the building starting from the impact floors collapses, it ADDS to its falling mass each floor it smashes through. Do you seriously think the fractions 1/10 and 9/10 are set in stone? Don't you see--who doesn't see this?--that near the end of the collapse, 9/10 of the building is crushing the remaining 1/10?? The engineers keep showing you why the energy available was tremendous and why the collapse could not possibly be arrested. You can't understand a word they write.

In The Heiwa Challenge part C = 1/10 part A is the condition.

And as psik points out, energy is used to compress/break supports and connections, etc, and it slows down the action. Then there is the effect that loose masses do not really work together - one may be in contact and compressing structure, while another is still dropping or bouncing, and so on. At every contact the lower part applies force and energy to the upper part and when the upper part start to consist of many loose elements, they also interact; plenty of forces in action up in part C.

Myriad is apparently planning a structure with some very heavy horizontal elements (trays) held together/separated with some very weak vertical supports/connections and that structure may maybe collapse like a house of cards (pancake style), but the weaker support elements will only be broken in one place by gravity and will still be connected to the heavier elements ... so the structure does not crush down completely ... as per definition of crush down.

Myriad also believe that supports will fail uniformly and that impacts will be uniform but that's unlikely. The supports will not break uniformly. Gravity forces will take the easiest path. So his structure will topple over due to reaction forces applied by lower part during test probably leaving most of the lower part intact.

There are plenty of CDs gone wrong due to these effects. Gravity alone (no local destruction/failures by other means!) will make the task ... impossible.

[beachnut]

...
There are plenty of CDs gone wrong due to these effects. Gravity alone (no local destruction/failures by other means!) will make the task ... impossible.
What is the primary energy source for CD?


Was you paper accepted?

[six7s]

One, but the light bulb has to really want to change.

...

Oh, was that a rhetorical question?Sorta... but it doesn't hurt to be reminded of the punch line :)

[Furcifer]

If you had half a brain you would know that ships are not buildings and propellers are not gravity.

This is rhetorical right?

[Macgyver1968]

.... Gravity forces will take the easiest path.

Your thinking of electricity. The force of gravity only pulls downward. If it were to take the easiest path, that would mean things would have to move laterally to find the easiest path. How does gravity do that?

Your own everyday life experience should tell you this. If you drop a bowling ball on the top of a table, the path of least resistance would be around the table, not through it...but is this what the bowling ball does? No. It falls directly on the table, which is not the path of least resistance, but the direct path downward.

[Furcifer]

Oh, was that a rhetorical question?

lol, I read this after my last post. I think it's apparent that any question around here is pretty much rhetorical.

Seriously, is there any question you can ask in this forum that isn't? (yes, that was itself rhetorical)

[BigAl]

There are plenty of CDs gone wrong due to these effects. Gravity alone (no local destruction/failures by other means!) will make the task ... impossible.

Fire+gravity will do it for an all-steel building in the absence of water and firefighting.

[leftysergeant]

Topic is Why a one-way Crush down is not possible, and nobody seems to be able to disprove it.

Pay attention. Balzac-Vitry is a one-way-crush-down at the outset. You lose.

Religious fundamentalists of various sects however seem to believe that one-way Crush downs are normal and frequent.

Well, if you want to call a belief in impirical evidence a religious cult...

Nobody is saying that they are frequent. They are, however, the normal result of dropping a part of a building onto the rest of it.

Asking for any evidence to support their beliefs have failed, I am happy to conclude.

Do pay attention to what the entities living outside your cochlea are saying. We have given you evidence. It is in the video of the Balzac-Vitry demolition.

[leftysergeant]

Heiwa is absolutely correct. The top part cannot gain mass. Period.

Faith-based science is getting ridiculous.

Garbage in, garbage out. Your premise is entirely absurd and irrelevant.

The top part did nbot "gain" mass in the strictest sense, nor did it need to, but parts of the mass from the parts of the building it destroyed on the way down joined it in its rampage through the succeding floors. If you drop 5X onto 1X and break 1X loose, you now have 6X moving along the same course. If the next floor can only withstand 2X, where is the arresting mechanism?

[alienentity]

Pay attention. Balzac-Vitry is a one-way-crush-down at the outset. You lose.



Well, if you want to call a belief in impirical evidence a religious cult...

Nobody is saying that they are frequent. They are, however, the normal result of dropping a part of a building onto the rest of it.



Do pay attention to what the entities living outside your cochlea are saying. We have given you evidence. It is in the video of the Balzac-Vitry demolition.

Lefty, since you already know he isn't going to modify his position, and will not respond honestly to you, why bother? I don't get it.
It just encourages him that his ideas have meaning and value (which they don't). It makes him feel important, which he isn't.

Why feed this illness?

[leftysergeant]

Why feed this illness?

There is just the of chance that someone will stumble across his nattering and take it for sound science, unless someone points out the woo oozing out around the edges.

[alienentity]

There is just the of chance that someone will stumble across his nattering and take it for sound science, unless someone points out the woo oozing out around the edges.


Yes, that's true. But his ideas have already been thoroughly refuted. He just repeats them ad nauseum.

Why prolong the agony? The patient is dead, no need to resuscitate.