Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

[six7s]

I was wondering when you are going to reply ?You're funny!

Alas, not in a humourous way

Thoughtful answer--exactly what we've learned to expect. In the meantime, you remain trapped in 2005. No escape is possible. Events have exposed all of your delusions. Absolutely nothing turned out the way you predicted. You can't learn; you can't adapt; you can't submit your cherished myths to the slightest bit of critical examination. You've been selected for extinction by inexorable evolutionary forces.This post is a virtual twin to the one in which I used the 'Bullcrap' remark. Therefore I must repeat myself. Bullcrap from start to finish.If it really is 'bullcrap from start to finish', you will be able to describe at least one thing that has "turned out the way you predicted"

Please, EITHER do so OR accept that your reputation as a self-deluding and willfully-ignorant liar will become further entrenched in the minds of those reading this thread

When are you going to respond to my exceedingly simple challenge?

[Dog Town]

yah that comment came out of nowhere, and was just...insane.

TAM:)

I believe it better translates into the God question.
He is trying to tie in each sides "beliefs", and how we justify them. Then again, who really eff'n knows?

Here is a paper on it.http://www.lsu.edu/artsci/groups/voegelin/EVS/2004%20Papers/Hollweck2004.htm
THE GOD-QUESTION. JAN ASSMAN’S THE MOSAIC DISTINCTION AND THE RETURN OF THE REPRESSED IN THE “POST-SECULAR” AGE

BY THOMAS HOLLWECK
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT BOULDER

“The distinction I am concerned with in this book is the distinction between true and false religion that underlies more specific distinctions such as Jews and Gentiles, Christians and pagans, Muslims and unbelievers..

Once the distinction is made, however, a new type of religion comes into existence, something that must be called a “’counter-religion’ because it rejects and repudiates everything that went before and what is outside itself as ‘paganism

[MIKILLINI]

Let me ask YOU a simple question!

Now tell, how do you do it with the religion? Or in original: TAM , nun sag, wie hast du's mit der Religion?

So how does a "humble man," such as yourself, bow down to lemons and pizza boxes?

[Heiwa]

My entry to the Heiwa challenge:


Let's see if I get my million bucks.

The Heiwa Challenge structure must obviously be real! And there is no money involved. Just honour!

[Typicallucas]

The Heiwa Challenge structure must obviously be real! And there is no money involved. Just honour!


You said:
See post #1 above.

BTW I'll pay you $1M if you can produce a structure that can be crushed like that. Suteki desu ne!? Get working!

No money involved? You may or may not be stupid, but you are definitely a liar.

[beachnut]

My entry to the Heiwa challenge:

Let's see if I get my million bucks.
A model, it fell; you win. Heiwa was telling a lie like all the tripe he posts.

He said a million dollars. All his posts are lies, did you expect the million dollars was true?


http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf (http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf)

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

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/pe...Papers/466.pdf (http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf)

[Typicallucas]

No I never believed that he would give anyone a million dollars, but it is satisfying to point out a blatant lie.

I think my model is a pretty eye-opening example of how a "one-way crush down" is possible. "Part C crushed Part A! Suck on that!"

[bill smith]

yah that comment came out of nowhere, and was just...insane.

TAM:)

No..it's just a German expression meaning ' what is the 64,000 dollar question'.

[six7s]

The Heiwa Challenge structure must obviously be real! And there is no money involved. Just honour!Honour?

Is that German for 'the impotent, psychotic, delusional vomit-spouting paranoia of a domineering, cowardly megalomaniac with the exceedingly poor judgment typical of one unable to notice contradictions in their own thinking, prone to disposing of obvious objections in an irrational fashion whilst in a sort of dream world in which their own contemptuous ideas, desires and fears are mixed up with no distinction between fact and fancy'?

Or is it 'the hallmark of a half-educated, self-deluding fool with a preference for pseudo-science and a penchant for spinning out theories based on a small, usually very questionable factual foundation, who believes that 'we must distrust the intelligence and the conscience and must place our trust in our bad tempered, weak, scared, aggressive, instincts' who, instead of adjusting his assumptions to reality, tries in vain to adjust reality to his perception of a fantasy world whilst flying into an indignant, uncontrollable rage'?

Ich bin ein bin liner :)

[T.A.M.]

I believe it better translates into the God question.
He is trying to tie in each sides "beliefs", and how we justify them. Then again, who really eff'n knows?

Here is a paper on it.http://www.lsu.edu/artsci/groups/voegelin/EVS/2004%20Papers/Hollweck2004.htm
THE GOD-QUESTION. JAN ASSMAN’S THE MOSAIC DISTINCTION AND THE RETURN OF THE REPRESSED IN THE “POST-SECULAR” AGE

BY THOMAS HOLLWECK
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT BOULDER

If you were able to decipher that much out of it, my hat's off to you. To me it looked like a half-drunken, half-insane word salad.

TAM:)

[Heiwa]

Honour?

Is that German for 'the impotent, psychotic, delusional vomit-spouting paranoia of a domineering, cowardly megalomaniac with the exceedingly poor judgment typical of one unable to notice contradictions in their own thinking, prone to disposing of obvious objections in an irrational fashion whilst in a sort of dream world in which their own contemptuous ideas, desires and fears are mixed up with no distinction between fact and fancy'?

Or is it 'the hallmark of a half-educated, self-deluding fool with a preference for pseudo-science and a penchant for spinning out theories based on a small, usually very questionable factual foundation, who believes that 'we must distrust the intelligence and the conscience and must place our trust in our bad tempered, weak, scared, aggressive, instincts' who, instead of adjusting his assumptions to reality, tries in vain to adjust reality to his perception of a fantasy world whilst flying into an indignant, uncontrollable rage'?

Ich bin ein bin liner :)

Honour is Ehre in German. Has nothing to do with - 'the impotent, psychotic, delusional vomit-spouting paranoia of a domineering, cowardly megalomaniac with the exceedingly poor judgment typical of one unable to notice contradictions in their own thinking, prone to disposing of obvious objections in an irrational fashion whilst in a sort of dream world in which their own contemptuous ideas, desires and fears are mixed up with no distinction between fact and fancy' which seems to be relevant to Condo Rice and GWB.

But maybe NIST, Kaiser, Sunder, Gross & Co (Bazant, Seffen, Benson, Greening, etc) are 'the hallmark of a half-educated, self-deluding fool with a preference for pseudo-science and a penchant for spinning out theories based on a small, usually very questionable factual foundation, who believes that 'we must distrust the intelligence and the conscience and must place our trust in our bad tempered, weak, scared, aggressive, instincts' who, instead of adjusting his assumptions to reality, tries in vain to adjust reality to his perception of a fantasy world whilst flying into an indignant, uncontrollable rage'?

You tell me! Thanks for your post! Off Topic of course but why not.

[T.A.M.]

Amazing to live in a world where the real scientists and engineers are the dupes, and the nutjobs are the geniuses.

Good luck with that...wait, are those helicopters I hear...

TAM;)

[FineWine]

You're funny!

Alas, not in a humourous way



When are you going to respond to my exceedingly simple challenge?


He will respond to your challenge when Jones and his accomplices submit their rubbish to an independent lab. In other words, NEVER.

He's done, cooked, exposed.

[Typicallucas]

http://kellnerpm.com/typicallucas/heiwa.png

[GeeMack]

Amazing to live in a world where the real scientists and engineers are the dupes, and the nutjobs are the geniuses.


Yes. I often wonder why it is that the nutjobs, who clearly think they're among a tiny handful of people who "get it", are wholly incapable of communicating effectively enough so that other people can understand them and "get it", too.

Heiwa, if what you're saying has any merit, and since you've convinced virtually nobody that your crackpot notions are correct, you've obviously done a crappy job of getting other people to understand you. Why don't you take a couple of language courses at the local college. Learn how to express your thoughts. Then come back in a few months and try this all again.

[Dog Town]

Yes. I often wonder why it is that the nutjobs, who clearly think they're among a tiny handful of people who "get it", are wholly incapable of communicating effectively enough so that other people can understand them and "get it", too.


That's going in my sig! Cool?

[Slayhamlet]

have you been drinking? Not only does the above make no sense, but I do not even speak German.

TAM:rolleyes:

He was clumsily attempting to quote from German literature, which he characteristically mistranslated. A better translation would have been, "Tell me, what are your thoughts on religion?"

It's a line of dialogue from Goethe's Faust, the so-called "Gretchen question", which has come to be used to suggest that another person's religious, philosophical, or political convictions are the reason for a conversational impasse. It's a pretty ironic thing to say to somebody who has just compared your ideas to religion. Perhaps not so unfitting, though, since Trutherism is based primarily on political ideology, setting it at odds with the scientific method.

[Heiwa]

He was clumsily attempting to quote from German literature, which he characteristically mistranslated. A better translation would have been, "Tell me, what are your thoughts on religion?"

It's a line of dialogue from Goethe's Faust, the so-called "Gretchen question", which has come to be used to suggest that another person's religious, philosophical, or political convictions are the reason for a conversational impasse. It's a pretty ironic thing to say to somebody who has just compared your ideas to religion. Perhaps not so unfitting, though, since Trutherism is based primarily on political ideology, setting it at odds with the scientific method.

Just thoughts on religion? In general? Or the religion? Anyway, what are your thoughts of the one-way crush down of a composite structure we discuss here using the scientific method? Possible or not possible?
And if it is possible in theory, why is it so difficult to provide a real structure that one-way crushes down?

[Slayhamlet]

Just thoughts on religion? In general? Or the religion? Anyway, what are your thoughts of the one-way crush down of a composite structure we discuss here using the scientific method? Possible or not possible?
And if it is possible in theory, why is it so difficult to provide a real structure that one-way crushes down?

No, it's religion in general. For all practical purposes there was only one religion in Faust's society. Margaret means to ask him whether he believes in God at all.

As for your other question, I don't know what you mean to suggest by asking me whether a "one way crush down" is possible. Is such an assumption necessary to explain the collapses? I hardly think so.

Here's a card tower that collapses in a superficially similar manner to the twin towers:IOaOY-Po1zk
At 6:24 the top 12 storeys crush the 23 below them.

[Grizzly Bear]

And if it is possible in theory, why is it so difficult to provide a real structure that one-way crushes down?

L'ambience Plaza (http://matdl.org/failurecases/Building%20Cases/LAmbiance.htm)

Ronan Point (http://matdl.org/failurecases/Building%20Cases/Ronan%20Point.htm)

Hotel New World (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotel_New_World_disaster)

Murrah Building (http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/861/861pubs/collapse/workshop/5.WorkshopSlides(Murrah%20Bldg).pdf)

The first two are especially of interest. They also fit into the same category (progressive collapse) as the Murrah building, and the Hotel New World disaster.

[T.A.M.]

He was clumsily attempting to quote from German literature, which he characteristically mistranslated. A better translation would have been, "Tell me, what are your thoughts on religion?"

It's a line of dialogue from Goethe's Faust, the so-called "Gretchen question", which has come to be used to suggest that another person's religious, philosophical, or political convictions are the reason for a conversational impasse. It's a pretty ironic thing to say to somebody who has just compared your ideas to religion. Perhaps not so unfitting, though, since Trutherism is based primarily on political ideology, setting it at odds with the scientific method.

Well if that is the case, my only religion is that of science, and in that religion, the Holy Trinity is "evidence" "facts" and "truth".

TAM:)

[Heiwa]

No, it's religion in general. For all practical purposes there was only one religion in Faust's society. Margaret means to ask him whether he believes in God at all.

As for your other question, I don't know what you mean to suggest by asking me whether a "one way crush down" is possible. Is such an assumption necessary to explain the collapses? I hardly think so.



And plenty of angels/spin doctors/devils, etc!

Re question ... it is the topic. A lot of things can collapse but one-way crush down? Not possible.

[GeeMack]

Re question ... it is the topic. A lot of things can collapse but one-way crush down? Not possible.


And how would you explain your utter lack of ability to get anyone else to understand? Your communication skills are seriously sub-par? You don't know what you're talking about? You're just plain wrong? How is it that the vast majority of all humanity find your position completely ludicrous?

[Heiwa]

How is it that the vast majority of all humanity find your position completely ludicrous?

You sure? Pls, provide evidence that a structural one-way Crush down is possible!

[Typicallucas]

Reading the forums is more enjoyable with Heiwa on ignore :)

[Grizzly Bear]

You sure? Pls, provide evidence that a structural one-way Crush down is possible!

Any structure with sufficient loss of integrity can and will collapse. Considering the content you post, and your gross lack of articulation to a post which clearly demonstrates competence in the field, why should anyone on this forum be bothered to cater to assumptions which you make that are flawed at the most basic concepts?

[GeeMack]

You sure? Pls, provide evidence that a structural one-way Crush down is possible!


I'm sure of this. You haven't been able to convince anyone here, anyone who has knowledge in the field of structural engineering anyway, that you're correct in your assessment of the collapse of the WTC towers. Either there's a serious error in your position, or you're wholly incapable of communicating your position in a way that others might understand it. To put it simply, either you're a crappy communicator, or you're just plain wrong.

So if you believe you're correct, and it appears you do believe that, you should go take some language skills courses and learn how to communicate your ideas in a way that is understandable to other people. If that's not the case, and if you're just plain wrong, the likely scenario given the direction of the discussion and the evidence you've provided (or not), you should just STFU.

Either way, continuing to babble what seems to be an ongoing stream of nonsense clearly isn't helping to win you any converts. Nor is it providing any advantage to you or to the two or three obviously ignorant Truthers who seem willing to rally behind you on this issue. Frankly it makes you all look like idiots.

[GlennB]

Just thoughts on religion? In general? Or the religion?

Don't be fooled by the presence of the definite article in the German. It doesn't necessarily translate directly one-to-one into English. When I introduce my wife to a Greek I say (translating to Greek) "This is my wife, the Anne". That's just how the language works. Perhaps your German is not quite as good as you think?

[FineWine]

You sure? Pls, provide evidence that a structural one-way Crush down is possible!


Try answering a simple question. Twenty floors fall on ONE floor, crush it, and head toward the next floor. What stops them?

Please explain if the falling mass is greater after the original collapsing floors add the next one in line or if the total mass has magically decreased.

[Heiwa]

Try answering a simple question. Twenty floors fall on ONE floor, crush it, and head toward the next floor. What stops them?

Please explain if the falling mass is greater after the original collapsing floors add the next one in line or if the total mass has magically decreased.

Thanks for asking! Imagine that twenty pizza boxes fall on ONE pizza box and head for the next pizza box below (and 90 others). What stops them? Well, it seems the ONE pizza box is up to the job! No crush! And twenty pizza boxes just bounce.

Thus, the falling mass of 20 pizza boxes remains constant.

Please explain how ONE pizza box can stop 20 similar boxes. It is a simple question and the answer will make you understand Why a one-way Crush down is not possible!

PS - check what force the ONE pizza box applies on the 20 boxes falling down.

[Heiwa]

I'm sure of this. You haven't been able to convince anyone here, anyone who has knowledge in the field of structural engineering anyway, that you're correct in your assessment of the collapse of the WTC towers. Either there's a serious error in your position, or you're wholly incapable of communicating your position in a way that others might understand it. To put it simply, either you're a crappy communicator, or you're just plain wrong.

So if you believe you're correct, and it appears you do believe that, you should go take some language skills courses and learn how to communicate your ideas in a way that is understandable to other people. If that's not the case, and if you're just plain wrong, the likely scenario given the direction of the discussion and the evidence you've provided (or not), you should just STFU.

Either way, continuing to babble what seems to be an ongoing stream of nonsense clearly isn't helping to win you any converts. Nor is it providing any advantage to you or to the two or three obviously ignorant Truthers who seem willing to rally behind you on this issue. Frankly it makes you all look like idiots.

You are sure? Pls, provide evidence that a structural one-way Crush down is possible! That will settle the matter.

Study http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm , http://heiwaco.tripod.com/funnym.htm , http://heiwaco.tripod.com/mac5.htm for tips on communication.

[FineWine]

Thanks for asking! Imagine that twenty pizza boxes fall on ONE pizza box and head for the next pizza box below (and 90 others). What stops them? Well, it seems the ONE pizza box is up to the job! No crush! And twenty pizza boxes just bounce.

Thus, the falling mass of 20 pizza boxes remains constant.

Please explain how ONE pizza box can stop 20 similar boxes. It is a simple question and the answer will make you understand Why a one-way Crush down is not possible!

PS - check what force the ONE pizza box applies on the 20 boxes falling down.


Please stop making a complete fool of yourself. Pizza boxes are very light. Twenty collapsing floors weigh thousands of tons. The real engineers have laughed you off the forum for this sort of nonsense. Nobody could possibly be an engineer and say the incredible things you say. I'm trying to give you a chance to regain a tiny bit of credibility.

Start over. Twenty floors, weighing many thousands of tons, collapse and crush the next floor. Now, that floor is falling with the original ones. Is the collapsing mass now heavier or, through magic, lighter?

Your pizza box analogy is ridiculous. It is embarrassing that you continue to peddle it after it has been totally destroyed. Stop using it.

[MIKILLINI]

Thanks for asking! Imagine that twenty pizza boxes fall on ONE pizza box and head for the next pizza box below (and 90 others). What stops them? Well, it seems the ONE pizza box is up to the job! No crush! And twenty pizza boxes just bounce.

Thus, the falling mass of 20 pizza boxes remains constant.

Please explain how ONE pizza box can stop 20 similar boxes. It is a simple question and the answer will make you understand Why a one-way Crush down is not possible!

PS - check what force the ONE pizza box applies on the 20 boxes falling down.

Each pizza box is a one piece structure. It's virtually impossible to gain any credibility using such a poor scaling model.

[bill smith]

Please stop making a complete fool of yourself. Pizza boxes are very light. Twenty collapsing floors weigh thousands of tons. The real engineers have laughed you off the forum for this sort of nonsense. Nobody could possibly be an engineer and say the incredible things you say. I'm trying to give you a chance to regain a tiny bit of credibility.

Start over. Twenty floors, weighing many thousands of tons, collapse and crush the next floor. Now, that floor is falling with the original ones. Is the collapsing mass now heavier or, through magic, lighter?

Your pizza box analogy is ridiculous. It is embarrassing that you continue to peddle it after it has been totally destroyed. Stop using it.

If you were fairminded you would not imply that Heiwa is a not a real engineer. In fact, as you probably know he is a fully degreed Naval architect and pecialist in structural damage analysis. He has more than 40 years of practical experience under his belt and has an international reputation even having advised the UN. He is well qualified make the judgements he makes on the collapse of the Towers from a structural damage analyst's point of view. He is also a published author.

[FineWine]

If you were fairminded you would not imply that Heiwa is a not a real engineer. In fact, as you probably know he is a fully degreed Naval architect and pecialist in structural damage analysis. He has more than 40 years of practical experience under his belt and has an international reputation even having advised the UN. He is well qualified make he judgements he makes on the collapse of the Towers from a structural damage analyst's point of view. He is also a publishd author.


He has shown that he is incapable of learning from people who know much more than he does, and more importantly, people who conceptualize problems much better than he does. He knows nothing about buildings. He has absurdly compared two ships colliding on a horizontal plane with a building falling down. He is unqualified to make judgments on the collapse of the towers.
The nonsense he spouts is rejected by every real engineer here. NIST, FEMA, Purdue, and Berkeley don't even recognize his existence. Your slavish devotion to your irrational cause compels you adopt a wrong-headed fraud as your idol.

[Grizzly Bear]

If you were fairminded you would not imply that Heiwa is a not a real engineer. In fact, as you probably know he is a fully degreed Naval architect and pecialist in structural damage analysis. He has more than 40 years of practical experience under his belt and has an international reputation even having advised the UN.
Bill, we could all care less what industry he works in, or how much experience he has. We're interested in the content, and it's accuracy that puts his money where his mouth is. Heiwa could very be an engineer but his posts suggest that he's severely incompetent in his work, dangerously incompetent if he's casting aside such risks in practice.

He is well qualified make he judgements he makes on the collapse of the Towers
Job titles and boasts of experience do not replace the demonstration of that knowledge. Unless Heiwa can show he's competent and learn to address competent engineering arguments, his job title is worthless. You seem to value his authority, competent people are more concerned with his ability to demonstrate it, something Heiwa has clearly failed to establish.

[KreeL]

It takes a lot of faith to believe that a one-way crush down is possible. Faith of biblical proportions. If it were indeed possible, NIST with their 2 or 3 bazillion scientists would have modeled it by now. Oh, don't think for one minute that they think it's possible, they just need to fool the masses.

The Heiwa Challenge is one of the most compelling pwnages in the history of JREF, and immediately justifies a criminal investigation into what actually transpired on 9/11.

[GeeMack]

You are sure? Pls, provide evidence that a structural one-way Crush down is possible! That will settle the matter.


So far you haven't been able to explain your conjecture in such a way that anyone with a reasonable understanding of structural engineering is willing to agree with you. You're either very, very wrong, or a very, very poor communicator. Yes, I'm sure of that.

[jhunter1163]

The Heiwa Challenge is one of the most compelling pwnages in the history of JREF, and immediately justifies a criminal investigation into what actually transpired on 9/11.

I should charge you for a new keyboard. This one's now covered with Coke.

[FineWine]

It takes a lot of faith to believe that a one-way crush down is possible. Faith of biblical proportions. If it were indeed possible, NIST with their 2 or 3 bazillion scientists would have modeled it by now. Oh, don't think for one minute that they think it's possible, they just need to fool the masses.

The Heiwa Challenge is one of the most compelling pwnages in the history of JREF, and immediately justifies a criminal investigation into what actually transpired on 9/11.


Purdue and Berkeley (Professor Astaneh's team) modeled the collapses. Guess what?--they were almost identical to the actual collapses. The bogus Heiwa challenge is a grotesque garble of basic physics that buries you frauds.

[bill smith]

Bill, we could all care less what industry he works in, or how much experience he has. We're interested in the content, and it's accuracy that puts his money where his mouth is. Heiwa could very be an engineer but his posts suggest that he's severely incompetent in his work, dangerously incompetent if he's casting aside such risks in practice.


Job titles and boasts of experience do not replace the demonstration of that knowledge. Unless Heiwa can show he's competent and learn to address competent engineering arguments, his job title is worthless. You seem to value his authority, competent people are more concerned with his ability to demonstrate it, something Heiwa has clearly failed to establish.

Let's just cut to the chase Grizzly. If those scientists you cite were able to tackle heiwa- and a few of them do visit this website- they would have already done so. Just the fact that nobody can take him on in several weeks on the crush down says it all to the fairminded observer. Take teddy from yesterday for instance . I might be inclined to pay more attention if Ray Mackey was to come in for a showdown on the subject but from hat I have seen it's pretty much hit-and-run tactics he uses. A busy man and all that possibly.

For me I believe Heiwa but I am always prepared to change my mind if somebody can prove him wrong by showing examples and giving explanations of previous similar crush downs. It's not too much to ask.

[tsig]

It takes a lot of faith to believe that a one-way crush down is possible. Faith of biblical proportions. If it were indeed possible, NIST with their 2 or 3 bazillion scientists would have modeled it by now. Oh, don't think for one minute that they think it's possible, they just need to fool the masses.

The Heiwa Challenge is one of the most compelling pwnages in the history of JREF, and immediately justifies a criminal investigation into what actually transpired on 9/11.

Faith can move mountains why not buildings?

[bill smith]

Purdue and Berkeley (Professor Astaneh's team) modeled the collapses. Guess what?--they were almost identical to the actual collapses. The bogus Heiwa challenge is a grotesque garble of basic physics that buries you frauds.

Despite claims of independence Purdue is in deep with the government .

[FineWine]

Let's just cut to the chase Grizzly. If those scientists you cite were able to tackle heiwa- and a few of them do visit this website- they would have already done so. Just the fact that nobody can take him on in several weeks on the crush down says it all to the fairminded observer. Take teddy from yesterday for instance . I might be incined to pay more attention if Ray Mackey was to come in for a showdown on the subject but from hat I have seen it's pretty much hit-and-run tactics he uses. A busy man and all that possibly.

For me I believe Hweiwa but I am always prepared to change my mind if somebody can prove him wrong by showing examples and giving explanations of previous similar crush downs. It's not too much to ask.


What planet are you on? We have seen Heiwa get his silly butt handed to him over and over by real engineers who have grown bored with this very stupid topic.

You place your faith in Heiwa because your irrational myths have crippled your brain. He has been proved wrong repeatedly. He can't do any calculations, even the most basic, to support his nonsensical garble of science. When he is backed into a corner by real engineers, he raves incoherently about religion and runs away. With the exception of seriously disturbed delusional types like Ultima and Christopher7, I've never seen, in more than a month since I joined, anybody get beaten so badly as Heiwa gets beaten.

Heiwa wouldn't dream of debating Mackey.

[tsig]

It takes a lot of faith to believe that a one-way crush down is possible. Faith of biblical proportions. If it were indeed possible, NIST with their 2 or 3 bazillion scientists would have modeled it by now. Oh, don't think for one minute that they think it's possible, they just need to fool the masses.

The Heiwa Challenge is one of the most compelling pwnages in the history of JREF, and immediately justifies a criminal investigation into what actually transpired on 9/11.

Then you should copy these threads and take them to your local prosecutor. I'm sure that when you tell him you have info from anonymous posters on an internet forum he will jump at the chance to prosecute. (show him some videos and you're sure to convince him).

[FineWine]

Despite claims of independence Purdue is in deep with the government .


Hopeless desperation. Making up nonsense won't salvage your myths. Astaneh is a critic of NIST. His team conducted two simulations. He is trying show that the builders of the towers cut corners. One of his simulations showed the performance of the towers if they had been built in strict accordance with existing codes. The other one reflected the actual construction of the towers. Guess what? When the simulation reflects reality, the towers collapsed EXACTLY as they did on 9/11.
You frauds are fond of distorting Astaneh's words. How will you talk your way out of this disaster?

[Grizzly Bear]

If those scientists you cite were able to tackle heiwa- and a few of them do visit this website- they would have already done so.
Heiwa's been doing this for a couple of years apparently, and I've seen a number of engineers and architects in this section who have sufficiently demonstrated their credentials in the discussion and confronted him regarding the nature of his claims. He ain't changing his mind and he still prats out incompetent assertions in engineering that are so far into the basic level that a student is able pick it apart. Heiwa demonstrates his incompetence without anyone having to confront him. I honestly pity the people who believe that garbage, but of course you're free to believe whatever you want at the price of having your assertions called out on, and having to support them. In professional practice incompetence is risking not only money but also lives when people rely on the efforts going into maintaining a safe structure go terribly wrong

Despite claims of independence Purdue is in deep with the government .
Remember what I just said above... you're free to believe what you want. But the moment you bring your beliefs public expect yourself to be able to defends the merits of that belief and provide material that supports it. Petty accusations aren't going to make progress.

[Slayhamlet]

And plenty of angels/spin doctors/devils, etc!

Unresponsive gibberish non sequitur.

Re question ... it is the topic. A lot of things can collapse but one-way crush down? Not possible.

Was the collapsing card tower not a "one-way crush down"? I have no idea since you're the one who made up the term. I've assumed it actually means something, but perhaps I was being too generous. Can you tell me in what way the collapse of the card tower is or is not a "one-way crush down"? Also, why is your pizza box model relevant but the card tower model isn't?

If you fail to answer any of these questions in a legitimate fashion I will be forced to write you off as the fraud so many other reasonable people have already determined you to be. Your choice.

[bill smith]

Hopeless desperation. Making up nonsense won't salvage your myths. Astaneh is a critic of NIST. His team conducted two simulations. He is trying show that the builders of the towers cut corners. One of his simulations showed the performance of the towers if they had been built in strict accordance with existing codes. The other one reflected the actual construction of the towers. Guess what? When the simulation reflects reality, the towers collapsed EXACTLY as they did on 9/11.
You frauds are fond of distorting Astaneh's words. How will you talk your way out of this disaster?
http://thetruthproject.us/2007/06/22/new-911-study-has-direct-links-to-government-pentagon-black-ops/ Purdue is not independent

[KreeL]

purdue and berkeley (professor astaneh's team) modeled the collapses. Guess what?--they were almost identical to the actual collapses. The bogus heiwa challenge is a grotesque garble of basic physics that buries you frauds.

rofl

[FineWine]

http://thetruthproject.us/2007/06/22/new-911-study-has-direct-links-to-government-pentagon-black-ops/ Purdue is not independent


You post a link to a crackpot source that has zero credibility. Nobody in the engineering community has found any problems with the Purdue simulation. So George Bush controlled every agency in the federal government from top to bottom? And nobody ever leaked a thing? Right.

The Astanheh team's work, which destroys you frauds completely, is a subject you will of course avoid.

[FineWine]

rofl


Your spasms of hysterical giggling when beaten with facts kind of proves my point.

[KreeL]

Then you should copy these threads and take them to your local prosecutor. I'm sure that when you tell him you have info from anonymous posters on an internet forum he will jump at the chance to prosecute. (show him some videos and you're sure to convince him).

How can you prosecute without a criminal investigation?:confused:

[FineWine]

How can you prosecute without a criminal investigation?:confused:



How can you frauds continue your witch-hunt with no evidence for your absurd myths?

[KreeL]

Oh sure. No evidence. Isn't that how you are going after Bin Laden?

[FineWine]

Oh sure. No evidence. Isn't that how you are going after Bin Laden?


Gee, maybe we'll forget about the simulations that destroy you frauds if we get sidetracked by your inept derail attempt.

[bill smith]

How can you frauds continue your witch-hunt with no evidence for your absurd myths?
But what if there be witches ?

[FineWine]

But what if there be witches ?

That's the difference. You frauds believe in imaginary witches. We sane folk believe in real terrorists.

[bill smith]

That's the difference. You frauds believe in imaginary witches. We sane folk believe in real terrorists.

So do we- just not the same terrorists you believe in.

[Slayhamlet]

http://thetruthproject.us/2007/06/22/new-911-study-has-direct-links-to-government-pentagon-black-ops/ Purdue is not independent

Oooh, they were funded in part by a government agency. Wow, shocking!

"inerrant flaws" <chuckle>

[FineWine]

So do we- just not the same terrorists you believe in.

But your problem is that "our" terrorists are real people. You know, radical Islamists who remain extremely proud of their victory. Your "terrorists" are ordinary politicians who miraculously acquired super-powers.

[bill smith]

But your problem is that "our" terrorists are real people. You know, radical Islamists who remain extremely proud of their victory. Your "terrorists" are ordinary politicians who miraculously acquired super-powers.

I wouldn't make the mistake of ever calling the neocons 'ordinary politicians'. If you want to believe that good luck to you.

[GlennB]

... and specialist in structural damage analysis...

No he isn't. Heiwa used to be a maritime insurance assessor. That is, if there was a fire in the ship's galley, Heiwa would be your man to assess the payout. If a ship scraped the quayside, ditto.

Check his CV.

[FineWine]

I wouldn't make the mistake of ever calling the neocons 'ordinary politicians'. If you want to believe that good luck to you.


Your "neocons" are long gone. Nothing you frauds predicted came true. As Nick Nolte says at the end of "48 Hrs.": You're done.

[Grizzly Bear]

You're right. I'm wasting time on blather when their muddle-headed guru should be explaining the magic that allows only one floor of the collapsing mass to contact the next floor. What DOES happen to all that mass above the bottom part of the collapsing mass?

Apparently Heiwa thinks it should just sit there and bounce like a volley ball, and people Like Kreel and bill think that the moment the upper section begins to come apart that mass magially disappears. I sense something similr in Heiwa too :eye-poppi

[FineWine]

Apparently Heiwa thinks it should just sit there and bounce like a volley ball, and people Like Kreel and bill think that the moment the upper section begins to come apart that mass magially disappears. I sense something similr in Heiwa too :eye-poppi



I can't get a straight answer from them. Let's say fifteen floors collapse. They seem to be saying that the lowest floor impacts the next floor in line and the other fourteen do what? Float in midair? One of them was trying to pretend that as the floors get crushed, they somehow have less mass. That must have sounded stupid even to a "truther," as he hasn't attempted to defend it.

[Grizzly Bear]

I can't get a straight answer from them. Let's say fifteen floors collapse. They seem to be saying that the lowest floor impacts the next floor in line and the other fourteen do what? Float in midair? One of them was trying to pretend that as the floors get crushed, they somehow have less mass. That must have sounded stupid even to a "truther," as he hasn't attempted to defend it.

Heiwa seems to think that "friction" between the debris and the exterior columns should halt the collapse while the columns "shred" the floors... But what he misses is that the entire load application changes if that happens, instead of the normal vertical loading the columns would undergo axial loading in a fashion where they have substially less capacity... Dunno if that's how he's still arguing... but then again, most of his posts are little more than jibberish....

[FineWine]

Heiwa seems to think that "friction" between the debris and the exterior columns should halt the collapse while the columns "shred" the floors... But what he misses is that the entire load application changes if that happens, instead of the normal vertical loading the columns would undergo axial loading in a fashion where they have substially less capacity... Dunno if that's how he's still arguing... but then again, most of his posts are little more than jibberish....


Laying aside the question about how vertical columns "shred" an amorphous falling mass, does he notice that the videos do not support his fairy tale? He would be forced to claim that explosives helped the collapse to progress, but there are no sounds of explosives going off and no physical evidence of their use. He will, of course, rave incoherently and wave away those inconveniences. Nevertheless, simulations produced by Berkeley and Purdue show the collapses occurring exactly as they did in reality.

[MIKILLINI]

Despite claims of independence Purdue is in deep with the government .

And what is Purdue, Bill?

[Heiwa]

The collapses are understood very well by the engineering community.

LOL!

[Dog Town]

LOL!

There's a surprise!

[six7s]

@bill smith:

I'm still waiting...

I was wondering when you are going to reply ?You're funny!

Alas, not in a humourous way

Thoughtful answer--exactly what we've learned to expect. In the meantime, you remain trapped in 2005. No escape is possible. Events have exposed all of your delusions. Absolutely nothing turned out the way you predicted. You can't learn; you can't adapt; you can't submit your cherished myths to the slightest bit of critical examination. You've been selected for extinction by inexorable evolutionary forces.This post is a virtual twin to the one in which I used the 'Bullcrap' remark. Therefore I must repeat myself. Bullcrap from start to finish.If it really is 'bullcrap from start to finish', you will be able to describe at least one thing that has "turned out the way you predicted"

Please, EITHER do so OR accept that your reputation as a self-deluding and willfully-ignorant liar will become further entrenched in the minds of those reading this thread

When are you going to respond to my exceedingly simple challenge?

[BigAl]

Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
Despite claims of independence Purdue is in deep with the government .

And what is Purdue, Bill?

Bump for Bill.

What do you know of Purdue, Bill?

[aggle-rithm]

The collapses are understood very well by the engineering community. You know nothing and are not capable of learning. The voice-morphing technology imagined by you frauds will not exist for a long time, as shown by Dr. George Papcun.

Three things that sum up the truther position very well:

1. If you have to invoke a speculative technology to explain away facts that contradict your theory, then your theory is on shaky ground.

2. If you have to do this more than once, then your theory is doomed.

3. If the latter is true and you are unable to articulate WHAT YOUR THEORY IS, then your theory is pure, unadulterated nonsense.

[aggle-rithm]

LOL!

Everything OK?

You're growing less coherent with each successive post.

[Gaspode]

Derail removed. Back on topic please.

[dafydd]

Honour?

Is that German for 'the impotent, psychotic, delusional vomit-spouting paranoia of a domineering, cowardly megalomaniac with the exceedingly poor judgment typical of one unable to notice contradictions in their own thinking, prone to disposing of obvious objections in an irrational fashion whilst in a sort of dream world in which their own contemptuous ideas, desires and fears are mixed up with no distinction between fact and fancy'?

Or is it 'the hallmark of a half-educated, self-deluding fool with a preference for pseudo-science and a penchant for spinning out theories based on a small, usually very questionable factual foundation, who believes that 'we must distrust the intelligence and the conscience and must place our trust in our bad tempered, weak, scared, aggressive, instincts' who, instead of adjusting his assumptions to reality, tries in vain to adjust reality to his perception of a fantasy world whilst flying into an indignant, uncontrollable rage'?

Ich bin ein bin liner :)

Osama Bin Liner

[CORed]

Hopeless desperation. Making up nonsense won't salvage your myths. Astaneh is a critic of NIST. His team conducted two simulations. He is trying show that the builders of the towers cut corners. One of his simulations showed the performance of the towers if they had been built in strict accordance with existing codes. The other one reflected the actual construction of the towers. Guess what? When the simulation reflects reality, the towers collapsed EXACTLY as they did on 9/11.
You frauds are fond of distorting Astaneh's words. How will you talk your way out of this disaster?

Builders cutting corners is a nagging suspicion I've had for a long time. It seems a whole lot more plausible to me than a controlled demolition orchestrated by the government (or anybody else, for that matter). Maybe the Twoofers, in their rush to blame the NWO, missed the real scandal. If there is anything suspicious about the collapse of the towers or WTC7 (and I'm not convinced there is, but I'm not an engineer), it seems that errors (or deliberate corner-cutting) in design or construction would be a much more likely culprit than false flag attacks, super-duper-nano-thermite paint chips, or hastily improvised demolition because Silverstein said "pull it".

[FineWine]

Builders cutting corners is a nagging suspicion I've had for a long time. It seems a whole lot more plausible to me than a controlled demolition orchestrated by the government (or anybody else, for that matter). Maybe the Twoofers, in their rush to blame the NWO, missed the real scandal. If there is anything suspicious about the collapse of the towers or WTC7 (and I'm not convinced there is, but I'm not an engineer), it seems that errors (or deliberate corner-cutting) in design or construction would be a much more likely culprit than false flag attacks, super-duper-nano-thermite paint chips, or hastily improvised demolition because Silverstein said "pull it".



Well, Astaneh thinks there is a real scandal here. He regards the "truthers" as hopeless idiots pushing nonsense, but he thinks that NIST papered over some real questions about the builders' adherence to existing codes.

[bill smith]

Builders cutting corners is a nagging suspicion I've had for a long time. It seems a whole lot more plausible to me than a controlled demolition orchestrated by the government (or anybody else, for that matter). Maybe the Twoofers, in their rush to blame the NWO, missed the real scandal. If there is anything suspicious about the collapse of the towers or WTC7 (and I'm not convinced there is, but I'm not an engineer), it seems that errors (or deliberate corner-cutting) in design or construction would be a much more likely culprit than false flag attacks, super-duper-nano-thermite paint chips, or hastily improvised demolition because Silverstein said "pull it".

But I'm sure you will admit that we absolutely HAVE to know ? Call for a new open and independent enquiry with the rest of us. What is so wong with that ?

[beachnut]

Well, Astaneh thinks there is a real scandal here. He regards the "truthers" as hopeless idiots pushing nonsense, but he thinks that NIST papered over some real questions about the builders' adherence to existing codes. The anti-intellectual 911 conspiracy theorist lack reading and comprehension skills so they ask for a new investigation when they can't understand the studies already done.

http://chronicle.com/free/v53/i03/03a02901.htm
Many people outside engineering and government have developed their own theories about how and why the World Trade Center buildings fell. Some, ..., argue that explosives planted before the attacks must also have been involved. Even some college professors have advanced such theories, though they have largely been dismissed (The Chronicle, (http://chronicle.com/weekly/v52/i42/42a01001.htm) June 23).
Mr. Astaneh-Asl also rejects such alternative theories. "I certainly don't buy into any of the conspiracy stuff," he says.
"Those are lightweight buildings," he adds. "There was no need for explosives to bring them down."

Irony; he is used by the failed 911 conspiracy theorist and he does not buy their moronic lies.

[BigAl]

But I'm sure you will admit that we absolutely HAVE to know ? Call for a new open and independent enquiry with the rest of us. What is so wong with that ?

Because the claims of molten steel and man-made demolitiotn are silly and make the people that want accurate accountability for failures of 9/11 are made to look silly by association.

[CORed]

But I'm sure you will admit that we absolutely HAVE to know ? Call for a new open and independent enquiry with the rest of us. What is so wong with that ?

If somebody finds convincing evidence of construction deficiencies, sure those should be investigated. However, I'm not in favor of squandering finite resources to rehash investigations that have already been done because a few ignorant nut cases think it was an inside job. It's pretty clear to me that most of those nut cases will never be convinced that the gub'mint, the NWO, the illuminati, the Jews, or somebody didn't deliberately bring the buildings down with super-duper-nano-therma/ite, explosive ceiling tiles, or death rays from outer space.

I am perfectly satisfied that the towers were brought down by the impact and fires resulting from the planes crashing into them. Occam's razor is enough to convince me of that, absent compelling evidence to the contrary. When I hear hoofbeats, I usually expect to see horses. If I'm in the Serengeti, I might expect zebras. You, I suspect, fully expect to see unicorns.

[FineWine]

But I'm sure you will admit that we absolutely HAVE to know ? Call for a new open and independent enquiry with the rest of us. What is so wong with that ?


You have no interest in an open investigation. You are peddling politically-motivated nonsense. You gave your game away when you confessed that events in the real world have no meaning for you. In your fantasy, George Bush is still around and pulling all the strings. When asked why ALL of your tiny movment's predictions turned out wrong, you run away. To promote your absurd garble of engineering, you parrot the words of a discredited incompetent. You are not serious.

[MIKILLINI]

Bill are you playing dodge the question? I see you have decided to avoid answering Post#'s 1319 & 1323.

What is Purdue, Bill?

[six7s]

@bill smith:

I'm still waiting...

I was wondering when you are going to reply ?You're funny!

Alas, not in a humourous way

Thoughtful answer--exactly what we've learned to expect. In the meantime, you remain trapped in 2005. No escape is possible. Events have exposed all of your delusions. Absolutely nothing turned out the way you predicted. You can't learn; you can't adapt; you can't submit your cherished myths to the slightest bit of critical examination. You've been selected for extinction by inexorable evolutionary forces.This post is a virtual twin to the one in which I used the 'Bullcrap' remark. Therefore I must repeat myself. Bullcrap from start to finish.If it really is 'bullcrap from start to finish', you will be able to describe at least one thing that has "turned out the way you predicted"

Please, EITHER do so OR accept that your reputation as a self-deluding and willfully-ignorant liar will become further entrenched in the minds of those reading this thread

When are you going to respond to my exceedingly simple challenge?Time's up

[BasqueArch]

But I'm sure you will admit that we absolutely HAVE to know ? Call for a new open and independent enquiry with the rest of us. What is so wong with that ?

1. If it is done by the government, you will disavow it again.
2. The present inquiry was open and independent.
3. The present inquiry was exhaustive, you can review its raw data and come up with your own study.
4. No one is stopping you or anyone else from conducting their own investigation.
5. BTW nice legs Bill.

__________________________________________________ ______________

The reason there are so many contradictory CT hypotheses, and only one actual theory:

"Again, there are many ways of going wrong ... but only one way of going right; so that the one is easy and the other hard — easy to miss the mark and hard to hit it. " - Aristotle

[ElMondoHummus]

If somebody finds convincing evidence of construction deficiencies, sure those should be investigated. However, I'm not in favor of squandering finite resources to rehash investigations that have already been done because a few ignorant nut cases think it was an inside job. It's pretty clear to me that most of those nut cases will never be convinced that the gub'mint, the NWO, the illuminati, the Jews, or somebody didn't deliberately bring the buildings down with super-duper-nano-therma/ite, explosive ceiling tiles, or death rays from outer space.

I am perfectly satisfied that the towers were brought down by the impact and fires resulting from the planes crashing into them. Occam's razor is enough to convince me of that, absent compelling evidence to the contrary. When I hear hoofbeats, I usually expect to see horses. If I'm in the Serengeti, I might expect zebras. You, I suspect, fully expect to see unicorns.
Builders cutting corners is a nagging suspicion I've had for a long time. It seems a whole lot more plausible to me than a controlled demolition orchestrated by the government (or anybody else, for that matter). Maybe the Twoofers, in their rush to blame the NWO, missed the real scandal. If there is anything suspicious about the collapse of the towers or WTC7 (and I'm not convinced there is, but I'm not an engineer), it seems that errors (or deliberate corner-cutting) in design or construction would be a much more likely culprit than false flag attacks, super-duper-nano-thermite paint chips, or hastily improvised demolition because Silverstein said "pull it".


As FineWine pointed out, Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl had stated this exact concern:


As Mr. Astaneh-Asl examined the construction documents, however, he was horrified by aspects of the design. He says the structure essentially threw out the rule book on skyscraper construction. "This building was so strange, and so many violations of practice and code were introduced," he says.

The design contains at least 10 unusual elements, he says...

http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/2007/06/berkeley-engineer-searches-for-truth.html

That same article notes that NIST agrees there were "departures" from code, but disagrees that they mattered on 9/11:


The departures from the building codes and standards identified by NIST did not have a significant effect on the outcome of September 11.


As for myself: I don't know what the truth is. I've noted that the majority opinion is counter to Dr. Astaneh-Asl's, and others here have opined that some of his claims are made with the benefit of hindsight. That's a fair criticism, I think. But, it is indeed worth noting that there is some opinion that contradicts elements of the NIST findings, and unlike the conspiracy peddling nonsense, they're at least based on sound engineering issues rather than paranoid twisting of reality. I wish I knew enough to really understand the nuances of Astaneh-Asl's critique. I also wish I knew enough to evaluate the validity of James Quintiere's critiques of the NIST models. But I don't. All I can note is that both gentlemen's critiques are at least worth acknowledging, and indeed have been acknowledged academically (and in Dr. Quintiere's case, in a House of Representatives hearing). If only truthers realized what legitimate critiques looked like, then perhaps they could drop their mad insistence on analyzing the irrelevant.

Also, I noted the first comment was a response to one of Bill Smith's echoing of the conspiracy peddler's standard cliché. What ignorant people like Bill fail to understand is that there have already been multiple investigations into the event; aside from the NIST investigation, I don't think he could name any of them. Heck, I didn't know about most of them until others here (Ryan Mackey, Architect) identified them; when I started studying this, all I could name were NIST and FEMA. At any rate, Bill seems to refuses to acknowledge the fact that more people than the ones associated with NIST have analyzed the event, and while some of them disagree with isolated elements - as noted above, Astaneh-Asl criticizes the design, Bill Quintiere critiques the modeling assumptions and fireproofing, elsewhere in this forum you'll note that the University of Edinburgh's BRE Cenre for Fire Safety has also critiqued assumptions about the fireproofing (they're of the opinion that the fires would have been sufficient in and of themselves to have caused the collapse, even if the fireproofing had been intact) - all of them agree in thrust. All of them agree that damage from a high speed airliner crash caused severe damage changing the geometry of the building, thus rendering it susceptible to the effects of a fire weakening the structure. Furthermore, as far as I understand, all of them agree that unique elements of the Twin Towers design contributed to this building being uniquely vulnerable to collapse from this combination of events (others here who know the arguments more intimately can and should correct me on this if I'm wrong). The verdict has been passed by multiple entities already; the call for a "new investigation" by the so-called "Truth" movement is an inane one, full of rhetoric but devoid of actual substance.

[Typicallucas]

I was just watching some 9/11 truther video and they had quotes from Dario Fo an Italian "Nobel Prize Winner." He thinks WTC 1 and 2 couldn't have fallen down without some "assistance" from demolition charges...

You would think that a Nobel Prize winner should be listened to when it comes to important issues, wouldn't you?

Well a simple search would show you that he won not one Nobel Prize... but two... But both prizes were for Literature!

He is reiterating the most common and most frequently refuted truther rhetoric.

In two different biographies there is no mention of any achievements or interest in structural engineering except for a single line "Is critical of the events on 9/11"

[BasqueArch]

Builders cutting corners is a nagging suspicion I've had for a long time. It seems a whole lot more plausible to me than a controlled demolition orchestrated by the government (or anybody else, for that matter). Maybe the Twoofers, in their rush to blame the NWO, missed the real scandal. If there is anything suspicious about the collapse of the towers or WTC7 (and I'm not convinced there is, but I'm not an engineer), it seems that errors (or deliberate corner-cutting) in design or construction would be a much more likely culprit than false flag attacks, super-duper-nano-thermite paint chips, or hastily improvised demolition because Silverstein said "pull it".

Cored

1. "Builders cutting corners." You can discount this. There are too many checks for this to have happened,especially on such serious commercial buildings. This is not like a house. Engineers review "shop drawings and submitals" before steel fabrication. Specialist inspectors check steel at
the factory before delivery for weld quality and steel dimensional tolerances, steel strength tested, certified, erection tolerances, erection loading, bolt torques, rivets to specs,welders are certified , concrete mix approved, tested, only experienced subcontractors used, reports are
produced, faulty work rejected and redone, etc. The engineers and testing labs had too much liability to not have done this correctly (The owner pays for these services).

2. "Errors in design." The Port Authority asked the architects and engineers, for the building design and inspections including the structural portions to comply with the then current 1968 NYC Building Code as a minimum. In a number of cases, the contract inspection and fabrication
requirements were more stringent than the codes required. NIST found no fault in the design. The light weight floor trusses were more vulnerable to heat than solid rolled shapes.

http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05155.pdf (page XL)

[Heiwa]

There's a surprise!

When?, Where?, What?

[aggle-rithm]

When?, Where?, What?

So, at which college did you study to be a troll?

[Bluesky]

Thanks for asking! Imagine that twenty pizza boxes fall on ONE pizza box and head for the next pizza box below (and 90 others). What stops them? Well, it seems the ONE pizza box is up to the job! No crush! And twenty pizza boxes just bounce.

Thus, the falling mass of 20 pizza boxes remains constant.

Please explain how ONE pizza box can stop 20 similar boxes. It is a simple question and the answer will make you understand Why a one-way Crush down is not possible!

PS - check what force the ONE pizza box applies on the 20 boxes falling down.

Here is an example of how total collapse can be generated by less than 1/20th of the total weight of a structure:
1. Get 20 Pizza boxes and stack on top of each other.
2. Tape together the sides with a few vertical lines of scotch tape.
3. cut each side vertically into 4, starting at each corner. Add vertical tape to stick the columns together
4. cut out all horizontal cardboard (the floors), and then replace them sticking them back in position with tiny amounts of glue, that is only just able to support the self weight of 1 piece of cardboard.
5. drop the top horizontal piece.

So what happens.
1. the top piece falls and hits the next piece.
2. and because the glue is only strong enough to support one piece of cardboard the next piece falls...
3 and so on, until all the horizontals have fallen
4. at some point during the collapse the columns, the vertical emlements fall down. The columns will become unstable because they have lost the lateral restraint of the floor thro the glue. The columns will not be able to support their own weight as a single skin of cardboard 20 pizza-boxes tall. The columns will tend to fall outwards because the air is pushed out of the boxes by the collapse, and pushes out the outside walls.

Interestingly, the floors will collapse at essentially free-fall speed as they pancake, because the glue offers no real resistance and is massively overloaded, even after the first impact (200% of design load plus impact force to bring it to about 300% of design). The columns will be slower to fall, and will tend to fall radially out from the middle.

You see the collapse does not have to crush the columns, and if you look at the photos of the pile of debris on WTC 1 and 2 you will see lots of straight pieces. These pieces did not crush and did not provide resistance to crushing which is why WTC 2 fell quickly, in about 14.5 seconds. There was not a lot of resistance to collapse, it fell at 40%g, which means that 40% of the potential energy was converted to kinetic energy, and 60% of the energy was absorbed in the "crush".

So as most engineers knew, Heiwa's theory is neither relevant nor correct. Poor guy has spent several thousand postings trying to justify this nuts.
:boxedin:

[Justin39640]

you actually made a pizza box building? lol
i really hope you made a video

[Tony Szamboti]

Here is an example of how total collapse can be generated by less than 1/20th of the total weight of a structure:
1. Get 20 Pizza boxes and stack on top of each other.
2. Tape together the sides with a few vertical lines of scotch tape.
3. cut each side vertically into 4, starting at each corner. Add vertical tape to stick the columns together
4. cut out all horizontal cardboard (the floors), and then replace them sticking them back in position with tiny amounts of glue, that is only just able to support the self weight of 1 piece of cardboard.
5. drop the top horizontal piece.

So what happens.
1. the top piece falls and hits the next piece.
2. and because the glue is only strong enough to support one piece of cardboard the next piece falls...
3 and so on, until all the horizontals have fallen
4. at some point during the collapse the columns, the vertical emlements fall down. The columns will become unstable because they have lost the lateral restraint of the floor thro the glue. The columns will not be able to support their own weight as a single skin of cardboard 20 pizza-boxes tall. The columns will tend to fall outwards because the air is pushed out of the boxes by the collapse, and pushes out the outside walls.

Interestingly, the floors will collapse at essentially free-fall speed as they pancake, because the glue offers no real resistance and is massively overloaded, even after the first impact (200% of design load plus impact force to bring it to about 300% of design). The columns will be slower to fall, and will tend to fall radially out from the middle.

You see the collapse does not have to crush the columns, and if you look at the photos of the pile of debris on WTC 1 and 2 you will see lots of straight pieces. These pieces did not crush and did not provide resistance to crushing which is why WTC 2 fell quickly, in about 14.5 seconds. There was not a lot of resistance to collapse, it fell at 40%g, which means that 40% of the potential energy was converted to kinetic energy, and 60% of the energy was absorbed in the "crush".

So as most engineers knew, Heiwa's theory is neither relevant nor correct. Poor guy has spent several thousand postings trying to justify this nuts.
:boxedin:

Nice try, but there are a few serious problems with your model.

It seems the floors in the twin towers were able to statically withstand the weight of 11 additional floors. Don't take my word for it. The NIST says it right in their Dec. 2007 FAQ on the collapses. Read question 1 at the link below.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_12_2007.htm

Taping the columns together vertically probably isn't too realistic either, as it decreases the area of restraint and reduces the moment needed to cause buckling. There should be glue between the bottoms and tops of adjoining box's columns also. The glue here should be sufficient to ensure the original tensile strength and stiffness of the cardboard is maintained.

It doesn't sound like you use anything to provide for the spandrel beams either. They were not insignificant and were about 40% of the height of the columns. If the pizza boxes are 1.75 inches high you should put .75 inch high horizontal bands of thinner cardboard around the perimeter of each pizza box which is glued to each vertical column on that pizza box.

It looks like you are going to have to add a lot more glue and some additional cardboard for the spandrels to make a realistic model. If you do it this way let us know how it works then.

[beachnut]

Nice try, but there are a couple of serious problems with your model.
...
Does this mean you support the failed ideas of Heiwa? Heiwa's ideas are proved wrong on 911. Your realcddeal is a lie and pure delusion. Your lack of evidence is 7 years, 9 months and 12 days old. Did you misplace your evidence? Don't you find Heiwa's failure to understand gravity really sad?

Please if you are supporting Heiwa's idea on this, state or present the hundreds if not thousands of pages of support and calculations.

[Heiwa]

Does this mean you support the failed ideas of Heiwa? Heiwa's ideas are proved wrong on 911. Your realcddeal is a lie and pure delusion. Your lack of evidence is 7 years, 9 months and 12 days old. Did you misplace your evidence? Don't you find Heiwa's failure to understand gravity really sad?

Please if you are supporting Heiwa's idea on this, state or present the hundreds if not thousands of pages of support and calculations.

Having started this thread - see #1 - it seems nobody has managed to demonstrate that a small part C of a steel/composite structure can one-way crush down the remainder, part A, of the same structure below when dropped on A only by gravity. Reason is that part C cannot apply the required energy on A without destroying itself.
Bazant, Seffen, Mackey, NIST, BLGB, etc., suggest that it is possible/will happen, if (!!!) part C is first compressed into one solid, rigid, indestructible mass, but it is not realistic at all. Upper part C is in fact much weaker than part A below.
This is quite basic even if not taught in structural design/analysis courses of intact structures. The advanced course - structural damage analysis - is not too difficult; the structure is locally damaged and you see if more local failures will occur and you establish the path of failures through it. NIST failed to do that with WTC 7.

The very advanced course - two structures collide and damage each other - is even more complex but still understandable.

If one structure is much stronger than the other, the latter is crushed.

If both structures are of similar type, BOTH structures are damaged, and you have to consider the size of each part. You'll soon learn that the smaller part cannot one-way crush down the bigger part.

It is quite sad that NIST cannot find any reference proving even the existence of a structural one-way crush down prior/after 911. They have found some structures collapsing when supports at the bottom are removed, etc, etc, but that is something else. Evidently the table may drop if you remove the legs or a pile of pizza boxes will drop if you remove the bottom box. But try to one-way crush a pile of pizza boxes by dropping other pizza boxes on the pile! It doesn't work.

[GlennB]

Nice try, but there are a few serious problems with your model.


The "challenge" involved meeting Heiwa's conditions. BlueSky has done this.

Whether or not his taped-up pizza boxes are a reasonable representation of WTC 1+2 is irrelevant.

[FineWine]

Having started this thread - see #1 - it seems nobody has managed to demonstrate that a small part C of a steel/composite structure can one-way crush down the remainder, part A, of the same structure below when dropped on A only by gravity. Reason is that part C cannot apply the required energy on A without destroying itself.
Bazant, Seffen, Mackey, NIST, BLGB, etc., suggest that it is possible/will happen, if (!!!) part C is first compressed into one solid, rigid, indestructible mass, but it is not realistic at all. Upper part C is in fact much weaker than part A below.
This is quite basic even if not taught in structural design/analysis courses of intact structures. The advanced course - structural damage analysis - is not too difficult; the structure is locally damaged and you see if more local failures will occur and you establish the path of failures through it. NIST failed to do that with WTC 7.

The very advanced course - two structures collide and damage each other - is even more complex but still understandable.

If one structure is much stronger than the other, the latter is crushed.

If both structures are of similar type, BOTH structures are damaged, and you have to consider the size of each part. You'll soon learn that the smaller part cannot one-way crush down the bigger part.

It is quite sad that NIST cannot find any reference proving even the existence of a structural one-way crush down prior/after 911. They have found some structures collapsing when supports at the bottom are removed, etc, etc, but that is something else. Evidently the table may drop if you remove the legs or a pile of pizza boxes will drop if you remove the bottom box. But try to one-way crush a pile of pizza boxes by dropping other pizza boxes on the pile! It doesn't work.



It's amazing that you can't learn a thing. You're still trying to paper over your staggering lack of comprehension by telling silly lies. Nobody in the world regards the collapsing floors as an "indestructible" mass. You refuse to come to terms with the fact that the collapsing floors impact ONE floor at a time, not EVERY floor all at once. By now, we can conclude that your obtuseness is willful, a clumsy attempt to obfuscate and deceive.

[sylvan8798]

Having started this thread - see #1 - it seems nobody has managed to demonstrate that a small part C of a steel/composite structure can one-way crush down the remainder, part A, of the same structure below when dropped on A only by gravity. Reason is that part C cannot apply the required energy on A without destroying itself.


Would you say, along these same lines, that if a small chunk C of a building falls by gravity on a different building K, where K is certainly designed to carry more than the small part C, that it could not cause a section of building K to collapse basically to the ground?

[Heiwa]

Would you say, along these same lines, that if a small chunk C of a building falls by gravity on a different building K, where K is certainly designed to carry more than the small part C, that it could not cause a section of building K to collapse basically to the ground?

C, being dropped on or impacting K sideways, will only cause local failures of K at the impact area or simply bounce off. I doubt very much that a local failure up top will produce a crush down of a section of K below to ground.

But if the C impact is sideways, some section of K above impact may displace down a little bit before arrest occurs.

In principle, you cannot one-way crush down a structure from above by dropping a smaller, weaker piece of structure on it

[aggle-rithm]

Having started this thread - see #1 - it seems nobody has managed to demonstrate that a small part C of a steel/composite structure can one-way crush down the remainder, part A, of the same structure below when dropped on A only by gravity. Reason is that part C cannot apply the required energy on A without destroying itself.


I think this is all about semantics.

Sure, you could argue that part C could not destroy part A without itself being destroyed. From this perspective, I guess you could say that a "one-way crush down" is not possible. However, no one is claiming that such a thing has ever happened, so it's irrelevant.

[aggle-rithm]

In principle, you cannot one-way crush down a structure from above by dropping a smaller, weaker piece of structure on it

You are apparently using a definition of the phrase "in principle" of which I am unfamiliar.

[Heiwa]

You are apparently using a definition of the phrase "in principle" of which I am unfamiliar.

Principle in this case is general law of cause and effect. So in general law of cause and effect a small upper structural part cannot one-way crush down a bigger, similar structure.
Nobody has been able to prove the opposite in practice or in theory. I have made an axiom out of it. Long time overdue, though.

[Heiwa]

I think this is all about semantics.

Sure, you could argue that part C could not destroy part A without itself being destroyed. From this perspective, I guess you could say that a "one-way crush down" is not possible. However, no one is claiming that such a thing has ever happened, so it's irrelevant.

Well, Bazant, Seffen, Mackey, NIST, BLGB and a few other dishonest characters suggest that a "one-way crush down" of a structure is not only possible but, therefore, occurs in reality. 911 seems to be their only example of the latter. Asking them to demonstrate the effect under controlled conditions is met by ... silcence.

[aggle-rithm]

Well, Bazant, Seffen, Mackey, NIST, BLGB and a few other dishonest characters suggest that a "one-way crush down" of a structure is not only possible but, therefore, occurs in reality. 911 seems to be their only example of the latter. Asking them to demonstrate the effect under controlled conditions is met by ... silcence.

I would guess that they were using a simplified model to demonstrate some physical concept. To attempt a complete analysis of how the mobile portion comes apart would make the model needlessly complex, since this would have very little effect on the overall force.

Force is mass times acceleration. There is nothing in the formula about crushing.

But, why am I telling you this? You're a troll.

[sylvan8798]

I doubt very much that a local failure up top will produce a crush down of a section of K below to ground.

You doubt? or is this part of the Heiwa axiom?

But if the C impact is sideways, some section of K above impact may displace down a little bit before arrest occurs.

In principle, you cannot one-way crush down a structure from above by dropping a smaller, weaker piece of structure on it

Regardless of the height from which it is dropped?

[Heiwa]

Regardless of the height from which it is dropped?

Yes! Surprised? The height is just a question of energy applied by the small part C. How to convince you?
Start with a small height/energy and see what happens! There is a bounce!
Double the height/energy application! Some local failures followed by arrest.
Increase height/energy 10 times! Part C is really damaged but A still stands after arrest of C
Increase height/energy again 10 times. Part C is completely destroyed but parts of A are still standing. No one-way crush down of A has taken place so far. Parts of A are still connected.
Increase height/energy another 10 times. Same thing happens - you see when part C is completely destroyed it cannot damage A further. A completely damaged structure C cannot apply any energy on what remains of A.
Conclusion. A one-way crush down of A by C is not possible by dropping C on A.

Yes, I agree that A will be damaged ... but topic is Why a one-way Crush down is not possible. Don't change the subject.

[Heiwa]

I would guess that they were using a simplified model to demonstrate some physical concept. To attempt a complete analysis of how the mobile portion comes apart would make the model needlessly complex, since this would have very little effect on the overall force.

Force is mass times acceleration. There is nothing in the formula about crushing.

But, why am I telling you this? You're a troll.

Actually, when you apply a force on a mass, the mass accelerates in the direction of the force. So when a mass (WTC 1 upper part) drops on and contacts anything static (WTC 1 lower part), anything static applies a force on the mass and accelerates it. And maybe crushes it.

So lower part crushes or bounces off upper part. Is that what you say? If yes, I agree. Happens in a game of basket ball all the time.

[FineWine]

Yes! Surprised? The height is just a question of energy applied by the small part C. How to convince you?
Start with a small height/energy and see what happens! There is a bounce!
Double the height/energy application! Some local failures followed by arrest.
Increase height/energy 10 times! Part C is really damaged but A still stands after arrest of C
Increase height/energy again 10 times. Part C is completely destroyed but parts of A are still standing. No one-way crush down of A has taken place so far. Parts of A are still connected.
Increase height/energy another 10 times. Same thing happens - you see when part C is completely destroyed it cannot damage A further. A completely damaged structure C cannot apply any energy on what remains of A.
Conclusion. A one-way crush down of A by C is not possible by dropping C on A.

Yes, I agree that A will be damaged ... but topic is Why a one-way Crush down is not possible. Don't change the subject.


Keep babbling. The thirteen falling floors do not hit ninety-seven floors all at once. They hit a single floor, the one immediately below, and then the process is repeated until the building is gone.

Yes, the real engineers at the ASCE journal would certainly be surprised that an engineering school gave a degree to someone who dreams that increasing the height from which C is dropped onto A makes no difference. As a combination of cocksure arrogance and hopeless obtuseness, you can't be topped.

[Tony Szamboti]

Keep babbling. The thirteen falling floors do not hit ninety-seven floors all at once. They hit a single floor, the one immediately below, and then the process is repeated until the building is gone.

Yes, the real engineers at the ASCE journal would certainly be surprised that an engineering school gave a degree to someone who dreams that increasing the height from which C is dropped onto A makes no difference. As a combination of cocksure arrogance and hopeless obtuseness, you can't be topped.

How many floors into the collision do you think the original 13 falling floors of the upper block of WTC 1 would remain intact? If they are turned into rubble at some point do you then think that the rest of the collapse to the ground is due to the large amount of looser material pummeling the lower structure in an avalanche fashion?

[A W Smith]

How many floors into the collision do you think the original 13 falling floors of the upper block of WTC 1 would remain intact? If they are turned into rubble at some point do you then think that the rest of the collapse to the ground is due to the large amount of looser material pummeling the lower structure in an avalanche fashion?
Now explain to us Tony how if they turned into rubble, mass is reduced?
Its like the old trick question. Whats heavier? A ton of steel or a ton of gravel? Tell me your not this stupid?

[sylvan8798]

Yes! Surprised? The height is just a question of energy applied by the small part C. How to convince you?
Start with a small height/energy and see what happens! There is a bounce!
Double the height/energy application! Some local failures followed by arrest.
Increase height/energy 10 times! Part C is really damaged but A still stands after arrest of C
Increase height/energy again 10 times. Part C is completely destroyed but parts of A are still standing. No one-way crush down of A has taken place so far. Parts of A are still connected.
Increase height/energy another 10 times. Same thing happens - you see when part C is completely destroyed it cannot damage A further. A completely damaged structure C cannot apply any energy on what remains of A.
Conclusion. A one-way crush down of A by C is not possible by dropping C on A.

Yes, I agree that A will be damaged ... but topic is Why a one-way Crush down is not possible. Don't change the subject.

Surprised isn't the right word. In fact there are no words.

Perhaps you would enlighten us as to what happened here:

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myphotos1960/wtc6.jpg

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/images/wtc-photo-cropped.jpg&imgrefurl=http://killtown.911review.org/wtc6.html&usg=__WWacX7r2e0Fg3gGksy_Th3LO0Ec=&h=2952&w=3154&sz=3602&hl=en&start=16&um=1&tbnid=k7iPmH6bcXsSwM:&tbnh=140&tbnw=150&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dwtc%2B6%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%2 6rls%3Den%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1

Particularly this FEMA statement: "...most of the central part of WTC 6 suffered collapse on all floors." -FEMA

It seems like those parts which were "completely damaged structure C" applied a goodly bit of energy to what was until moments before, perfectly UNDAMAGED building K (in this case the customhouse). While you are idiotically suggesting that random damaged parts of falling buildings can't apply any energy, perhaps you can explain the damage to all the other buildings on the site and not on the site which were hit by the falling DEBRIS from WTC1 and WTC2.

[Heiwa]

The thirteen falling floors do not hit ninety-seven floors all at once. They hit a single floor, the one immediately below, and then the process is repeated until the building is gone.



LOL!

[Heiwa]

Surprised isn't the right word. In fact there are no words.

Perhaps you would enlighten us as to what happened here:

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myphotos1960/wtc6.jpg

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/images/wtc-photo-cropped.jpg&imgrefurl=http://killtown.911review.org/wtc6.html&usg=__WWacX7r2e0Fg3gGksy_Th3LO0Ec=&h=2952&w=3154&sz=3602&hl=en&start=16&um=1&tbnid=k7iPmH6bcXsSwM:&tbnh=140&tbnw=150&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dwtc%2B6%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%2 6rls%3Den%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1

Particularly this FEMA statement: "...most of the central part of WTC 6 suffered collapse on all floors." -FEMA

It seems like those parts which were "completely damaged structure C" applied a goodly bit of energy to what was until moments before, perfectly UNDAMAGED building K (in this case the customhouse). While you are idiotically suggesting that random damaged parts of falling buildings can't apply any energy, perhaps you can explain the damage to all the other buildings on the site and not on the site which were hit by the falling DEBRIS from WTC1 and WTC2.

Well, to be perfectly frank with you! In my opinion WTC 1, 2 and 7 were all destroyed by controlled demolition. It is quite obvious based on available evidence and basic physics (topic). And you worry about the adjacent buildings. Sorry pal - keep on topic.

[Heiwa]

Surprised isn't the right word. In fact there are no words.

Perhaps you would enlighten us as to what happened here:

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myphotos1960/wtc6.jpg

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/images/wtc-photo-cropped.jpg&imgrefurl=http://killtown.911review.org/wtc6.html&usg=__WWacX7r2e0Fg3gGksy_Th3LO0Ec=&h=2952&w=3154&sz=3602&hl=en&start=16&um=1&tbnid=k7iPmH6bcXsSwM:&tbnh=140&tbnw=150&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dwtc%2B6%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%2 6rls%3Den%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1

Particularly this FEMA statement: "...most of the central part of WTC 6 suffered collapse on all floors." -FEMA

It seems like those parts which were "completely damaged structure C" applied a goodly bit of energy to what was until moments before, perfectly UNDAMAGED building K (in this case the customhouse). While you are idiotically suggesting that random damaged parts of falling buildings can't apply any energy, perhaps you can explain the damage to all the other buildings on the site and not on the site which were hit by the falling DEBRIS from WTC1 and WTC2.

It seems WTC 6 (your building K) must have been destroyed from below! Such a hole in the structure cannot have been done by anything falling on it from above.
My suggestion is that WTC 6 was destroyed by a bomb in the basement. It seems that it took place simultaneously with the controlled demolition of WTC 2. Suggest you start a new thread about the hole in WTC 6.

[twinstead]

It seems WTC 6 (your building K) must have been destroyed from below! Such a hole in the structure cannot have been done by anything falling on it from above.
My suggestion is that WTC 6 was destroyed by a bomb in the basement. It seems that it took place simultaneously with the controlled demolition of WTC 2. Suggest you start a new thread about the hole in WTC 6.

Frankly, you have shown yourself totally unqualified to make such conjecture. Pardon me if I want a second opinion.

[aggle-rithm]

Actually, when you apply a force on a mass, the mass accelerates in the direction of the force. So when a mass (WTC 1 upper part) drops on and contacts anything static (WTC 1 lower part), anything static applies a force on the mass and accelerates it. And maybe crushes it.

So lower part crushes or bounces off upper part. Is that what you say? If yes, I agree. Happens in a game of basket ball all the time.

I'm replying just to comment on a certain principle here, and not to engage with you in any kind of dialogue. You being a troll makes that counterproductive.

You seem to be saying that there is a fundamental difference in how a mobile mass and a stationary one behave when one collides with the other.

When one mass is moving and one is stationary, each is in it's own inertial frame. Were it not the fact that one of them is anchored in the ground, there would be no way to tell from within the inertial frame of each which was moving and which was stationary...in fact, the terms are meaningless from a relativistic standpoint.

So, why would the stationary portion behave differently from the mobile one? The only difference, again, is that one is anchored and thus unable to rebound from the collision. That portion is therefore more likely to fail than the mobile portion, which can "bounce" to a certain extent.

If the two objects were interacting in a weightless environment, then you would expect the larger mass to "win" in an inelastic collision, although it would certainly be damaged. However, in the case of buildings there is a third object that is much, much bigger than the other two...it's called the ground. And gravity has a tendency to squash both masses as close to the ground as it can.

Of course, this is all very generalized stuff, but it demonstrates that your very generalized reasoning is faulty.

[J. Wellington Wimpy]

It seems WTC 6 (your building K) must have been destroyed from below! Such a hole in the structure cannot have been done by anything falling on it from above.
My suggestion is that WTC 6 was destroyed by a bomb in the basement.

Sweet fluffy baby Jesus, but you're an ongoing, one-man Stundie.

:dl:

[Heiwa]

D. You seem to be saying that there is a fundamental difference in how a mobile mass and a stationary one behave when one collides with the other.

E. When one mass is moving and one is stationary, each is in it's own inertial frame. Were it not the fact that one of them is anchored in the ground, there would be no way to tell from within the inertial frame of each which was moving and which was stationary...in fact, the terms are meaningless from a relativistic standpoint.

F. So, why would the stationary portion behave differently from the mobile one? The only difference, again, is that one is anchored and thus unable to rebound from the collision. That portion is therefore more likely to fail than the mobile portion, which can "bounce" to a certain extent.

G. If the two objects were interacting in a weightless environment, then you would expect the larger mass to "win" in an inelastic collision, although it would certainly be damaged. However, in the case of buildings there is a third object that is much, much bigger than the other two...it's called the ground. And gravity has a tendency to squash both masses as close to the ground as it can.

H. Of course, this is all very generalized stuff, but it demonstrates that your very generalized reasoning is faulty.

D. Not really. I look at the total result when two assemblies, A and C, of mass elements collide. A is connected to ground. C is free to move/drop.

E. Yes, the ground is a very important factor to consider. A third assembly of material points.

F. Yes, A will deform relative ground, as will C, at contact C/A. The question which of A and C will fail first is subject topic + whether C can one-way crush A to ground.

G. See F. Has gravity a tendency to squash both assemblies of material elements, C and A, in collision? Deform, yes! Squash, no! Anyway, when a failure occurs, in C or A, we are no longer talking about C and A any longer. It is Cfailed and Afailed that must be considered in what happens then. Quite interesting matter. Some people suggest a new assembly of elements pop up! B - an assembly of rubble, apparently of failed elements of C and/or A.

H. I like generalized reasoning. So far nobody as been able to produce an assembly of mass elements A+C, then taken off the top piece C of this assembly A+C (C = 1/10A) and dropping C on A to produce a one-way crush of A. It seems it is not possible. I have made an axiom about it. Please demonstrate that the axiom is faulty.

[Heiwa]

Sweet fluffy baby Jesus, but you're an ongoing, one-man Stundie.



So what did you find at the bottom of the big hole in K, aka WTC 6? Big bits of structure from other buildings? Or bits of WTC 6? Or nothing? From photos it seems there was ... nothing! But start another thread about it.

[phunk]

So what did you find at the bottom of the big hole in K, aka WTC 6? Big bits of structure from other buildings? Or bits of WTC 6? Or nothing? From photos it seems there was ... nothing! But start another thread about it.

Nothing? Looks like hundreds of tons of perimeter columns from WTC1.

http://phunkadelic.org/wtc6.jpg

[bio]

Now explain to us Tony how if they turned into rubble, mass is reduced?
Its like the old trick question. Whats heavier? A ton of steel or a ton of gravel? Tell me your not this stupid?

In the videos I can see the material puffing out of the crushing zone. Do you want to say, that this material stay in the crushing zone?

[phunk]

In the videos I can see the material puffing out of the crushing zone. Do you want to say, that this material stay in the crushing zone?

Mostly smoke and dust, not a significant fraction of the mass.

[Heiwa]

Nothing? Looks like hundreds of tons of perimeter columns from WTC1.

http://phunkadelic.org/wtc6.jpg

Hm, WTC 1 was destroyed much later than WTC 6 was destroyed. Should not all of the destroyed WTC 6 be below these "hundreds of tons of perimeter columns from WTC1"?

You really believe that 'some hundreds of tons of debris from WTC 1' can destroy an intact building?

[bio]

Mostly smoke and dust, not a significant fraction of the mass.

interesting - can you prove that? What is "significant"?


1200-foot-dia. debris field: no "pancaked" floors found (http://www.ae911truth.org/images/fema_debris_distribution.jpg)

[Heiwa]

Now explain to us Tony how if they turned into rubble, mass is reduced?
Its like the old trick question. Whats heavier? A ton of steel or a ton of gravel? Tell me your not this stupid?

A ton of steel has SG 7.85. And SG of gravel? Say 1.5. So steel is heavier than gravel for same volumes. Water has SG 1. Take a shower!

[phunk]

Hm, WTC 1 was destroyed much later than WTC 6 was destroyed. Should not all of the destroyed WTC 6 be below these "hundreds of tons of perimeter columns from WTC1"?

You really believe that 'some hundreds of tons of debris from WTC 1' can destroy an intact building?

How was WTC1 destroyed later than WTC6 when WTC6 was destroyed by WTC1 falling on it?

And yes, hundreds of tons of debris dropped from nearly 1000 feet can easily punch a big hole in a building.

[GlennB]

Hm, WTC 1 was destroyed much later than WTC 6 was destroyed. Should not all of the destroyed WTC 6 be below these "hundreds of tons of perimeter columns from WTC1"?

You really believe that 'some hundreds of tons of debris from WTC 1' can destroy an intact building?

Heiwa - of the twin towers it was WTC1 that was closest to WTC6.
You seem to be under the impression that WTC2 was the closest. You are wrong in the most basic way possible.

[NobbyNobbs]

Yes! Surprised? The height is just a question of energy applied by the small part C. How to convince you?
Start with a small height/energy and see what happens! There is a bounce!
Double the height/energy application! Some local failures followed by arrest.
Increase height/energy 10 times! Part C is really damaged but A still stands after arrest of C
Increase height/energy again 10 times. Part C is completely destroyed but parts of A are still standing. No one-way crush down of A has taken place so far. Parts of A are still connected.
Increase height/energy another 10 times. Same thing happens - you see when part C is completely destroyed it cannot damage A further. A completely damaged structure C cannot apply any energy on what remains of A.
Conclusion. A one-way crush down of A by C is not possible by dropping C on A.

Yes, I agree that A will be damaged ... but topic is Why a one-way Crush down is not possible. Don't change the subject.


Well, you've set my mind at ease about one thing at least. NASA can stop its search for asteroids that may impact the Earth. Any that do will either self-destruct or simply bounce off into space.

Looks like "Armaggedon" got it wrong after all. Thank goodness we dodged that bullet.

[aggle-rithm]

H. I like generalized reasoning. So far nobody as been able to produce an assembly of mass elements A+C, then taken off the top piece C of this assembly A+C (C = 1/10A) and dropping C on A to produce a one-way crush of A. It seems it is not possible. I have made an axiom about it. Please demonstrate that the axiom is faulty.

The axiom is merely incomplete (it only holds true in special cases that you do not specify). It is your reasoning that is faulty.

[sylvan8798]

It seems WTC 6 (your building K) must have been destroyed from below! Such a hole in the structure cannot have been done by anything falling on it from above.
My suggestion is that WTC 6 was destroyed by a bomb in the basement. It seems that it took place simultaneously with the controlled demolition of WTC 2. Suggest you start a new thread about the hole in WTC 6.

The topic is one way crush down. WTC 6 was destroyed by falling debris from WTC 1. I'm sure it must be hard for you to imagine how ridiculous you sound.

[Justin39640]

workin on it
as soon as i figure this thing out were gonna have some fun lol

http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/1983/heiwablendersml.jpg

[FineWine]

How many floors into the collision do you think the original 13 falling floors of the upper block of WTC 1 would remain intact? If they are turned into rubble at some point do you then think that the rest of the collapse to the ground is due to the large amount of looser material pummeling the lower structure in an avalanche fashion?


Are you playing dumb or is it real? Does the falling mass weigh more if it remains "intact"? Do you think the falling floors hit the next floor in line or do they magically hit ALL of the remaining floors? Do you accept Heiwa's lunacy that only the bottom floor of the falling mass contacts the floor below while the top floors float in midair?

You seem to have some understanding of engineering. Why are you making a fool of yourself trying to defend an insane hypothesis?

[FineWine]

D. Not really. I look at the total result when two assemblies, A and C, of mass elements collide. A is connected to ground. C is free to move/drop.

E. Yes, the ground is a very important factor to consider. A third assembly of material points.

F. Yes, A will deform relative ground, as will C, at contact C/A. The question which of A and C will fail first is subject topic + whether C can one-way crush A to ground.

G. See F. Has gravity a tendency to squash both assemblies of material elements, C and A, in collision? Deform, yes! Squash, no! Anyway, when a failure occurs, in C or A, we are no longer talking about C and A any longer. It is Cfailed and Afailed that must be considered in what happens then. Quite interesting matter. Some people suggest a new assembly of elements pop up! B - an assembly of rubble, apparently of failed elements of C and/or A.

H. I like generalized reasoning. So far nobody as been able to produce an assembly of mass elements A+C, then taken off the top piece C of this assembly A+C (C = 1/10A) and dropping C on A to produce a one-way crush of A. It seems it is not possible. I have made an axiom about it. Please demonstrate that the axiom is faulty.


Heiwa, you have humiliated yourself for months with your fantastic idiocy. For once, tell us how only the bottom floor of thirteen or so falling floors contacts the floor immediately below. Tell us why you dream that the falling mass hits all the remaining 97 floors at once and not, as is obvious to everyone sane, EACH SUCCESSIVE floor.

[Tony Szamboti]

How was WTC1 destroyed later than WTC6 when WTC6 was destroyed by WTC1 falling on it?

And yes, hundreds of tons of debris dropped from nearly 1000 feet can easily punch a big hole in a building.

That is quite true. The impulsive load is very high at the velocity these hard and heavy pieces would have had when they impacted the roof and floors of WTC 6. I have done some calculations that show the impulses would have exceeded 100g's.

There is another point to be made and that is that the side walls survived much more so than did the roof and floor areas or plates of WTC 6. The walls were more robust in the vertical direction.

[Justin39640]

That is quite true. The impulsive load is very high at the velocity these hard and heavy pieces would have had when they impacted the roof and floors of WTC 6. I have done some calculations that show the impulses would have exceeded 100g's.

There is another point to be made and that is that the side walls survived much more so than did the roof and floor areas or plates of WTC 6. The walls were more robust in the vertical direction.

maybe cause they walls werent as tall as the towers
so they could stand without collapsing under their own weight

[Tony Szamboti]

Are you playing dumb or is it real? Does the falling mass weigh more if it remains "intact"? Do you think the falling floors hit the next floor in line or do they magically hit ALL of the remaining floors? Do you accept Heiwa's lunacy that only the bottom floor of the falling mass contacts the floor below while the top floors float in midair?

You seem to have some understanding of engineering. Why are you making a fool of yourself trying to defend an insane hypothesis?

It seems you apparently believe that the upper block would not have remained intact but that the complete collapse was still inevitable with looser material falling onto the lower structure.

I can't immediately buy that explanation as there is something to be said for mass participation in a shock load. Pieces of rubble do not participate together very well.

I don't think it is foolish to explore these issues.

[aggle-rithm]

I can't immediately buy that explanation as there is something to be said for mass participation in a shock load. Pieces of rubble do not participate together very well.
.

"Participation"?

The pieces of rubble all move in the same direction because of gravity. There is no need for them to organize and communicate with each other.

[six7s]

"Participation"?

The pieces of rubble all move in the same direction because of gravity. There is no need for them to organize and communicate with each other.All rubble is known to be part of teh cover up!

KUogzf1h2UY

[A W Smith]

A ton of steel has SG 7.85. And SG of gravel? Say 1.5. So steel is heavier than gravel for same volumes. Water has SG 1. Take a shower!


http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home

Björkman is an engineer who believes that weight = mass. No, really. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4280640#post4280640)

[sylvan8798]

That is quite true. The impulsive load is very high at the velocity these hard and heavy pieces would have had when they impacted the roof and floors of WTC 6. I have done some calculations that show the impulses would have exceeded 100g's.

There is another point to be made and that is that the side walls survived much more so than did the roof and floor areas or plates of WTC 6. The walls were more robust in the vertical direction.



It seems you apparently believe that the upper block would not have remained intact but that the complete collapse was still inevitable with looser material falling onto the lower structure.

I can't immediately buy that explanation as there is something to be said for mass participation in a shock load. Pieces of rubble do not participate together very well.

I don't think it is foolish to explore these issues.

So, on the one hand, you admit that loose falling debris could cause a significant portion of WTC 6 to collapse, but on the other hand, you still assert that loose falling debris can't damage WTC 1 or WTC 2? Do you have any idea how contorted you have to get to make these arguments? Why not join the sane and admit that Heiwa is an embarrassment to the engineering profession (if he even is one)?

As for the walls of WTC 6, the structure was likely much more of a conventional framing plan with columns probably on a 30' by 30' type grid and girders and beams in between. The only "walls" which would have been part of that type of structure might be masonry or concrete shear walls in the stairs/elevators, which don't typically carry much vertical load.

The Towers were unusual in that the exterior WALLS were also a major structural ELEMENT for both the vertical loads and the wind loads. During the collapses, the exterior walls tried to stay together as a unit and much of them fell outward, simply breaking away from the floors, or they lost lateral support and buckled, more or less as a unit.

[Tony Szamboti]

"Participation"?

The pieces of rubble all move in the same direction because of gravity. There is no need for them to organize and communicate with each other.

You don't seem to understand shock loading. If each individual item does not have the energy to demolish a structural element under it then it would need participation from the other pieces. Since the lower structure could take the static load above it with plenty of reserve to spare the load needed to be dynamic and in most cases removing an individual element would requires many times the load of an item similar to itself.

[sylvan8798]

You don't seem to understand shock loading. If each individual item does not have the energy to demolish a structural element under it then it would need participation from the other pieces. Since the lower structure could take the static load above it with plenty of reserve to spare the load needed to be dynamic and in most case removing an individual element would requires many times the load of an item similar to itself.

And by participate I mean most all of them arrive at the same time....

[Tony Szamboti]

So, on the one hand, you admit that loose falling debris could cause a significant portion of WTC 6 to collapse, but on the other hand, you still assert that loose falling debris can't damage WTC 1 or WTC 2? Do you have any idea how contorted you have to get to make these arguments? Why not join the sane and admit that Heiwa is an embarrassment to the engineering profession (if he even is one)?

What happened to WTC 6 is exclusive from the towers. The velocity of the debris in the first twenty stories in the tower collapses was not in the same category as the debris that hit WTC 6 and even then the high velocity debris did not take down the vertically stiff outer walls of WTC 6.

As for the walls of WTC 6, the structure was likely much more of a conventional framing plan with columns probably on a 30' by 30' type grid and girders and beams in between. The only "walls" which would have been part of that type of structure might be masonry or concrete shear walls in the stairs/elevators, which don't typically carry much vertical load.

I was discussing the exterior walls of WTC 6 which survived the pummeling to a large degree.

The Towers were unusual in that the exterior WALLS were also a major structural ELEMENT for both the vertical loads and the wind loads. During the collapses, the exterior walls tried to stay together as a unit and much of them fell outward, simply breaking away from the floors, or they lost lateral support and buckled, more or less as a unit.

How do you think the braced outer core columns in the towers collapsed all the way to the ground?

[Tony Szamboti]

And by participate I mean most all of them arrive at the same time....

That isn't mass participation in a shock load. The items have to be able to transmit the dynamic load and this usually requires a stiff connection. Loose rubble below would tend to attenuate the shock load from the items above.

[sylvan8798]

What happened to WTC 6 is exclusive from the towers. The velocity of the debris in the first twenty stories in the tower collapses was not in the same category as the debris that hit WTC 6 and even then the high velocity debris did not take down the vertically stiff outer walls of WTC 6.



I was discussing the exterior walls of WTC 6 which survived the pummeling to a large degree.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Six_WTC_SW_Corner.jpg&imgrefurl=http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Six_WTC_SW_Corner.jpg&usg=__9yYSfhpYkb2MfnUrDi0Gtt-pmNE=&h=2104&w=3141&sz=1775&hl=en&start=2&um=1&tbnid=gSs8z7GSTwNCZM:&tbnh=100&tbnw=150&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dwtc%2Bus%2Bcustomhouse%26hl%3Den%26cl ient%3Dsafari%26rls%3Den%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1

As I said, the exterior walls of WTC 6 were NOT A STRUCTURAL ELEMENT. The grid structure is clearly evident here. The structure that was most badly hit with debris collapsed, there was nothing particularly special about the rest of the structure, or about the exterior walls, that caused it NOT to collapse - it just wasn't hit as catastrophically.



How do you think the braced outer core columns in the towers collapsed all the way to the ground?

Their lateral support was also removed as the floor joists and the elevator area floor beams were broken and the connections were broken. The "spires" that remained standing for a few seconds after the main collapse couldn't stand under their own weight without any lateral bracing, and with the amount of damage done by the other structure breaking away from them.

The simple fact is that these buildings were not designed to undergo the kinds of loadings which took place during the collapse. Buildings are designed to stand there, mostly still, maybe sway a little in the wind and deflect under day to day loads of people walking around and furniture, flooring, machinery, etc. They are not designed to withstand getting stomped.

[sylvan8798]

That isn't mass participation in a shock load. The items have to be able to transmit the dynamic load and this usually requires a stiff connection. Loose rubble below would tend to attenuate the shock load from the items above.

Then, at the worst case, when enough loose rubble piles up, the structure fails under a static load. However, in this case, enough material was packed together to cause failure under dynamic loads, and the situation only worsened as the collapse proceeded and more mass was packed together, like an avalanche.

[Tony Szamboti]

Then, at the worst case, when enough loose rubble piles up, the structure fails under a static load. However, in this case, enough material was packed together to cause failure under dynamic loads, and the situation only worsened as the collapse proceeded and more mass was packed together, like an avalanche.

Why would it fail under a static load? The structure below was designed to handle several times the load above it. The floors could handle 12 times their own weight.

Dynamic loads with an amplified force, due to a rapid transfer of momentum, can only be transmitted through stiff structures.

[R.Mackey]

Then, at the worst case, when enough loose rubble piles up, the structure fails under a static load. However, in this case, enough material was packed together to cause failure under dynamic loads, and the situation only worsened as the collapse proceeded and more mass was packed together, like an avalanche.


If you're going to retread well-traveled ground with Tony, it may help you to review this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140639). In it you'll see what his core issue is, as well as why it's nonsense.

The simple facts are these: The impact was a dynamic load, not just a static load, and he merely believes otherwise because he doesn't understand that the fact it hit at an angle confounds his measuring technique. And that the static load carrying capacity of the lower structure only applies while it's intact, and if that load lands on the weaker floors instead of the columns, it punches through, and the whole structure becomes unstable as a result.

Furthermore, he's been explained this repeatedly, not just here but at other forums (http://the911forum.freeforums.org/new-jones-paper-by-szamboti-and-graeme-macqueen-t119.html). Yet it makes no dent. I have a theory (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=118389) on why this is so and how to proceed, if you are interested. Best of luck.

[Justin39640]

The simple facts are these: The impact was a dynamic load, not just a static load, and he merely believes otherwise because he doesn't understand that the fact it hit at an angle confounds his measuring technique. And that the static load carrying capacity of the lower structure only applies while it's intact, and if that load lands on the weaker floors instead of the columns, it punches through, and the whole structure becomes unstable as a result.



i cant understand why they simplify the collapses like that
nothing in real life falls apart square and uniform

things dont have to get too far out of whack before they come down "like a rule10ing hammer" (industry phrase)

[Heiwa]

The topic is one way crush down. WTC 6 was destroyed by falling debris from WTC 1. I'm sure it must be hard for you to imagine how ridiculous you sound.

Nobody disagrees that 1000's of tons of ejected WTC 1 perimeter steel wall solid panels fell on the thin roof of WTC 6 and caused local damages there. The ejection of WTC 1 perimeter steel wall panels is clear evidence of the controlled demolition from top down of WTC 1.

Another problem is that WTC 6 was reported to be damaged before WTC 1 was destroyed. That's why I suggest this matter is discussed in another thread.

[Heiwa]

The simple facts are these: The impact was a dynamic load, not just a static load, and he merely believes otherwise because he doesn't understand that the fact it hit at an angle confounds his measuring technique. And that the static load carrying capacity of the lower structure only applies while it's intact, and if that load lands on the weaker floors instead of the columns, it punches through, and the whole structure becomes unstable as a result.



So what happens when the weak floors of the upper part C contacts the columns of the lower part A? Aren't the upper part C floors punched through and damaged as you describe for the lower part A floors? I know that you suggest that part C should be regarded as one rigid mass M but is it? A simple reply suffices!

Furthermore, neither the upper part C nor the lower part A becomes unstable as a result of these local failures. One result is that plenty of applied energy is transformed into structural failures (heat) and that the local destruction should be slowed down ... followed by arrest, when sufficient parts C and A floors are punched through.

Anyway, I am glad that you have abandoned the NIST LOL proposal that 6 or 11 part C floors suddenly dropped down on the top part A floor.

[Tony Szamboti]

If you're going to retread well-traveled ground with Tony, it may help you to review this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140639). In it you'll see what his core issue is, as well as why it's nonsense.

The simple facts are these: The impact was a dynamic load, not just a static load, and he merely believes otherwise because he doesn't understand that the fact it hit at an angle confounds his measuring technique. And that the static load carrying capacity of the lower structure only applies while it's intact, and if that load lands on the weaker floors instead of the columns, it punches through, and the whole structure becomes unstable as a result.

Furthermore, he's been explained this repeatedly, not just here but at other forums (http://the911forum.freeforums.org/new-jones-paper-by-szamboti-and-graeme-macqueen-t119.html). Yet it makes no dent. I have a theory (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=118389) on why this is so and how to proceed, if you are interested. Best of luck.

The upper block was not at an angle for the entire 114 feet we measured it's fall. You have not explained away the lack of a jolt and you have no proof of impact and dynamic loading. You are hand waving here.

[funk de fino]

The upper block was not at an angle for the entire 114 feet we measured it's fall. You have not explained away the lack of a jolt and you have no proof of impact and dynamic loading. You are hand waving here.

Another fail Tony?

Like your inability to read the NIST report and then your curious ability to comment on what they mention and dont mention?

Your credibility is shot.

[newton3376]

One quick question for Heiwa....

In one of your online articles found here:
http :/ /heiwaco.tripod.com/mac5.htm (I cant post links yet so I added spaces).

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

How in the world can you seriously think that "Materials, size and particulars of the elements of the structure A doesn't matter the least."?

How could they "not matter" when analyzing a collapse? Please explain.

[Grizzly Bear]

The upper block was not at an angle for the entire 114 feet we measured it's fall. You have not explained away the lack of a jolt and you have no proof of impact and dynamic loading.
Not that saying this will do much of anything to change your opinion... but once that mass was in motion it wasn't static anymore. Having to "prove" it was a dynamic load as it impacted everything below is not only a bizarre requirement on your part - but unnecessary.

[phunk]

Nobody disagrees that 1000's of tons of ejected WTC 1 perimeter steel wall solid panels fell on the thin roof of WTC 6 and caused local damages there. The ejection of WTC 1 perimeter steel wall panels is clear evidence of the controlled demolition from top down of WTC 1.


No, it's not evidence of controlled demolition. Avoiding ejection of material is one of the main goals of CD.


Another problem is that WTC 6 was reported to be damaged before WTC 1 was destroyed. That's why I suggest this matter is discussed in another thread.

It may have been set on fire by airplane debris, but there was no major structural damage until the towers fell.

[sylvan8798]

If you're going to retread well-traveled ground with Tony, it may help you to review this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140639). In it you'll see what his core issue is, as well as why it's nonsense.

The simple facts are these: The impact was a dynamic load, not just a static load, and he merely believes otherwise because he doesn't understand that the fact it hit at an angle confounds his measuring technique. And that the static load carrying capacity of the lower structure only applies while it's intact, and if that load lands on the weaker floors instead of the columns, it punches through, and the whole structure becomes unstable as a result.

Furthermore, he's been explained this repeatedly, not just here but at other forums (http://the911forum.freeforums.org/new-jones-paper-by-szamboti-and-graeme-macqueen-t119.html). Yet it makes no dent. I have a theory (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=118389) on why this is so and how to proceed, if you are interested. Best of luck.

Thanks, RM. I'm quite aware of the intractability of truther beliefs. It's always interesting to see how far they will contort themselves in order to cling to their case.

For Heiwa - WTC 6 looks pretty good in this photo. Notice that WTC 2 is gone.

http://img390.imageshack.us/img390/9797/18wtc1heli.jpg

[aggle-rithm]

One quick question for Heiwa....

In one of your online articles found here:
http :/ /heiwaco.tripod.com/mac5.htm (I cant post links yet so I added spaces).

You wrote the following:


How in the world can you seriously think that "Materials, size and particulars of the elements of the structure A doesn't matter the least."?

How could they "not matter" when analyzing a collapse? Please explain.

Didn't he make it clear? It's all due to forces! ;)

[aggle-rithm]

Another problem is that WTC 6 was reported to be damaged before WTC 1 was destroyed.

That is a problem. We should pass a law stating that when a plane crashes it should damage only the building that it actually crashes into.

It's too confusing the other way.

[newton3376]

Didn't he make it clear? It's all due to forces! ;)

LOL well that clears it up....

[Tony Szamboti]

Not that saying this will do much of anything to change your opinion... but once that mass was in motion it wasn't static anymore. Having to "prove" it was a dynamic load as it impacted everything below is not only a bizarre requirement on your part - but unnecessary.

The dynamic load doesn't happen just because the mass is in motion. It occurs if the moving mass transfers it's kinetic energy and decelerates at a rate greater than gravity.

Your hand waving denial of this fact doesn't change the reality that a deceleration would have been required for a natural collapse continuation.

The lack of deceleration of the upper block of WTC 1 is devastating to the present official story on the collapses. It is time for a new investigation.

[R.Mackey]

The upper block was not at an angle for the entire 114 feet we measured it's fall. You have not explained away the lack of a jolt and you have no proof of impact and dynamic loading. You are hand waving here.
Emphasis added.

Figure 5-8, NCSTAR1-6D, clearly shows a tilt in WTC 1 before the collapse even began.

NIST estimates this tilt at 8o as the southern wall buckled and initiated the collapse (NCSTAR1-6D, pg. 312 and elsewhere).

WTC 2 tilted much more, obviously, so I won't even bother to cite it for you...

As I explained in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4350623#post4350623), it takes a mere 2.9o of tilt before the upper block-lower block interface is basically a continuous phenomenon, and no "jolt" of any kind is measurable.

Bottom line, you're a liar. An easily exposed, bald-faced, pathetic liar. Do you even realize it? Can you comprehend how little effort it takes to demonstrate that you're just making things up?

Go on, tell me I'm "hand-waving" again. Seems to be the best you can do.

The lack of deceleration of the upper block of WTC 1 is devastating to the present official story on the collapses. It is time for a new investigation.

Nobody is paying any attention to your ridiculous whitepaper. Nobody cares but you. And that "new investigation" has already happened, at places like Purdue, U Edinburgh, and U Maryland. And, guess what -- they all disagree with you. Every researcher and every paper.

Any time you want to give up your delusions, go right ahead. It's years overdue.

[Grizzly Bear]

The dynamic load doesn't happen just because the mass is in motion. It occurs if the moving mass transfers it's kinetic energy and decelerates at a rate greater than gravity.

Tony... I get the point... the point I am making is that some objects or structural systems don't have the capacity to decelerate the entire mass to ZERO before they fail. Something you seem to have a problem understanding for god knows what reason... (I'm pretty sure is the same thing Mackey phrased more bluntly than I'm inclined to do)... I've asked you about this before and you gave me a correct answer, but the moment you attempt to translate it to a demolition argument it falls completely apart.

[Tony Szamboti]

Emphasis added.

Figure 5-8, NCSTAR1-6D, clearly shows a tilt in WTC 1 before the collapse even began.

NIST estimates this tilt at 8o as the southern wall buckled and initiated the collapse (NCSTAR1-6D, pg. 312 and elsewhere).

WTC 2 tilted much more, obviously, so I won't even bother to cite it for you...

As I explained in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4350623#post4350623), it takes a mere 2.9o of tilt before the upper block-lower block interface is basically a continuous phenomenon, and no "jolt" of any kind is measurable.

Bottom line, you're a liar. An easily exposed, bald-faced, pathetic liar. Do you even realize it? Can you comprehend how little effort it takes to demonstrate that you're just making things up?

Go on, tell me I'm "hand-waving" again. Seems to be the best you can do.



Nobody is paying any attention to your ridiculous whitepaper. Nobody cares but you. And that "new investigation" has already happened, at places like Purdue, U Edinburgh, and U Maryland. And, guess what -- they all disagree with you. Every researcher and every paper.

Any time you want to give up your delusions, go right ahead. It's years overdue.

You can't show in a test or any analysis that the initial tilt would be a continuous phenomena which could cause a natural collapse continuation and preclude a jolt from occurring or making it unnecessary. What a bunch of malarky you are trying to pass off on others with this contortion.

Additionally, your earlier comment that the tilt would obscure the measurement is unsupported nonsense also.

You have a lot of nerve calling me a liar.

On the contrary, it is you who is proving himself to be the sophist here as none of these people you site have written anything in an attempt to rebut what I have said about no impulsive load occurring in the fall of the upper block of WTC 1, yet you portray it as though they have.

The real bottom line is that the lack of deceleration is devastating to the present official explanation for the collapses. Much to the chagrin of it's supporters like you, as it proves that there is no mechanism for a natural collapse continuation. This has stumped people like you and forced you into sophistry and hand waving without a basis, to continue to maintain support for your implausible claims. It is you sir who are either delusional or worse a witting component of a cover-up.

[Grizzly Bear]

The real bottom line is that the lack of deceleration is devastating to the present official explanation for the collapses. Much to the chagrin of it's supporters like you, as it proves that there is no mechanism for a natural collapse continuation. This has stumped people like you and forced you into sophistry and hand waving without a basis to support your delusions.

I've said this before TONY, although I know I'm wasting my time with you. The mechanism is progressive collapse induced by structural failure. And for you to suggest that there's no deceleration because some mystery cataclysmic jolt didn't happen is a rather bald assertion considering much to the contrary of that claim of yours.

You apparently understand the materials relating to your field, there's obviously a road block somewhere preventing you from applying it competently, so I think Mackey's statements are justified, no offense. Sorry... I won't be wasting further time with you.

[Justin39640]

still working on it lol
(remember to wait for it)
v-LPoBjdXZY

[R.Mackey]

You have a lot of nerve calling me a liar.

Tony, you wrote this:

The upper block was not at an angle for the entire 114 feet we measured it's fall.

It's a lie.

I showed you that it's a lie.

You're a liar.

There's no wiggle room here. Wear your badge with shame. You have some nerve posting here at all.

[GlennB]

The upper block was not at an angle for the entire 114 feet we measured it's fall.

Why not?

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony, you wrote this:



It's a lie.

I showed you that it's a lie.

You're a liar.

There's no wiggle room here. Wear your badge with shame. You have some nerve posting here at all.

The point is that the tilt would not allow for a natural collapse without a jolt. You apparently can't defend that and now want to show that the upper block could have remained tilted the whole way down. Finally, it is not germane and I shouldn't use that as an argument so I will withdraw it.

Now get onto the reality of no jolt occurring and no observable mechanism for natural collapse.

[Tony Szamboti]

I've said this before TONY, although I know I'm wasting my time with you. The mechanism is progressive collapse induced by structural failure. And for you to suggest that there's no deceleration because some mystery cataclysmic jolt didn't happen is a rather bald assertion considering much to the contrary of that claim of yours.

You apparently understand the materials relating to your field, there's obviously a road block somewhere preventing you from applying it competently, so I think Mackey's statements are justified, no offense. Sorry... I won't be wasting further time with you.

What mechanism is necessary to produce a progressive collapse of a structure built with a high reserve strength?

Mackey cannot address the fact that there is no evidence of an impulsive load being observed. He has no argument for it and needs to move around the edges of the argument looking for a way to try and disingenuously discredit his opponent and take the focus off of what they are saying, without providing a mechanism to support what he says happened. It is basically a sophist approach he takes here.

[triforcharity]

Wait, so if I am reading this right, Heiwa believes that a large debris field is evidence of CD. But, I have heard other CTs say that WTC 7 fell into its own footprint, in a nice neat pile, which is evidence of CD.

What I want Tony and Heiwa to do, is pay VERY CLOSE ATTENTION.

When you have a building collapsing, and pieces of said building faalling with great speed, do you think that they will just fall straight down?? Especially from a height of 1300 feet, they are going to crash into each other, change directions, crash into more things, move in different directions, etc.

Now, how is this possible without CD??? Its called physics.

If two things are moving in the same direction, and one strikes another, one of them is going to change directions, even if just slightly.

Now, how could this slight movement make something fall 300-400 feet from its origional position you ask?? Same way that a wall 100 feet long can be out of square by feet, when it was only off by 1/8th of an inch and the begining.

You get it now??? CD didn't happen. Plain and simple.

[Tony Szamboti]

Wait, so if I am reading this right, Heiwa believes that a large debris field is evidence of CD. But, I have heard other CTs say that WTC 7 fell into its own footprint, in a nice neat pile, which is evidence of CD.

What I want Tony and Heiwa to do, is pay VERY CLOSE ATTENTION.

When you have a building collapsing, and pieces of said building faalling with great speed, do you think that they will just fall straight down?? Especially from a height of 1300 feet, they are going to crash into each other, change directions, crash into more things, move in different directions, etc.

Now, how is this possible without CD??? Its called physics.

If two things are moving in the same direction, and one strikes another, one of them is going to change directions, even if just slightly.

Now, how could this slight movement make something fall 300-400 feet from its origional position you ask?? Same way that a wall 100 feet long can be out of square by feet, when it was only off by 1/8th of an inch and the begining.

You get it now??? CD didn't happen. Plain and simple.

I never said a large debris field is evidence of CD.

My point is that the lack of evidence of an impulsive load, which is the only way a natural collapse could progress, implies CD.

[GlennB]

Bump ....


The upper block was not at an angle for the entire 114 feet we measured it's fall.


Why not?

[Tony Szamboti]

Bump ....




Why not?

I already stated here that I withdrew that as an argument. It is not germane to the argument that since the upper block of WTC 1 did not decelerate it shows there could not have been an impulsive load and a natural mechanism to explain the collapse continuation.

Did you read what I said?

[GlennB]

I already stated here that I withdrew that as an argument. It is not germane to the argument that since the upper block of WTC 1 did not decelerate it shows there could not have been an impulsive load and a natural mechanism to explain the collapse continuation.

Did you read what I said?

Yes I did. You didn't answer my question. 'Germane' means 'relevant' or 'on-topic'. Withdrawing an irrelevant argument is not the same as conceding that the (no-tilt) argument is untrue.

Do you accept that there was a tilt at the beginning of the collapse? It's a very important point for any future debate with you here.

[Rocket_Scientist]

[QUOTE=Furthermore, neither the upper part C nor the lower part A becomes unstable as a result of these local failures.[/QUOTE]
:jaw-dropp


Heiwa, i'd love to see how you came to this conclusion. Once the floor trusses become severly damaged or disconnected from the perimeter columns, the structure loses stability. Neither the perimeter nor the core columns were designed to stand on their own without that connection.

You keep harping about "local damage". How much local damage was done to those floor trusses in the initial drop after the perimeter columns bowed in, buckeled and failed? I've watched the videos and you can see the perimeter columns peeling outwards in the initial phase of the collapse.

Once those perimeter columns peeled out wouldn't the upper block now be able to start " telescoping" so to speak into the lower block causing more and more perimeter columns to peel away? Since those perimeter columns were 3 stories high, wouldn't you lose 3 stories worth of floor connections instead of just one at a time causing a greater, faster loss of stability INCREASING the rate of collapse?

Please don't respond with your standard "only local damage occurs". Exactly how much damage could the truss system sustain before the SYSTEM becomes unstable? I've read your pages and looked at your goofy pictures, none of which explains how you came to the above conclusion.

[Tony Szamboti]

Yes I did. You didn't answer my question. 'Germane' means 'relevant' or 'on-topic'. Withdrawing an irrelevant argument is not the same as conceding that the (no-tilt) argument is untrue.

Do you accept that there was a tilt at the beginning of the collapse? It's a very important point for any future debate with you here.

Of course, there was a tilt at the beginning of the collapse. I never said there was not.

My point has always been that any tilt would not remove the need for an impulsive load to continue the collapse and that it would be observable. Some are trying to say the tilt obviates the need for a jolt without showing a mechanism for how it could occur. That is the nonsense I am objecting to.

[sylvan8798]

I already stated here that I withdrew that as an argument. It is not germane to the argument that since the upper block of WTC 1 did not decelerate it shows there could not have been an impulsive load and a natural mechanism to explain the collapse continuation.

Did you read what I said?

Your problem is that you seem to think you should be able to OBSERVE the mechanisms in the collapse of a monster building composed of thousands and thousands of parts which also happens to be on fire. Sorry, but you simply cannot see what is happening to most of the components during this process. You are grasping at straws.

The real question should be: If you believe this carp, what are you doing about it, aside from posting your outrage on the internets?

[GlennB]

Of course, there was a tilt at the beginning of the collapse. I never said there was not.

My point has always been that any tilt would not remove the need for an impulsive load to continue the collapse and that it would be observable. Some are trying to say the tilt obviates the need for a jolt without showing a mechanism for how it could occur. That is the nonsense I am objecting to.

Then why did you state "The upper block was not at an angle for the entire 114 feet we measured it's fall. " ??

[Grizzly Bear]

What mechanism is necessary to produce a progressive collapse of a structure built with a high reserve strength?
The most basic mechanisms don't really change at all. Column failure by means of buckling, crushing, or a combination of the two. Shear failure of the bolts and welds... all of which can result from eccentric loading of these parts. The only thing that progressive collapse defines is that these failures are not impacting the entire structure at once, rather only parts of it at any given moment. You should know better than most people in this thread what happens when the load paths change. Where do you think that reserve strength comes from?


Mackey cannot address the fact that there is no evidence of an impulsive load being observed. He has no argument for it and needs to move around the edges of the argument looking for a way to try and disingenuously discredit his opponent and take the focus off of what they are saying, without providing a mechanism to support what he says happened. It is basically a sophist approach he takes here.
I don't see why he would need to show evidence for it. You correctly stated:

The dynamic load doesn't happen just because the mass is in motion. It occurs if the moving mass transfers it's kinetic energy and decelerates at a rate greater than gravity.

What seems to be your assumption is that the strength of the structure being impacted should have had the strength to take most of that dynamic load before it reached it's ultimate strength. Problem is this changes with the eccentricity of the load and the material strength. My understanding is you seem to be conflating exactly how the loads were received once the upper mass was in motion. I'm not quite sure how you observe a load so much as you observe the resulting effects of it being applied. Nobody needs to make wiggle room for anything to discredit your argument, it's a bald assertion and it's wrong, if the failure occurs too quickly then it just means that not all of the potential energy in the mass was required to be transferred in the form of kinetic energy to induce failure at a given point.


EDIT: For the anyone interested, I've extracted this excerpt from the 6th edition of the Steel Designer's manual

Steel Designers' Manual - 6th Edition (2003)
Accidental loading
A series of incidents in the 1960s culminating in the partial collapse of a systembuilt
tower block at Ronan Point in 1968 led to a fundamental reappraisal of the
approach to structural stability in building.
Traditional load-bearing masonry buildings have many in-built elements providing
inherent stability which are lacking in modern steel-framed buildings. Modern
structures can be refined to a degree where they can resist the horizontal and
vertical design loadings with the required factor of safety but may lack the ability
to cope with the unexpected.
It is this concern with the safety of the occupants and the need to limit the extent
of any damage in the event of unforeseen or accidental loadings that has led to the
concept of robustness in building design. Any element in the structure that supports
a major part of the building either must be designed for blast loading or must be
capable of being supported by an alternative load path. In addition, suitable ties
should be incorporated in the horizontal direction in the floors and in the vertical
direction through the columns. The designer should be aware of the consequences
of the sudden removal of key elements of the structure and ensure that such an
event does not lead to the progressive collapse of the building or a substantial part
of it. In practice, most modern steel structures can be shown to be adequate without
any modification.

Based on this the concern is preventing an event whereby the whole of a building section begins to fall in the first place.

[R.Mackey]

The point is that the tilt would not allow for a natural collapse without a jolt. You apparently can't defend that and now want to show that the upper block could have remained tilted the whole way down.

I not only can defend it, I already did months ago, and linked to it in this very thread:

As I explained in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4350623#post4350623), it takes a mere 2.9o of tilt before the upper block-lower block interface is basically a continuous phenomenon, and no "jolt" of any kind is measurable.

Moving on:

Mackey cannot address the fact that there is no evidence of an impulsive load being observed. He has no argument for it and needs to move around the edges of the argument looking for a way to try and disingenuously discredit his opponent and take the focus off of what they are saying, without providing a mechanism to support what he says happened. It is basically a sophist approach he takes here.

Ad hominem, incorrect, and more lies. Explained above.

Not only that, but I'm not the only person who's told you this. Gregory Urich explained this to you (http://the911forum.freeforums.org/new-jones-paper-by-szamboti-and-graeme-macqueen-t119.html#p1585), as an informal but invited reviewer of your whitepaper. Dr. Greening, Dr. Benson, Dave Rogers, all concur.

Not sure who, exactly, you think your whining above is going to impress.

I already stated here that I withdrew that as an argument. It is not germane to the argument that since the upper block of WTC 1 did not decelerate it shows there could not have been an impulsive load and a natural mechanism to explain the collapse continuation.

No, you "withdrew" it because it was a lie, and you got caught. Funny how before you used it to support your argument, but once you realized you'd dug yourself a hole, suddenly it became unimportant -- your belief persists, even when we knock away the supports. Textbook definition of Irreducible Delusion.

Of course, there was a tilt at the beginning of the collapse. I never said there was not.

I thought you just "withdrew" this? How can you deny ever saying something you chose to "withdraw?" What the hell is wrong with you?

My point has always been that any tilt would not remove the need for an impulsive load to continue the collapse and that it would be observable. Some are trying to say the tilt obviates the need for a jolt without showing a mechanism for how it could occur. That is the nonsense I am objecting to.

The onset and progression of collapse is a smooth phenomenon. The upper block rotates roughly eight degrees, equivalent to crushing a floor and a half worth of material opposite the hinge, and maintains a comparable angle as it descends. This makes failure of the structure below a disordered mixture of column failure, floor failure, and momentum transfer at various times. Think of the difference between a thousand soliders marching over a bridge in step, or walking out of sync. Only one delivers a "jolt," though the total impulse is the same.

Your paper argues against the simplified, deliberately worst-case, scenario of Bazant and Zhou, which is that the upper block hit flat and square, and right on the columns below. This didn't happen. The impact was not squarely on columns but largely on the far weaker floor system, and the angle of impact makes the impacts gradual no matter what they hit.

Seriously, Tony, this is so simple that anyone can figure it out. This is rejection of reality on par with Ace Baker. That's why nobody's defending you.

I also like how, above, you insinuate that I'm a "witting component of a cover-up," viz. in on the plot. You should strongly consider getting a professional evaluation for paranoia.

[GlennB]

Of course, there was a tilt at the beginning of the collapse. I never said there was not.

My point has always been that any tilt would not remove the need for an impulsive load to continue the collapse and that it would be observable. Some are trying to say the tilt obviates the need for a jolt without showing a mechanism for how it could occur. That is the nonsense I am objecting to.

The more I read this pitiful apology for a so-called 'defence' of your position, the more I have the horrible urge to be cruel and kick you in the groin while you are down. But that wouldn't be nice at all. Why don't you just go away and stop talking demonstrable, palpable and almost smellable bilge?
Oh ... and stop lying. Your actual words are recorded here in black and white.

[Tony Szamboti]

Your problem is that you seem to think you should be able to OBSERVE the mechanisms in the collapse of a monster building composed of thousands and thousands of parts which also happens to be on fire. Sorry, but you simply cannot see what is happening to most of the components during this process. You are grasping at straws.

The real question should be: If you believe this carp, what are you doing about it, aside from posting your outrage on the internets?

It might be news to you but measurements of the roof in the falling upper block in the Balzac-Vitry demolition showed a severe deceleration when it impacted the lower block after two stories were intentionally removed.

There was a constant acceleration while it was falling through the two removed stories and then a severe deceleration of the roof was measureable when the upper block contacted the intact lower stories.

The deceleration occurred at exactly the time in the fall when the upper block would have been contacting the intact lower block and it was more than significant enough to be easily measured.

[Tony Szamboti]

The more I read this pitiful apology for a so-called 'defence' of your position, the more I have the horrible urge to be cruel and kick you in the groin while you are down. But that wouldn't be nice at all. Why don't you just go away and stop talking demonstrable, palpable and almost smellable bilge?
Oh ... and stop lying. Your actual words are recorded here in black and white.

Why don't you just shut up if you can't contribute anything technical and useful, which you haven't thus far.

Your words have been nothing but an attack with no basis. You sound like Mackey's lackey.

[Tony Szamboti]

I not only can defend it, I already did months ago, and linked to it in this very thread:

You haven't defended anything concerning the lack of deceleration in the fall of WTC 1's upper block. Your simply claim a smooth collapse occurred and try to claim victory.

Not only that, but I'm not the only person who's told you this. Gregory Urich explained this to you (http://the911forum.freeforums.org/new-jones-paper-by-szamboti-and-graeme-macqueen-t119.html#p1585), as an informal but invited reviewer of your whitepaper. Dr. Greening, Dr. Benson, Dave Rogers, all concur.
None of these people have shown how a smooth natural collapse was possible either. You just say things that aren't true and claim victory. That is usually called propaganda.

No, you "withdrew" it because it was a lie, and you got caught. Funny how before you used it to support your argument, but once you realized you'd dug yourself a hole, suddenly it became unimportant -- your belief persists, even when we knock away the supports. Textbook definition of Irreducible Delusion.

What a joke. I never said there was no tilt in the initiation. I did say that it wouldn't have continued to tilt all the way down. You then said that you can prove it did and in the same breath call me a liar for saying I didn't think it would previously. You didn't even debate it with me before calling me a liar. Now what kind of person calls someone a liar at the same time they are first showing them what they claim is proof that the other person's hypothesis may be in error? Only a disingenuous person would do such a thing. There is a reason I say you use a sophist approach, because it seems apparent that you are trying to deceive more than elucidate others.

The onset and progression of collapse is a smooth phenomenon. The upper block rotates roughly eight degrees, equivalent to crushing a floor and a half worth of material opposite the hinge, and maintains a comparable angle as it descends. This makes failure of the structure below a disordered mixture of column failure, floor failure, and momentum transfer at various times. Think of the difference between a thousand soliders marching over a bridge in step, or walking out of sync. Only one delivers a "jolt," though the total impulse is the same.

This does not support your smooth natural collapse scenario. You just stated a point I have made before by saying the total impulse is the same. The aggregate energy loss should have still caused the upper block to lose velocity. However, we see no velocity loss in the upper block. The only reason could be that there were no impulses to the vast majority of the columns. Something else had already removed their resistance.

Your paper argues against the simplified, deliberately worst-case, scenario of Bazant and Zhou, which is that the upper block hit flat and square, and right on the columns below. This didn't happen. The impact was not squarely on columns but largely on the far weaker floor system, and the angle of impact makes the impacts gradual no matter what they hit.

This is nothing but a bad talking point you and your ilk have been trying to use. In the Addendum to his 2002 paper with Zhou, Bazant himself said that multiple smaller impulses were unlikely due to the rigidity of the upper block.

Additionally, the columns were connected and would have been unlikely to sever to accomplish your scenario.

The reality is that you want it both ways. You want to disregard the lack of a deceleration by saying column on column impacts didn't occur and at the same time disparage what Anders Bjorkman points out is a serious problem for the non-axial impact scenario, that it would tend to break up the upper structure quickly and minimize it's affect on the lower structure causing the collapse to arrest.

In the end you lose Mackey, because even a non-axial collapse would have caused a serious energy drain on the falling upper block and caused it to decelerate. The floors in the towers themselves could withstand the weight of 11 additional floors. These were robust structures that wouldn't just wilt away without large impulses and high energy and velocity losses, if it were a natural collapse.

With the evidence we see for controlled demolition of the twin towers and WTC 7 and the way events have unfolded in the last eight years it is not hard to realize that Dick Cheney's war on terror was nothing more than a disguise for the use of the U.S. military for resource grabs, and that 911 was done to gain support for it. With the U.S. House of Representatives passing the Obama administration supported Clean Energy bill yesterday, it seems the post 911 world of Dick Cheney is withering away. We should not be killing people for energy when we have the ability to do something for ourselves.

I think most people are starting to see this and it is less necessary to put down the fallacious ramblings of someone like yourself.

[R.Mackey]

You haven't defended anything concerning the lack of deceleration in the fall of WTC 1's upper block. Your simply claim a smooth collapse occurred and try to claim victory.

Wrong. What you mean is either you're too stupid or too stubborn to admit that you made a basic, but fatal, mistake. The angle of incidence of 8o means that, at all times, bits of two entire floors make up the contact plane. The columns aren't all being hit at once.

There is no possible way for all columns to resist at once in this scenario. That is what is required for your stupid "jolt." This is not up for debate.

Once again, I've told you this, Gregory Urich has told you this, Dr. Greening and Dr. Benson have told you this -- independently. Are you claiming we're all in on the plot?

None of these people have shown how a smooth natural collapse was possible either. You just say things that aren't true and claim victory. That is usually called propaganda.

Except for the inconvenient fact that what we're telling you is true. What you're doing is usually called "paranoid delusion."

What a joke. I never said there was no tilt in the initiation. I did say that it wouldn't have continued to tilt all the way down.

Again, liar, this is what you said:
The upper block was not at an angle for the entire 114 feet we measured it's fall.
You lied then, and you're lying now. It's pathetic!

You then said that you can prove it did and in the same breath call me a liar for saying I didn't think it would previously. You didn't even debate it with me before calling me a liar.

Nothing to debate. You lied, in direct contravention of graphical evidence that was made public years ago and of which you are well aware. And you're still trying to cover it up with still more lies.

But by all means, keep digging, if that's what you want.

Now what kind of person calls someone a liar at the same time they are first showing them what they claim is proof that the other person's hypothesis may be in error? Only a disingenuous person would do such a thing. There is a reason I say you use a sophist approach, because it seems apparent that you are trying to deceive more than elucidate others.

Sayeth the liar...

This does not support your smooth natural collapse scenario. You just stated a point I have made before by saying the total impulse is the same. The aggregate energy loss should have still caused the upper block to lose velocity. However, we see no velocity loss in the upper block.

And now you once again betray stupidity about the most basic physics. It's not the same thing AT ALL. Your hypothesis depends on a "jolt," or the third derivative of position. It requires the impulse to be delivered at once. But since it's smooth, there is no jolt, even though the total impulse is the same.

The lower structure does resist. It just doesn't at once. As a result, the upper block descends at a more-or-less constant acceleration, but noticeably less than one g. This is utterly consistent with the smooth collapse initation caused by an initiating rotation. It also requires no explosives whatsoever.

Dumb, Tony, just plain dumb.

The only reason could be that there were no impulses to the vast majority of the columns. Something else had already removed their resistance.

Wrong.

This is nothing but a bad talking point you and your ilk have been trying to use. In the Addendum to his 2002 paper with Zhou, Bazant himself said that multiple smaller impulses were unlikely due to the rigidity of the upper block.

Apples and oranges. Again, Bazant & Zhou 2002 consider the worst-case impact, which is flat and column-on-column. They said nothing about the expected behavior once tilt is taken into account.

Go ahead and ask him, if you dare, if he supports your hypothesis. And post it here. I'm not done laughing at you yet.

Additionally, the columns were connected and would have been unlikely to sever to accomplish your scenario.

Connected together -- by the floors, yes? The ones with an ultimate strength of about 250 psf, getting the entire structural weight of the upper block suddenly dumped on them (about 490 psf static, best possible case, and which was moving..?) Bye bye connections.

The reality is that you want it both ways. You want to disregard the lack of a deceleration by saying column on column impacts didn't occur and at the same time disparage what Anders Bjorkman points out is a serious problem for the non-axial impact scenario, that it would tend to break up the upper structure quickly and minimize it's affect on the lower structure causing the collapse to arrest.

There's no "both ways" about it. Bazant & Zhou demonstrate the total energy absorption of the lower structure is insufficient for arrest, even in the best case, even if the lower structure isn't compromised by penetration, which of course it will be. And since the collision is not flat, face-on-face, column-on-column, the energy absorption is a smooth phenomenon rather than one puncutated by gaps, because floors don't fail individually and simultaneously.

You're completely off the wall. The above isn't in any way a special case.

In the end you lose Mackey, because even a non-axial collapse would have caused a serious energy drain on the falling upper block and caused it to decelerate. The floors in the towers themselves could withstand the weight of 11 additional floors. These were robust structures that wouldn't just wilt away without large impulses and high energy and velocity losses, if it were a natural collapse.

I lose, sayeth the liar. Gee, I'm concerned.

Publish your paper, then, tough guy. I've got scads of published results that unanimously demonstrate the opposite. I suppose they all "lose" too, huh?

Or, perhaps, you're just wrong. Hmm, which to choose..? :D

ETA: Ah, you're adding a political rant, too. Surely that will make your pseudoscience valid!

[FineWine]

You haven't defended anything concerning the lack of deceleration in the fall of WTC 1's upper block. Your simply claim a smooth collapse occurred and try to claim victory.


None of these people have shown how a smooth natural collapse was possible either. You just say things that aren't true and claim victory. That is usually called propaganda.



What a joke. I never said there was no tilt in the initiation. I did say that it wouldn't have continued to tilt all the way down. You then said that you can prove it did and in the same breath call me a liar for saying I didn't think it would previously. You didn't even debate it with me before calling me a liar. Now what kind of person calls someone a liar at the same time they are first showing them what they claim is proof that the other person's hypothesis may be in error? Only a disingenuous person would do such a thing. There is a reason I say you use a sophist approach, because it seems apparent that you are trying to deceive more than elucidate others.



This does not support your smooth natural collapse scenario. You just stated a point I have made before by saying the total impulse is the same. The aggregate energy loss should have still caused the upper block to lose velocity. However, we see no velocity loss in the upper block. The only reason could be that there were no impulses to the vast majority of the columns. Something else had already removed their resistance.



This is nothing but a bad talking point you and your ilk have been trying to use. In the Addendum to his 2002 paper with Zhou, Bazant himself said that multiple smaller impulses were unlikely due to the rigidity of the upper block.

Additionally, the columns were connected and would have been unlikely to sever to accomplish your scenario.

The reality is that you want it both ways. You want to disregard the lack of a deceleration by saying column on column impacts didn't occur and at the same time disparage what Anders Bjorkman points out is a serious problem for the non-axial impact scenario, that it would tend to break up the upper structure quickly and minimize it's affect on the lower structure causing the collapse to arrest.

In the end you lose Mackey, because even a non-axial collapse would have caused a serious energy drain on the falling upper block and caused it to decelerate. The floors in the towers themselves could withstand the weight of 11 additional floors. These were robust structures that wouldn't just wilt away without large impulses and high energy and velocity losses, if it were a natural collapse.

With the evidence we see for controlled demolition of the twin towers and WTC 7 and the way events have unfolded in the last eight years it is not hard to realize that Dick Cheney's war on terror was nothing more than a disguise for the use of the U.S. military for resource grabs, and that 911 was done to gain support for it. With the U.S. House of Representatives passing the Obama administration supported Clean Energy bill yesterday, it seems the post 911 world of Dick Cheney is withering away. We should not be killing people for energy when we have the ability to do something for ourselves.

I think most people are starting to see this and it is less necessary to put down the fallacious ramblings of someone like yourself.


Does it trouble you at all that in "Dick Cheney's (why on earth is it Cheney's?) war on terror" no resources have been grabbed? Do you people keep screaming that America stole somebody's oil after absolutely everybody but the most brain-dead "truthers" have noticed that no oil was stolen?
When do you wake up and smell the coffee?

[sylvan8798]

It might be news to you but measurements of the roof in the falling upper block in the Balzac-Vitry demolition showed a severe deceleration when it impacted the lower block after two stories were intentionally removed.

There was a constant acceleration while it was falling through the two removed stories and then a severe deceleration of the roof was measureable when the upper block contacted the intact lower stories.

The deceleration occurred at exactly the time in the fall when the upper block would have been contacting the intact lower block and it was more than significant enough to be easily measured.

So you compare A to B. Find that A does not have the same property as B. Then conclude that, therefore, A must equal B. Is that about it? Truther logic at work?

[ElMondoHummus]

"The floors in the towers themselves could withstand the weight of 11 additional floors"

Huh? How? As I recall, the floors were only very simply connected to the columns (bolts? Welds? Someone else can detail that for me). The connectors on a single floor would sheer away with far less weight than 11 whole floors, and that's not even taking into account the fact that the upper mass would be moving downward for such contact to take place (which would add even more force than simply resting that mass on a floor).

Ryan, Newton, Grizzly, Dave, Tom, Architect, whoever: Isn't that right? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the way I recall the construction being.

[dtugg]

"The floors in the towers themselves could withstand the weight of 11 additional floors"

Huh? How? As I recall, the floors were only very simply connected to the columns (bolts? Welds? Someone else can detail that for me). The connectors on a single floor would sheer away with far less weight than 11 whole floors, and that's not even taking into account the fact that the upper mass would be moving downward for such contact to take place (which would add even more force than simply resting that mass on a floor).

Ryan, Newton, Grizzly, Dave, Tom, Architect, whoever: Isn't that right? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the way I recall the construction being.

From NIST's Dec 2007 FAQ: (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_12_2007.htm)

Yes, there was more than enough gravitational load to cause the collapse of the floors below the level of collapse initiation in both WTC Towers. The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 11 additional floors if the load was applied gradually and 6 additional floors if the load was applied suddenly (as was the case). Since the number of floors above the approximate floor of collapse initiation exceeded six in each WTC Tower (12 and 29 floors, respectively), the floors below the level of collapse initiation were unable to resist the suddenly applied gravitational load from the upper floors of the buildings. Details of this finding are provided below:

[ElMondoHummus]

Ahhh. Okay. I didn't think the floor truss connectors to the columns were that robust. Okay. Thanks!

[tsig]

Wrong. What you mean is either you're too stupid or too stubborn to admit that you made a basic, but fatal, mistake. The angle of incidence of 8o means that, at all times, bits of two entire floors make up the contact plane. The columns aren't all being hit at once.

There is no possible way for all columns to resist at once in this scenario. That is what is required for your stupid "jolt." This is not up for debate.

Once again, I've told you this, Gregory Urich has told you this, Dr. Greening and Dr. Benson have told you this -- independently. Are you claiming we're all in on the plot?



Except for the inconvenient fact that what we're telling you is true. What you're doing is usually called "paranoid delusion."



Again, liar, this is what you said:

You lied then, and you're lying now. It's pathetic!



Nothing to debate. You lied, in direct contravention of graphical evidence that was made public years ago and of which you are well aware. And you're still trying to cover it up with still more lies.

But by all means, keep digging, if that's what you want.



Sayeth the liar...



And now you once again betray stupidity about the most basic physics. It's not the same thing AT ALL. Your hypothesis depends on a "jolt," or the third derivative of position. It requires the impulse to be delivered at once. But since it's smooth, there is no jolt, even though the total impulse is the same.

The lower structure does resist. It just doesn't at once. As a result, the upper block descends at a more-or-less constant acceleration, but noticeably less than one g. This is utterly consistent with the smooth collapse initation caused by an initiating rotation. It also requires no explosives whatsoever.

Dumb, Tony, just plain dumb.



Wrong.



Apples and oranges. Again, Bazant & Zhou 2002 consider the worst-case impact, which is flat and column-on-column. They said nothing about the expected behavior once tilt is taken into account.

Go ahead and ask him, if you dare, if he supports your hypothesis. And post it here. I'm not done laughing at you yet.



Connected together -- by the floors, yes? The ones with an ultimate strength of about 250 psf, getting the entire structural weight of the upper block suddenly dumped on them (about 490 psf static, best possible case, and which was moving..?) Bye bye connections.



There's no "both ways" about it. Bazant & Zhou demonstrate the total energy absorption of the lower structure is insufficient for arrest, even in the best case, even if the lower structure isn't compromised by penetration, which of course it will be. And since the collision is not flat, face-on-face, column-on-column, the energy absorption is a smooth phenomenon rather than one puncutated by gaps, because floors don't fail individually and simultaneously.

You're completely off the wall. The above isn't in any way a special case.



I lose, sayeth the liar. Gee, I'm concerned.

Publish your paper, then, tough guy. I've got scads of published results that unanimously demonstrate the opposite. I suppose they all "lose" too, huh?

Or, perhaps, you're just wrong. Hmm, which to choose..? :D

ETA: Ah, you're adding a political rant, too. Surely that will make your pseudoscience valid!


I wonder if Tony thinks a shotgun works. Since all the pellets hit the target at different times, how can they transmit energy to the target. Also we never see any slowdown when they hit the target so how does that energy transmission take place?

I think his objections are more politics than science.

[GlennB]

I think his objections are more politics than science.

His objections are those of a fundamentalist believer who will argue that day is night rather than give an inch or retreat from the debate.

What is truly disturbing about Tony's posts is that he cheerfully claims "I never said xyz" when "I believe xyz" is free to view in his own posts. In the rough+tumble of purely verbal debate you might get away with this kind of guff, but not in print.

[Tony Szamboti]

I wonder if Tony thinks a shotgun works. Since all the pellets hit the target at different times, how can they transmit energy to the target. Also we never see any slowdown when they hit the target so how does that energy transmission take place?

I think his objections are more politics than science.

A shotgun is not an appropriate analogy for energy losses in the falling upper block due to separate smaller impulses.

You could use it if you imagined the pellets being solid rods attached to the gun which was also in motion.

What would happen then if the rods/pellets hit targets at different times? The answer is that there would be a summing of the energy losses and a reduction in the velocity of the gun.

It sounds like you need to work on your science before making any comments about anyone else's politics and science.

[Tony Szamboti]

His objections are those of a fundamentalist believer who will argue that day is night rather than give an inch or retreat from the debate.

What is truly disturbing about Tony's posts is that he cheerfully claims "I never said xyz" when "I believe xyz" is free to view in his own posts. In the rough+tumble of purely verbal debate you might get away with this kind of guff, but not in print.

Here you go again mesmerizing us with technical discussion.

[R.Mackey]

I wonder if Tony thinks a shotgun works. Since all the pellets hit the target at different times, how can they transmit energy to the target. Also we never see any slowdown when they hit the target so how does that energy transmission take place?

Another valid comparison is to the dead-blow hammer... if you haven't heard of it, it's worth looking up.

However, the problem with his argument is subtly different. Earlier in the discussion, I likened the problem to one of soldiers marching on a bridge, one that can comfortably support their weight but has some elasticity. In the first case, the soldiers all march in lock-step, and in the second they all march out of sync.

In both cases, the weight of the soldiers is exactly the same, so averaged over time, they exert the same force on the bridge. However, at any given instant in time, the force is different. In the synchronized case, the instantaneous force (viz. the impulse) jumps up to a huge value as all those booted feet come down, and then drops away again in between. In the unsynchronized case, the force is basically constant. They average out to be the same -- the total impulse is the same -- but the bridge behaves differently. In the first case, the bridge actually bounces with each step. This is similar to the "jolt" that Tony is making such a fuss about. In the second case, there's no jolt at all, the bridge simply strains gradually as the soldiers walk onto it, and then gradually returns to its original position afterward.

This happens in real life. If they march in step, the "jolt" can cause the bridge to bounce and, if it hits a vibrational resonance, can actually damage or destroy the bridge. So they don't. That eliminates the "jolt," eliminates the bounce, and fixes the problem. Proving quite nicely that distributed impulse gets rid of the "jolt."

Now let's take another look at the World Trade Center collapse. The simplest way to think about it is to consider an upper "block" and a lower "block" that are essentially free bodies. As Tony denied and I corrected, the upper block rotated relative to the lower block. This is important.

The "soldiers" in our case are the support columns themselves. Each column has considerable strength, but it only exerts that strength for a short period of time, because steel only flexes a few percent before it buckles -- and once it buckles, its strength becomes practically zero, not even enough to support its own weight in all likelihood. So each column's resistance is like the "step" of one of the soldiers.

If the upper block hits flat, then it hits all those columns at once. There will still be enough energy to break all those columns, but the impulse delivered is extremely high and sharp. This leads to a "jolt," even though it won't stop the collapse. This is the basic conclusion of Bazant & Zhou 2002.

However, if the upper block does not hit flat, then it's really only hitting some of those columns at a time. Those buckle as the upper block descends a few inches, and then it loads a different set of columns, repeat. This is like the second case where all those soldiers are not walking in step. The individual impulses are all spread out. So the total impulse and average force is the same, but there's no "jolt" at all.

If you measure the top of the roof, like Tony does, in the first case you see the upper block descend at close to 1 g, except every time it loads and fails a new floor it suddenly slows down, decelerating at several g for a tiny fraction of a second each time. That's the "jolt." In the second case, what you see instead is a smooth curve, where the upper block descends at a more or less constant acceleration that's a fraction of a g, but no jumps and no "jolts."

Guess what, the latter is what we see. Absolutely no freakin' surprise.

No explosives required. Which is good, because in the video you can see no evidence of explosives, hear no evidence of explosives, later we find no trace of explosives, and nobody -- Tony included -- can even speculate about what kind or where they could have been to cause the effect he insists on. You'd think he'd at least have a workable hypothesis, but of course he doesn't.

I think his objections are more politics than science.

In my own terminology, this is a Strong Irreducible Delusion (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=118389). I don't think there is any basis to it at all, I think it's just something he cannot comprehend being wrong. Interestingly, this is not the first time -- a different but equally silly delusion of Tony's appears in that discussion as a textbook example.

[Tony Szamboti]

Another valid comparison is to the dead-blow hammer... if you haven't heard of it, it's worth looking up.

However, the problem with his argument is subtly different. Earlier in the discussion, I likened the problem to one of soldiers marching on a bridge, one that can comfortably support their weight but has some elasticity. In the first case, the soldiers all march in lock-step, and in the second they all march out of sync.

In both cases, the weight of the soldiers is exactly the same, so averaged over time, they exert the same force on the bridge. However, at any given instant in time, the force is different. In the synchronized case, the instantaneous force (viz. the impulse) jumps up to a huge value as all those booted feet come down, and then drops away again in between. In the unsynchronized case, the force is basically constant. They average out to be the same -- the total impulse is the same -- but the bridge behaves differently. In the first case, the bridge actually bounces with each step. This is similar to the "jolt" that Tony is making such a fuss about. In the second case, there's no jolt at all, the bridge simply strains gradually as the soldiers walk onto it, and then gradually returns to its original position afterward.

This happens in real life. If they march in step, the "jolt" can cause the bridge to bounce and, if it hits a vibrational resonance, can actually damage or destroy the bridge. So they don't. That eliminates the "jolt," eliminates the bounce, and fixes the problem. Proving quite nicely that distributed impulse gets rid of the "jolt."

Now let's take another look at the World Trade Center collapse. The simplest way to think about it is to consider an upper "block" and a lower "block" that are essentially free bodies. As Tony denied and I corrected, the upper block rotated relative to the lower block. This is important.

The "soldiers" in our case are the support columns themselves. Each column has considerable strength, but it only exerts that strength for a short period of time, because steel only flexes a few percent before it buckles -- and once it buckles, its strength becomes practically zero, not even enough to support its own weight in all likelihood. So each column's resistance is like the "step" of one of the soldiers.

If the upper block hits flat, then it hits all those columns at once. There will still be enough energy to break all those columns, but the impulse delivered is extremely high and sharp. This leads to a "jolt," even though it won't stop the collapse. This is the basic conclusion of Bazant & Zhou 2002.

However, if the upper block does not hit flat, then it's really only hitting some of those columns at a time. Those buckle as the upper block descends a few inches, and then it loads a different set of columns, repeat. This is like the second case where all those soldiers are not walking in step. The individual impulses are all spread out. So the total impulse and average force is the same, but there's no "jolt" at all.

If you measure the top of the roof, like Tony does, in the first case you see the upper block descend at close to 1 g, except every time it loads and fails a new floor it suddenly slows down, decelerating at several g for a tiny fraction of a second each time. That's the "jolt." In the second case, what you see instead is a smooth curve, where the upper block descends at a more or less constant acceleration that's a fraction of a g, but no jumps and no "jolts."

Guess what, the latter is what we see. Absolutely no freakin' surprise.

No explosives required. Which is good, because in the video you can see no evidence of explosives, hear no evidence of explosives, later we find no trace of explosives, and nobody -- Tony included -- can even speculate about what kind or where they could have been to cause the effect he insists on. You'd think he'd at least have a workable hypothesis, but of course he doesn't.



In my own terminology, this is a Strong Irreducible Delusion (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=118389). I don't think there is any basis to it at all, I think it's just something he cannot comprehend being wrong. Interestingly, this is not the first time -- a different but equally silly delusion of Tony's appears in that discussion as a textbook example.

Your analogy here is not appropriate either as it does not explain what happens due to the energy loss by the upper block required to fail all of those columns, even with separate impulses. Why don't you put some numbers to it instead of just words. As Lord Kelvin said:

“I often say . . . that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science, whatever the matter may be.”

Please show us with numbers what the total kinetic energy loss would have to be to move through the columns of one floor and don't forget to include the columns on the floor on the other side of the separate smaller collisions as their failure, due to equal and opposite forces, would contribute to the energy loss also.

After you have done that we will see if there is enough energy left over to not only have no velocity loss by the upper block but for it to continue to accelerate at 0.7g.

[R.Mackey]

Your analogy here is not appropriate either as it does not explain what happens due to the energy loss by the upper block required to fail all of those columns, even with separate impulses. Why don't you put some numbers to it instead of just words.

WOW what a pathetic dodge. We're talking about your "jolt," Tony, not the absolute absorption of the structure.

This work has already been done -- BLGB, 2008.

As Lord Kelvin said:

“I often say . . . that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science, whatever the matter may be.”

Then you won't mind subjecting yourself to the same rules.

So you say there's a "jolt." Tell me, I wonder if you can, when exactly this "jolt" should have taken place?

Suppose there were no explosives of any kind. The upper block begins rotated at 8o degrees. t = 0 is the instant at which the last part of the "hinge" fails, due to buckling, and the upper block begins its downward motion.

When do we expect the "jolt?"

Can't answer, can you? That's because there is none.

Please show us with numbers what the total kinetic energy loss would have to be to move through the columns of one floor and don't forget to include the columns on the floor on the other side of the separate smaller collisions as their failure, due to equal and opposite forces, would contribute to the energy loss also.

After you have done that we will see if there is enough energy left over to not only have no velocity loss by the upper block but for it to continue to accelerate at 0.7g.

Again, BLGB, 2008. But, those of you reading will notice that the above has absolutely nothing to do with his "jolt" argument. Now he's arguing that a progressive collapse is impossible due to the aggregate energy absorption, not the instantaneous impulse. Which, of course, is wrong.

Bait and switch, liar.

[Tony Szamboti]

WOW what a pathetic dodge. We're talking about your "jolt," Tony, not the absolute absorption of the structure.

This work has already been done -- BLGB, 2008.



Then you won't mind subjecting yourself to the same rules.

So you say there's a "jolt." Tell me, I wonder if you can, when exactly this "jolt" should have taken place?

Suppose there were no explosives of any kind. The upper block begins rotated at 8o degrees. t = 0 is the instant at which the last part of the "hinge" fails, due to buckling, and the upper block begins its downward motion.

When do we expect the "jolt?"

Can't answer, can you? That's because there is none.



Again, BLGB, 2008. But, those of you reading will notice that the above has absolutely nothing to do with his "jolt" argument. Now he's arguing that a progressive collapse is impossible due to the aggregate energy absorption, not the instantaneous impulse. Which, of course, is wrong.

Bait and switch, liar.

I am not the one who first said there should have been a jolt. Dr. Bazant said that in his first paper and continued to say it in all subsequent papers due to his referencing of Bazant and Zhou.

We just showed that there is no evidence of a jolt, and that in addition the velocity loss one would expect due to the transfer of kinetic energy required to collapse the columns below is not observed, as the upper block loses no velocity at any time and in fact continues to gain it.

It is obvious that you can't use numbers here as that would lay bare your analogies as not being appropriate and devastate your present thinking on just how those towers collapsed.

Dead blow hammers still decelerate if they hit something with resistance, they just don't bounce back. The soldiers in your bridge analogy are being decelerated vertically but you don't show the energy loss there in a cumulative way.

I find it hard to believe that someone who seems as intelligent as you do can't see what is happening here. That is why you need to show yourself and us the numbers. If you did and were honest with yourself and others I believe you would stop supporting the present official story on the collapses.

[GlennB]

I am not the one who said there should have been a jolt. Dr. Bazant said that in his first paper and continued to say it in all subsequent papers due to his referencing of Bazant and Zhou.


That's because Bazant (and Ross, for that matter) analysed a pure axial impact. Square on, with theoretically pristine upper column ends meeting their counterpart theoretically pristine lower column ends. Under such circumstances a jolt would occur, although whether the time span of the jolt would be detectable from videos of TV footage is another matter.

I'd guess these simple facts have been pointed out to you at least 20 times on this forum, yet you continually ignore them. Reality was different from Bazant and Ross. There was a tilted and chaotic collision. Column ends did not meet in a synchronised manner.

[beachnut]

I am not the one who said there should have been a jolt. Dr. Bazant said that in his first paper and continued to say it in all subsequent papers due to his referencing of Bazant and Zhou.
...
Why verify you are a bad engineer who doesn't understand models? Why would an engineer make up controlled demolition when the tower fell in a gravity collapse? You made it up because you present no evidence, no numbers, no engineering to support your controlled demotion story.

The 130 to 150 TONS of kinetic energy released due to the gravity collapse is the reason the towers looked destroyed. Why is 130 to 150 TONS of TNT kinetic energy per each tower not enough energy to destroy the WTC?

Why does the Chief Structural Engineer of the WTC towers think your thermite controlled demolition ideas are nonsense? Why do you fail to acknowledge gravity is the primary energy source for controlled demolition? Why have you failed to make any progress in 7 years and 9 months?
Heiwa's was proved wrong on 911. Soon you and Heiwa can celebrate 8 years of failed apologies for terrorists and you and Heiwa will not present the numbers to support your failed conclusions on 911. No numbers or engineering work to verify your ideas on 911.
It would be interesting to see some engineering numbers from you and Heiwa to support your failed delusions. Post your numbers and the evidence you are hiding so you can support your no one way crush down delusion.

[Tony Szamboti]

That's because Bazant (and Ross, for that matter) analysed a pure axial impact. Square on, with theoretically pristine upper column ends meeting their counterpart theoretically pristine lower column ends. Under such circumstances a jolt would occur, although whether the time span of the jolt would be detectable from videos of TV footage is another matter.

I'd guess these simple facts have been pointed out to you at least 20 times on this forum, yet you continually ignore them. Reality was different from Bazant and Ross. There was a tilted and chaotic collision. Column ends did not meet in a synchronised manner.

It doesn't matter if it was axial or not. There is no velocity loss observed in the upper block and it would have been required to cause a natural collapse of any of the lower structure.

You need to show us the numbers also there chief. Get that pad and pencil out. Until then you are just blowing smoke.

[R.Mackey]

I am not the one who said there should have been a jolt. Dr. Bazant said that in his first paper and continued to say it in all subsequent papers due to his referencing of Bazant and Zhou.

Yes, you did. You are now lying with virtually every post.

Again, the following are your words:

The lack of deceleration of the upper block of WTC 1 is devastating to the present official story on the collapses. It is time for a new investigation.

And, from your whitepaper, found here: (http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf)

There was no jolt. Thus there could not have been any amplified load. In the absence of an amplified load there is no mechanism to explain the collapse of the lower portion of the building, which was undamaged by fire. The collapse hypothesis of Bazant and the authors of the NIST report has not withstood scrutiny.

Those are not Dr. Bazant's words. They are yours. You are very, very much, unambiguously saying that there should have been a jolt.

You may, in fact, now be the biggest liar on the entire JREF Forums. I lack a precise method to quantify this, but your dishonesty is simply incredible.

So now you're trying to hide behind him. Pathetic. If you ask Dr. Bazant whether the above is true, he will laugh at you and in all probability tell you to read a basic primer on solid mechanics before spreading misinformation ever again.

We just said there is no evidence of a jolt and that the velocity loss due to the transfer of kinetic energy required to collapse the columns below is not observed as the upper block loses no velocity at any time and in fact continues to gain it.

There is no jolt expected. That's what I've just explained to you, for the fourth or fifth time. I want you to acknowledge this, and the utter fail of your whitepaper before trying to change the subject again.

It is obvious that you can't use numbers here as that would lay bare your analogies as not being appropriate. Dead blow hammers still decelerate if they hit something with resistance, they just don't bounce back. The soldiers in your bridge analogy are being decelerated vertically but you don't show the energy loss there in a cumulative way.

I explained in the above post how the dead-blow hammer is not a good analogy. In my marching soliders example, I specified up front that the bridge handles the load without becoming plastic. You're deliberately trying to confuse the issue.

Now, again, you brought up your "jolt." Your "jolt" argument is crap. You need to understand and acknowledge this. Once you do that, then we can turn to the aggregate energy and momentum discussion, for the fiftieth time. Not before.

I find it hard to believe that someone who seems as intelligent as you do can't see what is happening here. That is why you need to show yourself and us the numbers. If you did and were honest with yourself and others I believe you would stop supporting the present official story on the collapses.

I rather doubt you have much experience with honesty at all.

[Tony Szamboti]

Yes, you did. You are now lying with virtually every post.

Again, the following are your words:



And, from your whitepaper, found here: (http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf)



Those are not Dr. Bazant's words. They are yours. You are very, very much, unambiguously saying that there should have been a jolt.

You may, in fact, now be the biggest liar on the entire JREF Forums. I lack a precise method to quantify this, but your dishonesty is simply incredible.

So now you're trying to hide behind him. Pathetic. If you ask Dr. Bazant whether the above is true, he will laugh at you and in all probability tell you to read a basic primer on solid mechanics before spreading misinformation ever again.



There is no jolt expected. That's what I've just explained to you, for the fourth or fifth time. I want you to acknowledge this, and the utter fail of your whitepaper before trying to change the subject again.



I explained in the above post how the dead-blow hammer is not a good analogy. In my marching soliders example, I specified up front that the bridge handles the load without becoming plastic. You're deliberately trying to confuse the issue.

Now, again, you brought up your "jolt." Your "jolt" argument is crap. You need to understand and acknowledge this. Once you do that, then we can turn to the aggregate energy and momentum discussion, for the fiftieth time. Not before.



I rather doubt you have much experience with honesty at all.

Mackey, I believe as Dr. Bazant did that there should have been a jolt if the collapse was naturally caused.

You and some others are trying to show why there didn't have to be a jolt due to separate smaller impulses, and I have shown that that is not possible either as the aggregate energy loss there would still require a velocity loss since the energy requirements don't change. The Missing Jolt paper calculates the required energy loss by the upper block and shows that neither a jolt or the required velocity loss are observed.

Please show us the numbers to back what you are trying to say, instead of trying to twist my words to keep from showing your own case.

[funk de fino]

Reinforcing my clueless description quite adeptly there Tony

[Tony Szamboti]

Reinforcing my clueless description quite adeptly there Tony

What it actually reinforces is that this is the only type of posting you are really capable of in a technical discussion.

Personal attack removed
Do not make personal attacks, and this includes changing member names.

[GlennB]

You and some others are trying to show why there didn't have to be a jolt due to separate smaller impulses, and I have shown that that is not possible either as the aggregate energy loss there would still require a velocity loss since the energy requirements don't change.

But there was a 'velocity loss' relative to free-fall in air. Nobody denies that. It's measurable to a reasonable degree in the early stages of collapse. But it was gradual and caused by many small chaotic impacts.

Your statement above makes no sense. It is based solely on your belief that there must be a Bazantian/Rossian jolt. Plus that you cannot handle any explanation that copes happily with an absence of it. You are utterly jolt-obsessed.

But that's because you poured your ego into 'publishing' a crap paper. You have become single-issue fundamentalist.

[R.Mackey]

Mackey, I believe as Dr. Bazant did that there should have been a jolt if the collapse was naturally caused.

Prove it. Show me where Dr. Bazant claims this.

You and some others are trying to show why there didn't have to be a jolt due to separate smaller impulses, and I have shown that that is not possible either as the aggregate energy loss there would still require a velocity loss since the energy requirements don't change. The Missing Jolt paper calculates the required energy loss by the upper block and shows that neither a jolt or the required velocity loss are observed.

It does nothing of the kind. In your whitepaper, you curve-fit to find an average acceleration of 22.8 feet per second2 in the first three seconds of descent. That leaves about 9 feet per second2 average deceleration caused by destruction of the lower structure. This is consistent with the findings of the BLGB paper.

In your own paper, your entire energy cost argument is based upon a "spring constant" which is never calculated nor referenced, but is merely stated. As a result, your estimate for destructive energy is about four times higher than all other published estimates. There's no reason why I should accept this.

Please show us the numbers to back what you are trying to say, instead of trying to twist my words to keep from showing your own case.

Again, see BLGB, 2008. And I note you still won't accept that there is no "jolt." You've denied saying it, you've claimed it was Dr. Bazant's claim, and you've tried the Truther Shuffle to retreat from it. Won't work. Own up to the smoothness of the collapse first, and once that's settled, we can talk energetics.

ETA: Oh, one more thing -- your own paper, warts and all, does not predict the collapse would stop were it not for "Explosives." It merely predicts that the collapse would be slower. Ergo, in your little world, the "Explosives" weren't even needed to bring the structure down. So, why were they there? Why should I believe a word of it?

[Tony Szamboti]

But there was a 'velocity loss' relative to free-fall in air. Nobody denies that. It's measurable to a reasonable degree in the early stages of collapse. But it was gradual and caused by many small chaotic impacts.

Your statement above makes no sense. It is based solely on your belief that there must be a Bazantian/Rossian jolt. Plus that you cannot handle any explanation that copes happily with an absence of it. You are utterly jolt-obsessed.

But that's because you poured your ego into 'publishing' a crap paper. You have become single-issue fundamentalist.

There was never a velocity loss. After the upper block starts falling there was only 10% of the original resistance by the 300% stronger than static load columns which kept the acceleration to 0.7g. That isn't velocity loss which requires deceleration.

The velocity loss required isn't relative to free-fall in air.

You are confused if you think it is.

[R.Mackey]

There was never a velocity loss. After the upper block starts falling there was only 10% of the original resistance by the 300% stronger than static load columns which kept the acceleration to 0.7g. That isn't velocity loss which requires deceleration.

The velocity loss required isn't relative to free-fall in air.

You are confused if you think it is.

Okay, this is so obviously wrong that I'm jumping ahead.

You're saying that the "300% stronger than static load columns" -- which is also wrong -- resisted at the same strength, through the entire length of the collapse.

That's wrong. They fail after about 3% strain, best case, after which their strength is zero.

300% x 3% = 9%, and if you add to that the energy sink from conservation of momentum, you get the right answer.

My god, man. You have even less idea what you're doing than I thought.

[Tony Szamboti]

Prove it. Show me where Dr. Bazant claims this.
Read the Adendum to Bazant's 2002 paper.

It does nothing of the kind. In your whitepaper, you curve-fit to find an average acceleration of 22.8 feet per second2 in the first three seconds of descent. That leaves about 9 feet per second2 average deceleration caused by destruction of the lower structure. This is consistent with the findings of the BLGB paper.
There isn't much curve fitting necessary as the R**2 value of the least squares fit is .9961.

Read what I said to GlennB concerning the remaining resistance as you seem confused here also.


In your own paper, your entire energy cost argument is based upon a "spring constant" which is never calculated nor referenced, but is merely stated. As a result, your estimate for destructive energy is about four times higher than all other published estimates. There's no reason why I should accept this.
You will find the axial spring constant or stiffness of the columns in the towers calculated in Appendix C of the Missing Jolt paper. Why haven't you noticed that? The energy of deformation estimate we make in the paper in Appendix D is based on the elastic deformation, the plastic deformation, and the classes of the columns and their ability to sustain a plastic moment in buckling. If you think it is inaccurate please show why. Don't just make a claim that it is higher than others have estimated.

Again, see BLGB, 2008. And I note you still won't accept that there is no "jolt." You've denied saying it, you've claimed it was Dr. Bazant's claim, and you've tried the Truther Shuffle to retreat from it. Won't work. Own up to the smoothness of the collapse first, and once that's settled, we can talk energetics.

However unlikely your scenario of no observable jolt being necessary, your sceario is still shown to be non-explanatory due to the lack of velocity loss necessitated due to the kinetic energy losses needed by the energy of deformation.

ETA: Oh, one more thing -- your own paper, warts and all, does not predict the collapse would stop were it not for "Explosives." It merely predicts that the collapse would be slower. Ergo, in your little world, the "Explosives" weren't even needed to bring the structure down. So, why were they there? Why should I believe a word of it?

If you noticed at the bottom of page 10 we state

"It should also be noted that the energy losses and conservation of momentum we have calculated and used here, to determine the velocity loss, are a minimum. We do not consider energy losses due to vibration of the building, heat, and sound, during the initiating impulse, all of which would have required energy from the impulse to produce and thus have an additional effect on velocity loss.

This would also apply to your theoretical multitude of smaller impulses. The fact that 76% of the energy of the upper block is drained by just the deformation of the columns on either side of the first two colliding floors implies that had the other significant energy sinks been considered, the total would most probably show the collapse would arrest.

Mackey, you really need to at least attempt show some figures and calculations to back up what you are claiming. Your position has no credibility without it.

[twinstead]

Mackey, you really need to at least attempt show some figures and calculations to back up what you are claiming. Your position has no credibility without it.

The irony. It burns.

[Tony Szamboti]

Okay, this is so obviously wrong that I'm jumping ahead.

You're saying that the "300% stronger than static load columns" -- which is also wrong -- resisted at the same strength, through the entire length of the collapse.

That's wrong. They fail after about 3% strain, best case, after which their strength is zero.

300% x 3% = 9%, and if you add to that the energy sink from conservation of momentum, you get the right answer.

My god, man. You have even less idea what you're doing than I thought.

I am talking about 300% stronger than the static load at just yield. You won't even be anywhere near 3% strain at yield. The load needed to get to 3% strain is significantly higher than 300% of the static load.

You are really confused. Or is it just that you want to confuse things here?

Mackey, if you feel this strongly about this write a rebuttal to the paper to which I can respond. I am done talking to you about it until you do so. Show your numbers in a full discussion.

[R.Mackey]

Read the Adendum to Bazant's 2002 paper.

I have. It doesn't say that. Looks like you lied again, chum.

You will find the axial spring constant or stiffness of the columns in the towers calculated in Appendix C of the Missing Jolt paper. Why haven't you noticed that? The energy of deformation estimate we make in the paper in Appendix D is based on the elastic deformation, the plastic deformation, and the classes of the columns and their ability to sustain a plastic moment in buckling. If you think it is inaccurate please show why. Don't just make a claim that it is higher than others have estimated.

Thanks for clarifying that. Now that I know what you did, I am absolutely certain your calculation is complete idiocy. You are calculating the spring constant of the entire 110-story stack, assuming "average dimensions" at the 55th story, to compute a single overall spring constant -- and then applying that constant at the impact floors.

Nonsense. The actual behavior will be of a series of coupled springs, where the spring constant varies radically with height. At the collapse zone, the 97th and 98th floors, the actual spring constant will be considerably lower, as the steel is considerably thinner.

As a result, you grossly overestimated the absorption by structure, and you did so because you applied a totally inane method of estimation. Fail, Tony.

However unlikely your scenario of no observable jolt being necessary, your sceario is still shown to be non-explanatory due to the lack of velocity loss necessitated due to the kinetic energy losses needed by the energy of deformation.

So you still fail to recognize that the collapse is smooth, and there's no "jolt."

Figures.

If you noticed at the bottom of page 10 we state

"It should also be noted that the energy losses and conservation of momentum we have calculated and used here, to determine the velocity loss, are a minimum. We do not consider energy losses due to vibration of the building, heat, and sound, during the initiating impulse, all of which would have required energy from the impulse to produce and thus have an additional effect on velocity loss.

This would also apply to your theoretical multitude of smaller impulses. The fact that 76% of the energy of the upper block is drained by just the deformation of the columns on either side of the first two colliding floors implies that had the other significant energy sinks been considered, the total would most probably show the collapse would arrest.

So, in other words, you can't calculate that the collapse would arrest, even by artificially inflating your energy sinks, but it's "only" 24% so you just handwave it away as trivial.

That's called Destroying the Exception, Tony. Classic fallacy.

Mackey, you really need to at least attempt show some figures and calculations to back up what you are claiming. Your position has no credibility without it.

There are, once again, a multitude of published and accepted papers that demonstrate it. I don't need to rederive these papers to prove you're wrong. The burden of proof is on your side, and all I'm getting from you is double-talk.

I am talking about 300% stronger than the static load at just yield. You won't even be anywhere near 3% strain at yield. The load needed to get to 3% strain is significantly higher than 300% of the static load.

You write the above, and then you write this..?

You are really confused. Or is it just that you want to confuse things here?

What do you think "yield" means, Tony? That's the highest stress that member will ever see. At yield it deforms. So you're saying "the load needed to get to 3% strain is significantly higher than 300% of the static load" -- so the structure had more than a safety factor of 3 built in?

Who's confused, again?

Also irrelevant. Again, what you wrote was you trying to apply the static strength over an entire range of motion. That's cherry-picking. You're applying the maximum strength, as-built, and then assuming that it won't weaken at all even after it buckles, even after it snaps, all the way to the ground. Complete lunacy.

Mackey, if you feel this strongly about this write a rebuttal to the paper to which I can respond. I am done talking to you about it until you do so. Show your numbers in a full discussion.

Emphasis added. Originally I laughed at this, but then I realized that if I read the above literally, you're in fact saying that you can't respond to my rebuttals, and you're going quiet until I dumb it down enough that you can...

So, to recap:

You lied about the tilting of the upper block
You lied about saying that it wasn't tilted
You claimed the tilt was not "germane" and focused on energy absorption
You lie and say Dr. Bazant also says that without a "jolt" the collapse could not occur "naturally," viz. without explosives
You suggest that the static strength of the lower structure can be multiplied by the distance of collapse to get the true energy absorption
You call attention to your whitepaper, in which the above is not claimed, but instead you treat the columns as uniform springs, thereby vastly overestimating the energy sink on the collapse floors
You whine about me producing numbers, ignorant of the fact that you are indeed challenging a published, quantified result
ETA: Oh, one more I forgot:
When backed against the wall, you suggest that I am "wittingly" part of the coverup

You're not doing well, Tony. Even you must realize this.

[Grizzly Bear]

EDIT: disregard

[AZCat]

Wow. I see Tony Szamboti is still struggling with concepts he should have mastered back as an undergraduate. Have you no integrity, Tony? Admit you're in over your head and concede.

[R.Mackey]

That'll be the day.

And perhaps later we can work on the idea that the heating etc. in his "additional 24%" handwave comes out of the energy lost by the inelastic collision, rather than another brand-new energy sink. Looks like we can add Tony to Gordon Ross and femr2 and the others who don't understand conservation of energy...

... but I'm trying to work on his confusion one item at a time, so he at least has a chance. Naturally, he's not cooperating. They never do.

[Tony Szamboti]

What do you think "yield" means, Tony? That's the highest stress that member will ever see. At yield it deforms. So you're saying "the load needed to get to 3% strain is significantly higher than 300% of the static load" -- so the structure had more than a safety factor of 3 built in?

Who's confused, again?


You are either an idiot, which I doubt, or you are trying to confuse those who can't think enough for themselves in this type of discussion.

Yield is well below 3% strain. That is why we use the 0.2% strain as the yield point. The factor of safety is based on yield strength in a structure not ultimate. If you are thinking ultimate then, yes the factor of safety for ultimate failure was greater than 300%.

[R.Mackey]

Except we're talking about buckling behavior here.

If it was linear strain, then you're correct, the ultimate strength would be about 40% higher. But in a buckling situation, once you start going plastic in compression as well, buckling is immediate.

Think, Tony. And work on the multitude of other problems. Don't just nitpick and shuffle. Start with understanding why there's no jolt.

[Tony Szamboti]

Wow. I see Tony Szamboti is still struggling with concepts he should have mastered back as an undergraduate. Have you no integrity, Tony? Admit you're in over your head and concede.

AZCat, so it seems you are continuing your attempts at unsupported ridicule of anyone questioning the present official explanation of the collapses of those buildings.

I haven't seen you do anything but. Is this all you are capable of?

What do you think I get wrong? C'mon, don't shy away because someone is asking you a technical question.

[Hokulele]

Start with understanding why there's no jolt. there should not have been any jolt.


Fixed that for you.

[Tony Szamboti]

Except we're talking about buckling behavior here.

If it was linear strain, then you're correct, the ultimate strength would be about 40% higher. But in a buckling situation, once you start going plastic in compression as well, buckling is immediate.

Think, Tony. And work on the multitude of other problems. Don't just nitpick and shuffle. Start with understanding why there's no jolt.

After yield there is an axial plastic deformation phase before prior to buckling.

[R.Mackey]

Judges also would have accepted "start with understanding the correct reason why there's no jolt," but a little extra clarity never hurt. ;)

[AZCat]

I wouldn't suggest stressing Tony any further today by discussing the "source" of the "additional" energy - the strain might be too much for him.

Engineers like Tony make me sad. I don't know how they derived so little knowledge from school and experience compared to the rest of us, but it must be frustrating for them to have spent a comparable amount of time on subjects yet to have gained so much less. I'm no paragon of engineering, but even this stuff is obvious to me (after a little reflection, of course).

[R.Mackey]

After yield there is an axial plastic deformation phase before prior to buckling.

Only for very low slenderness ratios. Otherwise the plastic deformation is a geometric one, not actual bulk plasticity in the materials.

Not relevant for this problem. Keep on tapdancing, Tony.

[Grizzly Bear]

What do you think I get wrong? C'mon, don't shy away because someone is asking you a technical question.
Is there really a need to ask that question Tony? We're covering material I studied not too long ago... this is undergraduate material in both areas majoring architecture and engineering. This is material I covered in my 2nd and 3rd year

[Tony Szamboti]

Judges also would have accepted "start with understanding the correct reason why there's no jolt," but a little extra clarity never hurt. ;)

Where are your numbers Mackey for your no jolt scenario and your explanation of why no velocity loss would be observable?

You obviously can't produce numbers to back up those claims and you must continue to obfuscate to maintain your position.

I have other things to do besides argue with the likes of you.

[AZCat]

AZCat, so it seems you are continuing your attempts at unsupported ridicule of anyone questioning the present official explanation of the collapses of those buildings.

I haven't seen you do anything but. Is this all you are capable of?

What do you think I get wrong? C'mon, don't shy away because someone is asking you a technical question.

That's funny - I seem to remember you doing the exact same thing when I asked you technical questions at DU and here. Lying isn't good practice for an engineer, Tony - what would your state board think of such behavior?

[Tony Szamboti]

I wouldn't suggest stressing Tony any further today by discussing the "source" of the "additional" energy - the strain might be too much for him.

Engineers like Tony make me sad. I don't know how they derived so little knowledge from school and experience compared to the rest of us, but it must be frustrating for them to have spent a comparable amount of time on subjects yet to have gained so much less. I'm no paragon of engineering, but even this stuff is obvious to me (after a little reflection, of course).

I doubt that you are an engineer. You never involve yourself in technicalities.

[R.Mackey]

Where are your numbers Mackey for your no jolt scenario and your explanation of why no velocity loss would be observable?

You obviously can't produce numbers to back up those claims and you must continue to obfuscate to maintain your position.

No matter what my numbers are, they won't suddenly cause your incompetence, lies, and mistakes to evaporate.

For the third time, assume that I am completely in accord with the BLGB paper, and work from there.

I have other things to do besides argue with the likes of you.

You should be learning, not arguing, so I conditionally agree.

[FineWine]

Here you go again mesmerizing us with technical discussion.


Your technical errors are glaring to the engineers here. They have corrected you repeatedly. You made the absurd claim that the war on terror is somehow an invention of Dick Cheney (why Cheney?), which implies that Islamist terrorists had not been attacking American interests for the decade before Bush became president. America has stolen nobody's resources. That obvious fact remains true despite your agenda-driven myths. So, for you, it's all about politics.

[Hokulele]

Judges also would have accepted "start with understanding the correct reason why there's no jolt," but a little extra clarity never hurt. ;)


Heh. The whole concept of a "Missing Jolt" was starting to bother me. It is almost identical to a Creationist's use of the term "Missing Link", implying that it should have been there, and that there is something fishy about the lack of one. In reality, you can't "miss" what never should or would have existed in the first place.

[FineWine]

Tony, please go on record as acknowledging that Heiwa's reaction to the ASCE journal's inevitable rejection of his nonsense-physics will be as follows: he will rave incoherently and accuse all the real engineers of being shills and religious fundamentalists. Acknowledge for the rest of us that you understand that there is no--zero--chance of the ASCE journal taking seriously his mad garble of basic physics. Your own credibility as an engineer is in tatters. You suffer from the "truther" disease, an inability to take a backward step and admit any degree of error. Start the repair work by acknowledging that Heiwa is completely wrong about everything.

It is certain that Heiwa will learn absolutely nothing from his smackdown by the real engineers at the ASCE journal. How about you?

[AZCat]

I doubt that you are an engineer. You never involve yourself in technicalities.

Considering your track record on engineering issues, I'm not bothered at all by your opinion or your lies.

[tsig]

Except we're talking about buckling behavior here.

If it was linear strain, then you're correct, the ultimate strength would be about 40% higher. But in a buckling situation, once you start going plastic in compression as well, buckling is immediate.

Think, Tony. And work on the multitude of other problems. Don't just nitpick and shuffle. Start with understanding why there's no jolt.

delete

[Heiwa]

One quick question for Heiwa....

In one of your online articles found here:
http :/ /heiwaco.tripod.com/mac5.htm (I cant post links yet so I added spaces).

You wrote the following:


How in the world can you seriously think that "Materials, size and particulars of the elements of the structure A doesn't matter the least."?

How could they "not matter" when analyzing a collapse? Please explain.

The material, size and particulars of the elements (and connections) in the structures A and C are same and you can chose any types. As part C is smaller than part A, part C cannot apply sufficient energy on part A without destroying itself! Thus a one-way crush down of part A by part C is not possible under any circumstances.

You are kindly requested to demonstrate the opposite if you can.

Evidently, the application of kinetic energy by part C on part A must also be associated with a deceleration of the intact elements of part C away from interface C/A. This deceleration may cause a 'bounce' (no element failures, just elastic deformations and part C moves up) or element failures. In the latter case part A structure soon arrests the part C. In both cases all or part of the applied energy is transformed into elastic deformations.

[Heiwa]

For the third time, assume that I am completely in accord with the BLGB paper, and work from there.





The basic error of the BLGB paper and its 1-D theory is the assumption that upper part C is rigid. Evidently any part of a real structure cannot be rigid!

[funk de fino]

I have other things to do besides argue with the likes of you.

Like read the NIST reports fully.

[GlennB]

Mackey, if you feel this strongly about this write a rebuttal to the paper to which I can respond. I am done talking to you about it until you do so. Show your numbers in a full discussion.

Can't help but notice here that Szamboti is requiring Mackey to provide an exhaustive Finite Element Model for WTC1, otherwise he'll apparently throw a hissy fit and take his ball home. I recall that current state-of-the-art FEM is way way short of being able to do that. The Bazantian monolithic axial impact model is amenable to analysis, however, so - according to him - this is the only way we may look at the issue. Conveniently for Szamboti this will produce the 'jolt' he lives for.

Szamboti's technique here is similar to the Pentagon truthers who demand to see a clear video of AA77 hitting the building, otherwise the truth of the matter will always be open to debate. It can't be done, of course, as no such video exists.

Psychologically, what's happening here seems to be a variation on the "poisoning the well" logical fallacy. Szamboti has poisoned this particular well by insisting on impossible conditions in advance. He has created a personal reality where his position is by his own definition invulnerable, but doesn't realise it. An irreducible delusion (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=118389) in action.

[aggle-rithm]

The material, size and particulars of the elements (and connections) in the structures A and C are same and you can chose any types. As part C is smaller than part A, part C cannot apply sufficient energy on part A without destroying itself! Thus a one-way crush down of part A by part C is not possible under any circumstances.


Semantic gobbledy-gook. Destroyed or not, the upper portion can still have the momentum to destroy the lower portion.

Now, if your theory is, "it's impossible for anything other than a solid object to destroy another solid object", then it may actually mean something. However, there are thousands of examples that prove that theory wrong.

Think floods, tsunamis, and hurricanes.

[Justin39640]

i have been messing around with the 3D modeling software - blender (open source) and its game engine (physics engine)
so i decided to model the "Heiwa Challenge"

and low and behold HES RIGHT! (well at least on my model)
the building does bounce a little too

jodIggxm_Lc

but
unfortunately for mr Heiwa
my models have the benefit of living in a clean simple world
the column supports are unable to be broken or deformed and its falling in a vacuum

in a real world drop like this, undoubtedly columns WILL deform

pretty much this model shows that you dont care for those silly lil things called variables

ive only been messing with this program a few days
so i will probably come back with a model that better represents the topics at hand

[newton3376]

Some of the things I am reading in this thread are just incredible.....

I'm just a lowly electrical engineer so discussions of structural engineering, collapse dynamics, etc are technically out of my field of expertise.....but even I can see the idiocy of what some of you truthers are saying...

The material, size and particulars of the elements (and connections) in the structures A and C are same and you can chose any types. As part C is smaller than part A, part C cannot apply sufficient energy on part A without destroying itself! Thus a one-way crush down of part A by part C is not possible under any circumstances.

You are kindly requested to demonstrate the opposite if you can.

So the material, size, and particulars of the elements and connections are the same....so what?

Let me get this straight....you are saying that because part C is smaller than part A then part C can only supply sufficient energy on part A (to "destroy" part A and cause a collapse and structural failure) if part C "destroys" itself?

So your argument against a gravity driven collapse that causes eventual failure (of course the failures would be local and not global....part C doesnt impact and cause failure to EVERY SINGLE section of part A instantly) is that "one of the sections is smaller than the other"?

Thats your argument? Its smaller? So because the over all section is smaller it therefore CANT supply sufficient energy?

That seems just a *tad* bit silly.....

Evidently, the application of kinetic energy by part C on part A must also be associated with a deceleration of the intact elements of part C away from interface C/A. This deceleration may cause a 'bounce' (no element failures, just elastic deformations and part C moves up) or element failures. In the latter case part A structure soon arrests the part C. In both cases all or part of the applied energy is transformed into elastic deformations.

Why does deceleration have to cause a "bounce" and not simply cause a.....well.....DECELERATION?

You seem to be assuming that it MUST bounce and that it must also not cause ANY element failures....

Lets say we have a "target" and a "bullet" made of the same material....arent you essentially saying that the bullet MUST bounce because...

A. Its smaller than the "target"
B. They are made of the same material

Cant the bullet still penetrate the material and simply slow down because of the initial impact?

I just don't get how you justify these assumptions you are making.....it seems strange to me....

But maybe I am completely wrong here and out of my element cause Im just an EE....someone correct me if I am way off base here.

[tfk]

The basic error of the BLGB paper and its 1-D theory is the assumption that upper part C is rigid. Evidently any part of a real structure cannot be rigid!
.
What utter claptrap.

EVERY "simplifying assumption" used in modeling is inherently untrue.

For example, neglecting air resistance in low velocity phenomena is a simplifying assumption. So is a linear approximation of a non-linear function.

So is the simplifying assumption of the upper part as a "rigid body".

Both of these are fundamentally untrue. But the error that they introduce to the answer to the specific question you are asking is small.

The fact that you indulge in sophistry like this comment, Heiwa, is just one clear example of your a) incompetence, 2) deceitfulness or iii.) both.
___

In addition, YOUR assertion of what is meant by a "rigid body" is simply a lie, Anders. It is NOT a mistake, because it's been explained to you a dozen times here.

To competent engineers, "rigid body" does not mean "indestructible". Bazant is a competent engineer. Ergo, he does not believe that his use of the term "rigid body" implies indestructibility.

You, on the other hand, have repeated implied, and perhaps even said literally, that "rigid body means indestructible".

There are three possible explanations for this persistent sophistry.

a) You are incompetent.
2) You are deceitful.
iii) You are both.

Care to "pick an alphanumeric between a & iii", Anders?

tom

[Grizzly Bear]

Heiwa's most fundamental error by far is that size is literal; the relationship between weaker and stronger is directly contingent upon size and applicant to every case. Unless he understands that his overall assertion is wrong, explaining even rudimentary material won't cure him of his incompetence, or his deceitfulness, heiwa's been here long enough that had he the capability to understand this in the first place he would have understood this a long time ago.

[Heiwa]

Destroyed or not, the upper portion can still have the momentum to destroy the lower portion.

However, there are thousands of examples that prove that theory wrong.

Think floods, tsunamis, and hurricanes.

No, if the assembly of elements of the upper part are similar to the lower part, except that the lower part previously carried the upper part and thus was slightly stronger, then the upper part can never have the momentum to destroy the lower part.

There is not one example of a structure where an upper part C can one-way crush down the lower part A (C = 1/10 A) when dropped on A by gravity.

Floods, tsunamis or hurricanes have nothing to do with a part C dropping on a part A by gravity.

[Heiwa]

Some of the things I am reading in this thread are just incredible.....


Let me get this straight....you are saying that because part C is smaller than part A then part C can only supply sufficient energy on part A (to "destroy" part A and cause a collapse and structural failure) if part C "destroys" itself?

So your argument against a gravity driven collapse that causes eventual failure (of course the failures would be local and not global....part C doesnt impact and cause failure to EVERY SINGLE section of part A instantly) is that "one of the sections is smaller than the other"?

Thats your argument? Its smaller? So because the over all section is smaller it therefore CANT supply sufficient energy?

Part C has simply less elements connected to one another than part A = C is smaller than A.
This means that part C can absorb less strain energy (elastic deformation) and plastic energy (plastic deformation) and requires less energy to be ripped apart (failures) than part A.

When part C applies its energy on part A, it is in the form of forces that displace elements in part A and produce elastic and plastic deformations and failures in A. However, part A - assisted by ground, applies the same forces on part C and thus produces elastic and plastic deformations and failures in C.

That's to begin with. So after a while part C is heavily damaged after the collision C/A, if the energy was sufficient to start with. Next step is what damaged part C can do later! Can it continue to one-way crush down part A? The answer is no.

If you do not agree, go to The Heiwa Challenge thread and demonstrate your belief with a suitable structure.

[Heiwa]

.
What utter claptrap.

...

So is the simplifying assumption of the upper part as a "rigid body".

Both of these are fundamentally untrue. But the error that they introduce to the answer to the specific question you are asking is small.

...

In addition, YOUR assertion of what is meant by a "rigid body" is simply a lie, Anders. It is NOT a mistake, because it's been explained to you a dozen times here.

To competent engineers, "rigid body" does not mean "indestructible". Bazant is a competent engineer. Ergo, he does not believe that his use of the term "rigid body" implies indestructibility.


tom

Hm, there is no need whatsoever to introduce a simplifying assumption that upper part C is rigid (and lower part A is not), in a 1-D theory of two structures (linear chains with material points?) C and A colliding. You evidently have to treat both parts C and A equally, e.g. as assemblies of material points/elements connected by springs or whatever (that can absorb energy as deformation or failure).
And then do your calculations how the material 'points' displace and what happens to the connections at impact C/A.
You will find that the material points in part C displace relative each other, i.e. part C is not rigid. In a rigid structure no elements displace relative any others and it is not the case in subject topic.

If Bazant or BLGBG or Seffen or Mackay is so clever that you suggest, Bazant & Co should of course do a proper theory where the elements in the upper part are free to displace with regard to one another. The result will be that upper part C cannot one-way crush down lower part A.

[newton3376]

Part C has simply less elements connected to one another than part A = C is smaller than A.

Good....you at least defined what you actually mean by "smaller"....

Thats a start....

This means that part C can absorb less strain energy (elastic deformation) and plastic energy (plastic deformation) and requires less energy to be ripped apart (failures) than part A.

I assume "part A" means "the entire structure below part C" since you are dividing the structure into areas below and above the area that collapses.

So if you are saying that the entire area above the impact zone can absorb less energy than the entire area below the impact zone then I would say that my gut reaction is to agree using the structure as a whole......

When part C applies its energy on part A, it is in the form of forces that displace elements in part A and produce elastic and plastic deformations and failures in A. However, part A - assisted by ground, applies the same forces on part C and thus produces elastic and plastic deformations and failures in C.

This is where there I have some issues with what you are saying....

It seems to me that you are applying Newtons third law in a rather peculiar way...

1. You seem to be using the entire structure "A" instead of the actual contact points that "C" would be applying forces to....

By doing this you seem to be implying that instead of causing local structural damage to A at the points of contact, that "C" should be causing some kind of global damage to the entire structure of "A".

2. You seem to be assuming that the "deformations" in "A" and "C" will necessairly be of the exact same nature....

If "C" has already "broken free" and is essentially falling and the contact points for "A" are still attached to the rest of the structure then why would the "deformation" in both be exactly the same? Why couldnt the "deformation" in "A" consist of structural points being "deformed" to the point of breaking?

That's to begin with. So after a while part C is heavily damaged after the collision C/A, if the energy was sufficient to start with. Next step is what damaged part C can do later! Can it continue to one-way crush down part A? The answer is no.

This statement seems to assume that "C" just goes straight through without any additional material breaking off and adding to the original "C". If "C" breaks structures to the point of failure as it falls then what prevents those pieces from also falling and causing additional damage themselves?