Why a one-way Crush down is not possible [Archive] - Page 9

Heiwa

6th July 2009, 08:52 AM

Anders,

.
Look, you ignorant, pompous, rude jerk.

You are DAMNED right that you do not know what I am saying.

I INVITED you into a discussion with me for the precise purpose of explaining to you what I am saying. You RUDELY ignored all of my attempts to discuss the issues.

So please refrain from your typically fumbling, incompetent attempt to interpret what I have said until after you have cleared them with me.

Your interpretation here is 100% wrong.

I guess ignorance is bliss, eh, Anders.

LOL.

Tom

Well, you say that 13 floors (#98-110) abt 4 m apart in a 53 m high assembly of floors drop and hit one floor, #97.

But floor #110 is 53 m away from floor #97! The only floor that floor #110 can contact is floor#109, but for that to happen you have to remove all columns between floors #109-110.

So, let's agree that it is an assembly of floors (#98-110), part C, that is alleged to contact floor #97 that happens to be part of another assembly of floors (#1-97), part A, i.e. part C contacts part A (as suggested by Bazant).

Bazant suggests further that part C is rigid (uniform density, it will not deform, it is indestructible at this time) but it is nonsense. And therefore Bazant's model is nonsense.

Now, you suggest that an assembly of floors, upper part C, is capable to one-way crush down lower part A, floor by floor, i.e. 97 impacts take place.

My opinion is clear! Your suggestion is impossible! Actually a ridiculous suggestion. Because at impact C on A, local failures will occur in both C and A. The weak elements or weak connections in both C and A adjacent to the impact interface fail first. Energy is absorbed as local failures. A jolt (decelaration - unit m/s²) of C should be observed. Then damaged elements will displace and contact other elements. Friction develops. More energy is now absorbed as friction. Etc, etc. And after a while of more local failures/friction the destruction is arrested. Happens every time you drop a part C of a structure A on the rest of A. It should take less than ONE second in the WTC 1 case.

This is the reason Why a one-way Crush down is not possible = topic = post #1.

Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder! Let's expand the thread to include that suggestion.

Justin39640

6th July 2009, 09:00 AM

FW,

You have to consider the PATHWAY that the forces (i.e., from weight & momentum) take in order to be transmitted from one component to another. These forces have to be transmitted thru physically touching components.

Heiwa is right that the upper floors do not transmit their weight & momentum DIRECTLY. Since they are not DIRECTLY touching floor 97. But the upper floors DO connect to the support columns and the support columns DO impact on Floor 97. So, ALL of the upper floors DO transmit both their weight & momentum to Floor 97 THRU the support columns. Actually thru approximately 1/2 the core & external columns.

Heiwa is right that the lower column stubs will also impact on the underside of floor 98. This is a version of the hunter with a spear, allowing the lion to charge him, burying the back end of the spear in the ground, and allowing the lion's momentum to impale itself on the end of the spear. (My hat's off to ANYONE who has ever pulled off this stunt...)

So there WILL be a mutual destruction of both Floors 97 & 98.

But after that first floor's destruction, the picture changes.

As I tried to explain here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4743226 , there are some subtle effects that cause the destruction to not be symmetric, up vs. down. This symmetic destruction is the core of Heiwa's (incorrect) contention.

There are two components that are responsible for the destruction of the floors: the column stubs and the mass of the debris that has been broken free in the crush zone. The column stubs are only significant during the 97th & 98th floor's destruction. After that, lateral forces simply sweep the column stubs aside.

The descending mass is all that matters. And as I tried to show, that mass of debris will collect at the bottom of the descending (& growing) upper body. And it will interleaf and connect to the upper blocks columns. And therefore that layer of debris will transmit the weight of the entire upper block (by virtue of its connection to the columns) and protect the upper block from further destruction.

As I tried to explain in that post, by the time the crush zone reaches any given floor, that floor has ALREADY had 2/3rds of it supports ripped apart. With this level of destruction, it has already been turned for the most part into loosely connected debris. Much of it already falling.

A piece of free falling debris, descending at 10 mph, puts far, far less impact on the 50 mph descending mass than that same piece of debris would have if it had been stationary & firmly fixed to its supports. This is a large part of the reason for the asymmetric destruction.

So, to answer your question, the placement of lawn chairs & lead plates is, of course, irrelevant to the ultimate fate of the universe.

You have been GROSSLY unfair to Heiwa, FW. You've expected him to discuss the issues with honesty and maturity.

How COULD you...? :rolleyes:

Tom

when i read tony's and heiwa's ideas it really stumps me
these people are engineers and in comparison much smarter than me
but
that might be their downfall
superiority complex maybe?
although many many more people who are smarter than i agree with my thoughts (or have shown where i was wrong in my thinking and i corrected myself) these people also are quick to point out where their thinking may be wrong and correct themselves
the CT's engineers dont seem to have that ability

as engineers they also (like you just pointed out..again lol) they assume the collapses were symmetrical or they talk about the 2 parts as if they were solid masses
where in reality the collapses were anything but symmetrical
and the 2 masses were anything but solid
they were made of millions of tiny pieces
and every single tiny part failure counts
at the start of collapse in my mind i can visualize bolts, rivets, and small plates shearing which in turn leads to larger parts failure and part groups failure randomly as loads are displaced
ultimately leading to global collapse

maybe this is from my practical experience rather than pen and paper

working with what engineers put out there
sometimes us guys in the field scratch our heads and say "wtf were they thinking?" after the uber failure is evident in real world scenarios

if engineers were never wrong
the word "recall" wouldnt exist lol (at least not in that context)

GlennB

6th July 2009, 09:05 AM

when i read tony's and heiwa's ideas it really stumps me
these people are engineers and in comparison much smarter than me
but
that might be their downfall
superiority complex maybe? ....

Yes. There are nutcases in every single human field of endeavour.

newton3376

6th July 2009, 09:41 AM

A doofus you are. Explained it, already Tony has.

It goes like this -
The building was carefully CD'd just as collapse initiated. The lack of 'jolt' proves this. Thus, the upper block expended no kinetic energy in breaking the lower block as the latter was already falling. The fact that upper block fell at well less than g acceleration means that .. er... well, it just means SOMETHING OK ????

It's all so clear now.....

Maybe he'll write a 'paper' about it, you Bush-loving shill-sheeple.

His 'paper" should be used in an intro ME undergrad course as an example of how 'not' to perform proper engineering analysis....

I'm afraid I have some bad news for you, Mr newton3376 ......

Scary.......

bill smith

6th July 2009, 09:50 AM

Yes, bill. I know EXACTLY where the 3/4th of a square mile of mesh reinforcing has gone. It has gone nowhere.

This whole charade is nothing but you, publicly fondling yourself. It's gotten the rest of us rather uncomfortable, frankly.

BTW, engineers DO design toasters. Anyone, engineer or not, that has actually designed anything & brought it to market knows 10,000x more than you do about ALL of these subjects.

Have a little respect for toaster designers.

Last note. To show you (what everyone else but you understands) what a techno-buffoon you are ...

You said that there was "some" mesh there. But too little "by dozens of orders of magnitude". Which is exactly what I commented on that prompted your strutting reply.

Let's assume that there is just ONE FOOT of your mesh visible.

ONE dozen "orders of magnitude" would mean 1012 feet of mesh. This is sufficient mesh to reach from the earth to the moon and back. About 4000 TIMES.

TWO dozen orders of magnitude would be 1024 feet.
This is enough to reach the nearest star Proxima Centuri, and back.
About 8 million times.

Still think you are missing "dozens of orders of magitude", dummy?

Do you even have enough understanding to be embarrassed by your silly attempt at technobabble?

Just curious.

Tom

Yes I'm awfully awfully embarrassed. But never mind is what I say. See- I told you it was a lot of mesh that's missing from the rubble. The best part of a square mile in fact. I notice you didn't have any sensible answers to the question either. What about the '' Find the missing square mile of rebar '' Challenge.
Do the sexual references get your rocks off then ? I was always uneasy about you following me around. A groupie is one thing but....

Grizzly Bear

6th July 2009, 09:59 AM

The write up you link to is a bogus example. Had the five pennies been dropped into the empty jar on the paper they would not have caused the paper to fail. While there would be an amplified load, there is also something not being explained that is allowing the seeming failure with far less weight, and that is that the shear area of the paper was much smaller when the pennies were dropped by themselves, so the stress on the paper was much higher, more for that reason than the dynamic load. The five dropped pennies are not applying more load than the jar full of pennies at all.
I don't think the pennies experiment was ever intended in that paper to directly model the behavior of the towers. It was solely intended to demonstrate to an average reader the difference between a dynamic and a static load. I've used some of my old structures notes in a similar fashion to demonstrate the difference in the load capacity of a simple column with different values in it's longest unbraced span. I do think he should have focused on the smaller scale part of that experiment though since it would have related more to what was happening inside the towers -- in that the loads weren't being uniformly distributed across the floors.That's an understanding you start out with when you examine that experiment in the first place.

From what you say you are an engineering student. What discipline? If you are mechanical or civil you should have figured this out, if you have already had strength of materials and stress analysis courses.
The undergraduate Architecture core curriculum at my university requires classes in methods and materials (two classes), and structures (I & II). The former discusses how materials are used in construction, as well as their various applications, and properties. Structures teaches students foundation material for calculating loads on simple beam and column assemblies. This also involves drawing force, and moment diagrams of the loads on these assemblies.

You are right that the collapse of the towers would have required something like an 8g amplification of the upper block's load. How much would the upper block have to decelerate in feet or meters/second/second to apply an 8g amplification of it's load? If the velocity loss needed to supply the kinetc energy for deforming and buckling the columns on either side of the collision is approximately 17 feet/second what would be the duration of the impulse?

When I did the original calculation I assumed a scenario in which the entire mass came to a complete stop within 3 feet after accelerating for a single floor height. In other words the working assumption in that calculation was that the floor depth could bring the mass to a complete stop. Off the top of my head that was ~ 81-84 m/s2 in the negative relative to the direction of gravity.

My assumption ignores the realistic strength of the floors and the non-uniform nature of the load, which would require more complex calculations to deal with .

Newtons Bit

6th July 2009, 10:19 AM

Yes I'm awfully awfully embarrassed. But never mind is what I say. See- I told you it was a lot of mesh that's missing from the rubble. The best part of a square mile in fact. I notice you didn't have any sensible answers to the question either. What about the '' Find the missing square mile of rebar '' Challenge.
Do the sexual references get your rocks off then ? I was always uneasy about you following me around. A groupie is one thing but....

The mesh is still in the concrete. You shouldn't be able to see much in the way of wire mesh laying around by itself.

Unless all the concrete was dustified! :jaw-dropp zomg inside job?!?

bill smith

6th July 2009, 10:30 AM

The mesh is still in the concrete. You shouldn't be able to see much in the way of wire mesh laying around by itself.

Unless all the concrete was dustified! :jaw-dropp zomg inside job?!?

We are talking about the equivalent of a one-acre homogenous block of concrete 30 feet thick. When you break a block like that into the small pieces that we typically see in the rubble you may realise just how much cincrete r:crowded: missing from the rubble. That can maybe be explained by the pulverisation we saw but the missing three quarters of a mile of wire mesh reinforcing cannot be explained in this way. ..and in my opinion neither can the 5,000 missing floorpans or the thousands of tons of missing core columns.

phunk

6th July 2009, 10:50 AM

We are talking about the equivalent of a one-acre homogenous block of concrete 30 feet thick.

Not quite, rather than a 30 foot thick block, it was 100 or so sheets a couple inches thick. Much easier to shatter into small pieces.

When you break a block like that into the small pieces that we typically see in the rubble you may realise just how much cincrete r:crowded: missing from the rubble.

How much was missing? Give us an estimate.

That can maybe be explained by the pulverisation we saw but the missing three quarters of a mile of wire mesh reinforcing cannot be explained in this way. ..and in my opinion neither can the 5,000 missing floorpans or the thousands of tons of missing core columns.

How can you tell how much is inside the pile? What was the volume of the pile, and what should it have been?

Gamolon

6th July 2009, 10:54 AM

Not without a jolt(s) and a velocity loss. There are none.

Are you telling us that the floor truss connections on the perimeter columns were enough to create a "jolt" and a "loss in velocity" to the falling upper mass of the tower?

If not the floor truss connections, can you please explain to me what was supposed to cause this "jolt" and "loss in velocity"? What structural members?

newton3376

6th July 2009, 10:54 AM

Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder! Let's expand the thread to include that suggestion.

Agreeing with you is complicit to mass stupidity.....

Let's expand the thread to include that suggestion....

Gamolon

6th July 2009, 11:04 AM

The jolt required is that necessary to overcome the reserve strength of the columns below, which were capable of supporting several times the load of the entire upper block above them.

Ok. Someone PLEASE explain this to me as I seem to be missing some major point here.

Why are the columns being used as the reason there should be a "jolt" or "loss in velocity"? If the columns were that strong, wouldn't it be the floor truss connections that would be subject to the load of the upper falling mass?

I mean the perimeter AND core columns were outside the perimeter of the concrete floors.

The upper mass, in what I envision, didn't come down on TOP of the vertical columns, but came down upon the floor truss connections. The floor truss connections, being MUCH weaker than the small truss connnections, would have either sheared off of bent downwards. How could those small connections slow the velocity or even produce a jolt?

FineWine

6th July 2009, 11:51 AM

FW,

You have to consider the PATHWAY that the forces (i.e., from weight & momentum) take in order to be transmitted from one component to another. These forces have to be transmitted thru physically touching components.

Heiwa is right that the upper floors do not transmit their weight & momentum DIRECTLY. Since they are not DIRECTLY touching floor 97. But the upper floors DO connect to the support columns and the support columns DO impact on Floor 97. So, ALL of the upper floors DO transmit both their weight & momentum to Floor 97 THRU the support columns. Actually thru approximately 1/2 the core & external columns.

Heiwa is right that the lower column stubs will also impact on the underside of floor 98. This is a version of the hunter with a spear, allowing the lion to charge him, burying the back end of the spear in the ground, and allowing the lion's momentum to impale itself on the end of the spear. (My hat's off to ANYONE who has ever pulled off this stunt...)

So there WILL be a mutual destruction of both Floors 97 & 98.

But after that first floor's destruction, the picture changes.

As I tried to explain here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4743226 , there are some subtle effects that cause the destruction to not be symmetric, up vs. down. This symmetic destruction is the core of Heiwa's (incorrect) contention.

There are two components that are responsible for the destruction of the floors: the column stubs and the mass of the debris that has been broken free in the crush zone. The column stubs are only significant during the 97th & 98th floor's destruction. After that, lateral forces simply sweep the column stubs aside.

The descending mass is all that matters. And as I tried to show, that mass of debris will collect at the bottom of the descending (& growing) upper body. And it will interleaf and connect to the upper blocks columns. And therefore that layer of debris will transmit the weight of the entire upper block (by virtue of its connection to the columns) and protect the upper block from further destruction.

As I tried to explain in that post, by the time the crush zone reaches any given floor, that floor has ALREADY had 2/3rds of it supports ripped apart. With this level of destruction, it has already been turned for the most part into loosely connected debris. Much of it already falling.

A piece of free falling debris, descending at 10 mph, puts far, far less impact on the 50 mph descending mass than that same piece of debris would have if it had been stationary & firmly fixed to its supports. This is a large part of the reason for the asymmetric destruction.

So, to answer your question, the placement of lawn chairs & lead plates is, of course, irrelevant to the ultimate fate of the universe.

You have been GROSSLY unfair to Heiwa, FW. You've expected him to discuss the issues with honesty and maturity.

How COULD you...? :rolleyes:

Tom

Thanks, Tom, for a typically lucid and informative response. It is nothing short of amazing that Heiwa can address an audience highly familiar with videos and photos showing external columns being stripped away and pretend that the columns all remain standing, spearing the falling debris. Why do stupid people think everyone else is stupid too?

FineWine

6th July 2009, 11:53 AM

We are talking about the equivalent of a one-acre homogenous block of concrete 30 feet thick. When you break a block like that into the small pieces that we typically see in the rubble you may realise just how much cincrete r:crowded: missing from the rubble. That can maybe be explained by the pulverisation we saw but the missing three quarters of a mile of wire mesh reinforcing cannot be explained in this way. ..and in my opinion neither can the 5,000 missing floorpans or the thousands of tons of missing core columns.

You have been caught lying again. No core columns were missing.

FineWine

6th July 2009, 11:55 AM

Yes I'm awfully awfully embarrassed. But never mind is what I say. See- I told you it was a lot of mesh that's missing from the rubble. The best part of a square mile in fact. I notice you didn't have any sensible answers to the question either. What about the '' Find the missing square mile of rebar '' Challenge.
Do the sexual references get your rocks off then ? I was always uneasy about you following me around. A groupie is one thing but....

You don't even know what you're trying to claim anymore. Pathetic.

FineWine

6th July 2009, 11:58 AM

Well, you say that 13 floors (#98-110) abt 4 m apart in a 53 m high assembly of floors drop and hit one floor, #97.

But floor #110 is 53 m away from floor #97! The only floor that floor #110 can contact is floor#109, but for that to happen you have to remove all columns between floors #109-110.

So, let's agree that it is an assembly of floors (#98-110), part C, that is alleged to contact floor #97 that happens to be part of another assembly of floors (#1-97), part A, i.e. part C contacts part A (as suggested by Bazant).

Bazant suggests further that part C is rigid (uniform density, it will not deform, it is indestructible at this time) but it is nonsense. And therefore Bazant's model is nonsense.

Now, you suggest that an assembly of floors, upper part C, is capable to one-way crush down lower part A, floor by floor, i.e. 97 impacts take place.

My opinion is clear! Your suggestion is impossible! Actually a ridiculous suggestion. Because at impact C on A, local failures will occur in both C and A. The weak elements or weak connections in both C and A adjacent to the impact interface fail first. Energy is absorbed as local failures. A jolt (decelaration - unit m/s²) of C should be observed. Then damaged elements will displace and contact other elements. Friction develops. More energy is now absorbed as friction. Etc, etc. And after a while of more local failures/friction the destruction is arrested. Happens every time you drop a part C of a structure A on the rest of A. It should take less than ONE second in the WTC 1 case.

This is the reason Why a one-way Crush down is not possible = topic = post #1.

Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder! Let's expand the thread to include that suggestion.

Will you ever stop lying about the "indestructible part C"? Nobody makes this claim. Have you no shame at all?

alienentity

6th July 2009, 12:05 PM

Ok. Someone PLEASE explain this to me as I seem to be missing some major point here.

Why are the columns being used as the reason there should be a "jolt" or "loss in velocity"? If the columns were that strong, wouldn't it be the floor truss connections that would be subject to the load of the upper falling mass?

I mean the perimeter AND core columns were outside the perimeter of the concrete floors.

The upper mass, in what I envision, didn't come down on TOP of the vertical columns, but came down upon the floor truss connections. The floor truss connections, being MUCH weaker than the small truss connnections, would have either sheared off of bent downwards. How could those small connections slow the velocity or even produce a jolt?

My understanding of it (from reading analysis by various engineers, such as Bazant etc) is that there is no serious question that the kinetic energy generated by the downward, gravitationally-driven movement of the upper blocks was easily sufficient to continue the collapse all the way down to the foundations.
By making crude simplifications of the scenario, never intended to be more than computational guides, Bazant was able to provide some solid calculations about the expected strength of the structure and the forces which destroyed it.

The actual collapse is far more complex, and did not behave in the way a simple caricature does - Tony S is using the simplified caricature and expecting it to model precisely what the more complex object did.

Of course that was never the intention of Bazant's calculations at all.

Because Tony is unwilling to accept the inevitability of the collapse, he has to handwave away the unmistakable fact that the towers did NOT collapse at the rate of freefall acceleration, but were slowed by the structure, as expected. The fact that structure provided resistance demonstrates that it was not a controlled demolition at all, but a complex gravitational collapse initiated by the failure of structure due to plane impacts and fires.

That is why the engineering community at large has no need to pursue convoluted conspiracy theories to explain the collapses, and it never will.

If you read more of Tony Szamboti's posts on other internet forums (sciforums.com for example) you'll see he holds a number of corresponding goofball viewpoints, asking questions such as
'Why do you think the building collapses initiated on floors just above where the aircraft impact damage had occurred instead of where the damage was, which also had fire?'
'The collapses of the twin towers both initiated just at the very top edges of the impact zones, where there was almost no fuel and an insignificant number of columns damaged'
'Isn't it amazing that the columns from these initiation floors weren't saved, to show us just how hot they got? That would have nipped any conspiracy charges right in the bud. It is very suspicious that these columns weren't saved and no amount of obfuscation and spin can end that suspicion.

However, it could also be where a demolition could be initiated, since they were the first floors above which had little damage and the planted thermite charges would not have been upset.'

Elsewhere, as Tony has already written in this stupid Heiwa thread, he believes that mythical nanothermite materials, none of which he has seen, nor tested, nor seen tested, were actually responsible for the tower collapses, which did not require explosives anyway (as we have seen). So he not only argues (apparently expecting to be taken seriously!) that the plane impacts were merely a smokescreen for the REAL destruction by mythical compounds which, in his Harry Potter fantasy can magically accomplish this in a virtually undetectable way. 'Nano-thermite's brisance and noise level for a given charge is also tailorable by changing the size of the particles. Explosive noise and force away from the target could also be kept to a minimum by tamping.'
Please note that Tony is extrapolating his entire nanothermite theory from some obscure references about research into nanothermite weapons made in 2001. He's paraphrasing the comments, trying to co-opt them into the truthersphere for building demolition. I kid you not.
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2287107

Skeptics have sarcastically termed such fantasy, low-noise explosives as 'hush-a-boom' explosives. There is good reason for such derision, and it's not even worth mentioning why, I hope. (you know, a high-velocity, high explosive charge that is somehow quiet?!? Oy vay!)

Dr. Frank Greening has also discovered some large errors in Tony's paper, discussed here by Dr. Greening
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/newton-s-3rd-law-and-the-collapse-of-wtc-1-t153.html

GlennB

6th July 2009, 12:17 PM

The actual collapse is far more complex, and did not behave in the way a simple caricature does - Tony S is using the simplified caricature and expecting it to model precisely what the more complex object did.

<snipped because you can read it all above>

Dr. Frank Greening has also discovered some large errors in Tony's paper, discussed here by Dr. Greening
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/newton-s-3rd-law-and-the-collapse-of-wtc-1-t153.html

Amen. Excellent post. And the link is well worth reading.

alienentity

6th July 2009, 12:29 PM

Some very relevant observations on the effect of the 'impulse' (jolt) by OneWhiteEye

'An impulse at one end of a deformable body does not translate to the same acceleration over the entire structure.'
'..the 'masses' interspersed with the 'springs' provide both material inertia and internal flexure, thus satisfying Newton's 3rd while yet assuring that the roofline will display the least effect of the resistance impulse delivered below.'

Mon Apr 20, 2009 6:50 pm
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/newton-s-3rd-law-and-the-collapse-of-wtc-1-t153.html#p2756

Heiwa

6th July 2009, 12:54 PM

GlennB

6th July 2009, 01:13 PM

It is quite simple! It does not matter what element or connection fails at impact due to a moving mass of any kind (part C) hitting a static structure (part A) to produce a jolt! Energy is absorbed and the only available energy is that of the moving mass part C. This mass thus transmits energy to something else (an element or a connection that breaks) and must slow down = jolt.

You did very well there. Bravo! We'll make a scientist of you yet!

The point you missed was whether the jolt(s) would be detectable by the apparatus available at the time, as claimed by Szamboti.

GlennB

6th July 2009, 01:16 PM

Gamolon

6th July 2009, 01:28 PM

It is quite simple! It does not matter what element or connection fails at impact due to a moving mass of any kind (part C) hitting a static structure (part A) to produce a jolt! Energy is absorbed and the only available energy is that of the moving mass part C. This mass thus transmits energy to something else (an element or a connection that breaks) and must slow down = jolt.

The energy applied by C is quite small (WTC 1)! A couple of 100's kWh. Say 300! To break elements and connections require plenty of energy, say 100 kWh. So part C must slow down accordingly.

So you're telling me that the floor truss connections were strong enough to slow the upper mass (Part C) enough that we should see a jolt?

Have you done the calculations to prove this?

alienentity

6th July 2009, 01:29 PM

Where is the Jolt?

bGd0P85YhEo (sorry, video encoding seems a little off)

Since you can't see one, it proves the other boats were sunk by silent nanothermite explosions.
Why didn't the Canadian government test for explosives? Why was the evidence removed?
This conspiracy knows no bounds!!!

Heiwa

6th July 2009, 01:50 PM

So you're telling me that the floor truss connections were strong enough to slow the upper mass (Part C) enough that we should see a jolt?

Have you done the calculations to prove this?

Of course! Haven't you read my paper? http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm and scroll down.

Actually it is not breaking 700 floor truss connections/floor that arrests upper part C. It is the elastic deformations of parts C and A and local failures of any kind, e.g. punching holes in floors and finally friction between damaged and intact parts ... in both parts C and A.

alienentity

6th July 2009, 01:56 PM

So you're telling me that the floor truss connections were strong enough to slow the upper mass (Part C) enough that we should see a jolt?

Have you done the calculations to prove this?

He's not only made the calculations, but they've been peer reviewed by Dr. Sunder of NIST. Heiwa said so, it must be true.

And Heiwa's got 1 million dollars waiting for you as well if you meet his challenge. The winner of the challenge must win a majority vote by the judging panel - that would be Heiwa, of course.;)

tfk

6th July 2009, 02:06 PM

Wow. Will wonders never cease...

The rude, arrogant naval architect actually deigns to reply to a couple of points.

Well, you say that 13 floors (#98-110) abt 4 m apart in a 53 m high assembly of floors drop and hit one floor, #97.

But floor #110 is 53 m away from floor #97! The only floor that floor #110 can contact is floor#109, but for that to happen you have to remove all columns between floors #109-110.

blah, blah

.
I never said anything of the sort. I laid out clearly & correctly how the forces from the weight of floors 99 thru 110 are transmitted to floor 98: THRU THE COLUMNS to which all those floors are tied.

Nice to calibrate your reading comprehension.

So, let's agree that it is an assembly of floors (#98-110), part C, that is alleged to contact floor #97 that happens to be part of another assembly of floors (#1-97), part A, i.e. part C contacts part A (as suggested by Bazant).

.
WRONG. Is this an example of your high-falutin' "damage analysis"?

It is NOT "an assembly of floors" that contacts another "assembly of floors".

Individual pieces of the upper assembly contact individual pieces of the lower assembly.

Bazant suggests further that part C is rigid (uniform density, it will not deform, it is indestructible at this time) but it is nonsense. And therefore Bazant's model is nonsense.

.
WRONG.
You have been told AT LEAST 20 times that "rigid body" does NOT mean "indestructible". And yet you obliviously yammer on.

Now, you suggest that an assembly of floors, upper part C, is capable to one-way crush down lower part A, floor by floor, i.e. 97 impacts take place.

.
As I said before - and you have once again demonstrated - you couldn't pour piss out of a boot if I wrote the instructions for you on the heel.

And you certainly cannot accurately interpret anything that I have laid out in simple, concise terms that any freshman engineering student could understand.

So, please listen carefully. I INSIST that you not attempt to interpret for anyone else ANYTHING that I've said. Because you cannot get the simplest statement right.

With reference to me, you have my permission to say that there is another experienced mechanical engineer that thinks that you are wrong at just about every single assertion you've made. And if anyone would like to read for themselves what I believe, they should ask me directly.

Of course, if you'd like to be completely accurate, you should say that ALL competent engineers think that you are full of baloney. But I'm sure that you'll take comfort that bill smith thinks you're a genius...

My opinion is clear!

.
Yes, your opinion is quite clear.

Your opinion is that:

"There is no difference between static & dynamic loading."
"Buildings are just ships without all that moisture around."
"ALL the structural engineers in the world are about to be eclipsed in their knowledge of collapse dynamics by some arrogant amateur who happens to be a naval architect."
"You have anything whatsoever to tell Zdenek Bazant about structural mechanics."

ALL of the above are laughable.

Your suggestion is impossible! Actually a ridiculous suggestion.

.
Let the skipping record begin in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

Because at impact C on A, local failures will occur in both C and A. The weak elements or weak connections in both C and A adjacent to the impact interface fail first. Energy is absorbed as local failures. A jolt (decelaration - unit m/s²) of C should be observed. Then damaged elements will displace and contact other elements. Friction develops. More energy is now absorbed as friction. Etc, etc. And after a while of more local failures/friction the destruction is arrested. Happens every time you drop a part C of a structure A on the rest of A. It should take less than ONE second in the WTC 1 case.

.
ahhhhhh, THERE it is.

SOMEBODY KICK THE JUKEBOX, PLEASE...!!

This is the reason Why a one-way Crush down is not possible = topic = post #1.

.
Because you say this again, and again, and again?? With ZERO engineering analysis to support your nonsense.

Why don't you threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue. Perhaps that will get someone to notice you.

Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder! Let's expand the thread to include that suggestion.

.
SURE THING, Anders.

Let's expand the conversation to this pathetic accusation.

Your idiocy has now come full circle and constitutes a complete whole of stoopid.

You are incompetent. You can not understand the simplest of engineering arguments. You refuse to discuss the ones that you KNOW you have misstated.

Real engineers, real scientists, and real non-techies who can simply read (& watch you run from real discussions) KNOW that you are simply, utterly, laughably wrong.

And now, you offer this little pile - that anyone who disagrees with your blatantly wrong crappola is "complicit to mass murder".

Anders, what you have offered here is PRECISELY the same nonsense as "anyone who suggests the earth moves is a heretic." Or "Anyone who suggests that man descended from other animals offends God."

Wrong, Anders.

Anyone who says that a one-way crush down is possible simply has the good sense to listen to the WORLD's foremost experts on the matter.

And to ignore one looney-toons naval claims adjuster who won't even bother to attempt to defend - honestly - his own nonsense.

Sounds to me like the are guilty of "complicity to use their brains, common sense & good judgment".

Tom

triforcharity

6th July 2009, 02:15 PM

So, wait a minute, if you demonstrate a one way crush down, and it in fact works, it has to be voted upon if it happened or not??? Somehow this boggles my mind!!

So, If I were to demonstrate that fire weakens steel, some panel of judges has to tell me if its true or not???????

Heiwa

6th July 2009, 02:25 PM

Anyone who says that a one-way crush down is possible simply has the good sense to listen to the WORLD's foremost experts on the matter.

Tom

And who are these experts?

aggle-rithm

6th July 2009, 02:33 PM

Justin39640

6th July 2009, 02:46 PM

ok through the 100s of pages of part a and c i have 1 question
wheres part b? lol

no but seriously

heiwa says basically
that when the top of WTC1 leans and breaks its outer columns
the upper columns contact the floor on F97?
and that floor should arrest the collapse

hmm
maybe you forgot about a simple thing called PSI

the floor was designed to hold up desks people machinery cabinets etc etc
but that was spread out over the entire surface of the floor
when you have the entire weight of the upper part come down on just a few square feet the floor will NEVER stop it

this same idea is why i yell at people for lifting their cars with forklifts
the forks are designed by weight class
a 5000 capacity pair of forks can lift 5000 lbs
but thats spreading the weight over the entire face of the fork
picking up 5000 lbs on a few square inches can bend or shatter the fork and cause 1 hell of an accident

this is so simple its stupid
yet you clearly dont comprehend it

ive also had forklifts go through floors in retail space (some settle when the frame hits the floor, guess why H man, some get a free trip to the basement)
cause they were too heavy for that design
but the floor holds up the racks and all the merchandise just fine
cause that weight is spread out and the machines weight is compact

(your average 5000 cap FL fully loaded weighs in at about 15000 lbs)

in HS a student attacked his father in the lobby with a ball point pen to the neck (ouch)
my physics teacher a few months later while talking about PSI took a troublesome student to the front of the class and held a wooden dowel to his neck and said "this wont go through, itll hurt, but theres too much area"
then he said "on the other hand" he then just held up a ball point pen and gave us groucho marx eyebrows
lol

triforcharity

6th July 2009, 02:50 PM

Not you heiwa.

alienentity

6th July 2009, 03:33 PM

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4878415#post4878415

tfk

6th July 2009, 04:01 PM

And who are these experts?
.
Well, one of the world's premier experts is Zdenek Bazant.

You would do well to attempt to emulate this paper:
"Stability of Elastic, Anelastic, and Disintegrating Structures, and Finite
Strain Ejects: an Overview"
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/S49.pdf

Next would be Leslie Robertson, who has stated clearly that, once the collapse began, collapse to the street was inevitable.

Next would be about 100 structural engineers who produced NIST report.

According to you, there is no such thing as progressive collapse in a building due just to gravity. For you, the beginning & end of "Engineering Principles of Progressive Collapse" is "keep explosives away from buildings".

So, you should consider the approximately 10,000 authors of the following 4500 papers, books regarding "progressive collapse" to believe that there is just a tad more to it than you believe.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22progressive+collapse%22&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search

Just a sampling.

Others here have also posted the names of hundreds of experts.

You were saying, as to why we should believe you...??

Tom

bill smith

6th July 2009, 04:52 PM

Bluesky

6th July 2009, 07:33 PM

All of such truther quibbling and desperate speculation is moot when one considers the basic parameters of the WTC tower collapses, as agreed upon by most of the qualified engineers who investigated them - that once the upper blocks began to move, the kinetic energy was easily sufficient to continue the collapse of each tower.

There is no real dispute about this basic idea amongst those who really know what they're talking about. Tony's theories are distractions which attempt to obscure this basic reality, in order to build an artificial case for some other, US government-directed mass murder plot, which truthers are convinced happened.

The truther line of inquiry is not designed to lead to any scientific, empirical truth, but is an attempt to pin the entire blame of the 9/11 disaster squarely on your own government, with absolutely no concern for the damage such scapegoating can do.

It is, first and foremost a malicious and political agenda, not a scientific one. The truther doctrine is very clear: the government did it. Inside Job. The battle lines have been drawn by these people, and anyone who dares to stand in the way of official 9/11 'truth' is merely aiding the vast conspiracy, or is intimidated by it somehow.

There is no room for 'what if we're incorrect?' or such nuance of thought. Instead, the bludgeon of 9/11 'truth' informs all intellectual pursuits, including the work of lesser engineering hopefuls such as Mr. Szamboti. A great example of how powerful the truther doctrine is comes from Mr. Szamboti's insistence on controlled demolition involving thermite/thermate or nanothermite (take your pick), a mythical blend of substances which can act in any way truthers see fit - like a magic powder. Nevermind that it's never been demonstrated to perform the tasks they claim it did - its magic qualities overcome such objections.

Mr. Szamboti did not of course originate any of these ideas, but he believes in them to the point where he will not question whether they're actually true or not. At this point it doesn't matter - the doctrine overrides better judgment.

It's a terrible shame that such people are not just worshiping traditional gods but are instead on a revisionist witch hunt to excuse the real terrorists of 9/11 and pin the blame on a scapegoat. It's a return to the dark ages of thought, courtesy of the minions of 9/11 'truth'.

In 2009 already.

Very nicely put!

tfk

6th July 2009, 07:34 PM

Pschologists and behavioural experts will have years of work to unravel the psychology involved.
.
Why do you do this, bill?

I am truly at a loss as to which metaphor to employ.

"... big, fat, slow pitch down the middle of the plate ..."

"... sticking your chin out to Mike Tyson & daring him to take a swing ..."

"... tug on Superman's cape. Pull the mask off that ole Lone Ranger. Mess around with Jim ..."

When all his spills out onto main street T as it certainly will in due course, a lot of people are going to have to come up with a lot of tortured excuses.

It already has spilled out onto Main street. It did so in 2001. Perhaps you've failed to attend a Memorial day ceremony. Or July 4th ceremony. Or a "welcome home, soldiers" ceremony since 2001. I can assure you that there is STILL a huge residual effect on "Main Street USA".

Those murderers took two of our skyscrapers, damaged a 3rd building and killed 3000 innocent countrymen (& some guests). Immediately thereafter, we booted them, and the government that sheltered them, out of Afghanistan. And are presently in the process of giving back that country to a more responsible Afghani government.

Not a perfect solution. But the best option after the fact.

Do you think that other nations that have bands of terrorists inside their borders have NOT noticed that recent history?

Do you think that the leaders of those governments are so dumb as to think that the US will respond LESS aggressively the NEXT time some crazed bunch get an inclination to attack the US like that?

I seriously doubt it, bill.

So, in that context I would argue that it has spilled out far, far beyond Main Street USA. All the way to Main Street Pakistan, Main Street N. Korea, Main Street Iran, Main Street Libya, Main Street Chechnya, etc, etc, etc.

Tom

triforcharity

6th July 2009, 08:25 PM

The first paragraph, I have already found a mistake.

Calling the NIST report on the WTC collapses "vague" is the biggest lie I have ever heard.

10,000 +/- pages of document does not egual vague. Vague would be telling someone "A building fell. Lots of deaths. Big pile of rubble." THAT would be vague.

ETA: And you took what, 27 pages to prove that 10,000 pages were wrong?? Something tells me you have missed some things in your mission.

TruthersLie

6th July 2009, 09:37 PM

except tri that is exactly what twoofs need to hear.

2 jets moving fast hit building. BOOM!! Building on FIRE. Fire burn. Steel WEaken. Buildings fall down go BOOM!! Both buildings destroy 10 other buildings with massive damage. ONe building is hit. FIRES burn for 8 hours. NO WATER. Building fall down go BOOM.

We are very sad.

triforcharity

6th July 2009, 09:45 PM

Isn't it sad though?? You cannot put anything technical out there for them, because they will claim to understand it, and butcher it to pieces, or not understand it and refuse to learn. Perfect example-Christopher7

funk de fino

7th July 2009, 02:05 AM

When all his spills out onto main street T as it certainly will in due course, a lot of people are going to have to come up with a lot of tortured excuses. It's a fascinating situation in a lot of ways. Pschologists and behavioural experts will have years of work to unravel the psychology involved.

They will be too busy studying 911 TM morons.

Tony Szamboti

7th July 2009, 02:26 AM

Are you telling us that the floor truss connections on the perimeter columns were enough to create a "jolt" and a "loss in velocity" to the falling upper mass of the tower?

If not the floor truss connections, can you please explain to me what was supposed to cause this "jolt" and "loss in velocity"? What structural members?

Do you know that each floor could support 12 times it's own weight or 29 million lbs.?

The columns below would have caused a jolt if they weren't being weakened/removed. I don't see any way the upper block completely misses the columns below and only lands on floor slabs. How do you account for the core columns in your thinking? Additionally, all four sides of the perimeters cannot move inside.

Tony Szamboti

7th July 2009, 02:40 AM

My understanding of it (from reading analysis by various engineers, such as Bazant etc) is that there is no serious question that the kinetic energy generated by the downward, gravitationally-driven movement of the upper blocks was easily sufficient to continue the collapse all the way down to the foundations.
By making crude simplifications of the scenario, never intended to be more than computational guides, Bazant was able to provide some solid calculations about the expected strength of the structure and the forces which destroyed it.

The actual collapse is far more complex, and did not behave in the way a simple caricature does - Tony S is using the simplified caricature and expecting it to model precisely what the more complex object did.

Of course that was never the intention of Bazant's calculations at all.

Because Tony is unwilling to accept the inevitability of the collapse, he has to handwave away the unmistakable fact that the towers did NOT collapse at the rate of freefall acceleration, but were slowed by the structure, as expected. The fact that structure provided resistance demonstrates that it was not a controlled demolition at all, but a complex gravitational collapse initiated by the failure of structure due to plane impacts and fires.

That is why the engineering community at large has no need to pursue convoluted conspiracy theories to explain the collapses, and it never will.

If you read more of Tony Szamboti's posts on other internet forums (sciforums.com for example) you'll see he holds a number of corresponding goofball viewpoints, asking questions such as
'Why do you think the building collapses initiated on floors just above where the aircraft impact damage had occurred instead of where the damage was, which also had fire?'
'The collapses of the twin towers both initiated just at the very top edges of the impact zones, where there was almost no fuel and an insignificant number of columns damaged'
'Isn't it amazing that the columns from these initiation floors weren't saved, to show us just how hot they got? That would have nipped any conspiracy charges right in the bud. It is very suspicious that these columns weren't saved and no amount of obfuscation and spin can end that suspicion.

However, it could also be where a demolition could be initiated, since they were the first floors above which had little damage and the planted thermite charges would not have been upset.'

Elsewhere, as Tony has already written in this stupid Heiwa thread, he believes that mythical nanothermite materials, none of which he has seen, nor tested, nor seen tested, were actually responsible for the tower collapses, which did not require explosives anyway (as we have seen). So he not only argues (apparently expecting to be taken seriously!) that the plane impacts were merely a smokescreen for the REAL destruction by mythical compounds which, in his Harry Potter fantasy can magically accomplish this in a virtually undetectable way. 'Nano-thermite's brisance and noise level for a given charge is also tailorable by changing the size of the particles. Explosive noise and force away from the target could also be kept to a minimum by tamping.'
Please note that Tony is extrapolating his entire nanothermite theory from some obscure references about research into nanothermite weapons made in 2001. He's paraphrasing the comments, trying to co-opt them into the truthersphere for building demolition. I kid you not.
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2287107

Skeptics have sarcastically termed such fantasy, low-noise explosives as 'hush-a-boom' explosives. There is good reason for such derision, and it's not even worth mentioning why, I hope. (you know, a high-velocity, high explosive charge that is somehow quiet?!? Oy vay!)

Dr. Frank Greening has also discovered some large errors in Tony's paper, discussed here by Dr. Greening
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/newton-s-3rd-law-and-the-collapse-of-wtc-1-t153.html

Greening was shown to be wrong about the columns acting like springs in series in a collision. While it is true that two equal springs stacked on top of one another and loaded from one end will cause the stiffness to be halved and the elastic energy absorption to be halved, this is not true in a collision, and will not occur due to the elastic wave traveling in opposite directions from either side of the impact.

Additionally, the elastic compression is only a portion of the energy loss. I explained to Greening that even if coupling could occur it would only amount to a 9% difference in the energy drain from the upper block, not the 50% he thought, as the axial plastic deformation and buckling losses, on both sides of the collision, would be unaffected by any spring coupling.

The only legitimate thing Dr. Frank Greening found in his review of the paper was a minor arithmetic error (which I thanked him for and promptly corrected). That is it. So much for your large errors and distortion of reality. It is telling that you don't include a link to where I corrected Greening on the issue of coupling on the same forum.

Now if you want to continue to maintain that the building collapses were not due to contolled demolitions you need to start trying to explain why there is no jolt in the fall of the upper block of WTC 1, which would be necessary if it was a natural collapse, and stop distorting reality in your effort to discredit me. So far it seems you have nothing else to support your position.

aggle-rithm

7th July 2009, 05:51 AM

Do you know that each floor could support 12 times it's own weight or 29 million lbs.?

...and if the force applied to it exceeds that much, it will collapse. That's what happened.

The columns below would have caused a jolt if they weren't being weakened/removed.

There was a PLANE CRASH. There was a FIRE. Of COURSE the columns were weakened, if not by these initial causes then by the progressive collapse itself.

I don't see any way the upper block completely misses the columns below and only lands on floor slabs.

You don't? You really don't?

Hint: There was a lot more floor slab than there was column in terms of surface area.

How do you account for the core columns in your thinking? Additionally, all four sides of the perimeters cannot move inside.

Look, it's not that difficult. You believe there should be a jolt when there is acceleration (or "deceleration", as you call it). I and other posters here have offered several real-world examples that falsify this hypothesis.

It's OVER. Give it up.

GlennB

7th July 2009, 06:33 AM

Now if you want to continue to maintain that the building collapses were not due to contolled demolitions you need to start trying to explain why there is no jolt in the fall of the upper block of WTC 1, which would be necessary if it was a natural collapse,

Tony - the measurements in your own paper clearly show that at no time was the upper block in freefall. Yet this is the model Bazant used. So you cannot mix+match a model with reality here.

You accept that impact was not simultanous and axial across the sections colliding, yet this too is the model Bazant used. You cannot mix+match a model and reality in this area either.

You are using Bazant's model to find something 'wrong' in a real-life event that didn't mimic Bazant's model. You are, effectively, contradicting yourself. But you can't see it.

newton3376

7th July 2009, 07:07 AM

After reading this moronic comment....

Of course, the fall of WTC 1's upper block does not show any deceleration or velocity loss so it's kinetic energy was not transferred.

I find it unbelievable that Tony claims to be an engineer..thankfully the chances of me ever having to read anything by this guy in real life are very very remote...

If I did I would be skeptical of whatever conclusions he made right from page 1.

These truthers are simply breathtaking in their ignorance and idiocy....

Justin39640

7th July 2009, 07:58 AM

Do you know that each floor could support 12 times it's own weight or 29 million lbs.?
again like i said on the last page
that was spread over the entire floor surface NOT A FEW SPOTS
also that was a static load (for the most part since all the contents of the floor would never move all at the same time) not a dynamic crush

simple math (im sure theres variables that would change this but)
1 acre = 6,272,640 at 29 million lbs
that comes out to 4.6 PSI
figure they never expected every sq inch to be covered so ill bump that to 30 psi
you really think the first parts of the top half of the building hit at 30 psi or so?

the floor was designed to hold up desks people machinery cabinets etc etc
but that was spread out over the entire surface of the floor
when you have the entire weight of the upper part come down on just a few square feet the floor will NEVER stop it

this same idea is why i yell at people for lifting their cars with forklifts
the forks are designed by weight class
a 5000 capacity pair of forks can lift 5000 lbs
but thats spreading the weight over the entire face of the fork
picking up 5000 lbs on a few square inches can bend or shatter the fork and cause 1 hell of an accident

this is so simple its stupid
yet you clearly dont comprehend it

ive also had forklifts go through floors in retail space (some settle when the frame hits the floor, guess why H man, some get a free trip to the basement)
cause they were too heavy for that design
but the floor holds up the racks and all the merchandise just fine
cause that weight is spread out and the machines weight is compact

(your average 5000 cap FL fully loaded weighs in at about 15000 lbs)

ETA: this is the result of either the customer just buying a lift with no research into what his/her facility's floors can support
or a salesman mismatching a machine to a facility
both of which happens a lot

The columns below would have caused a jolt if they weren't being weakened/removed. I don't see any way the upper block completely misses the columns below and only lands on floor slabs. How do you account for the core columns in your thinking? Additionally, all four sides of the perimeters cannot move inside.

there were no columns under the floors and the top columns didnt hit the bottom ones square (or probably at all)
you have a real optimistic view of something as random as a building collapse

so i ask you tony
how can 15000 lbs of forklift & load go through a floor thats designed for a million lbs?
the last time i seen it happen was a national chain pet food store
that one had a free trip to the basement 1 level down
miraculously the operator was unhurt

Grizzly Bear

7th July 2009, 08:47 AM

Do you know that each floor could support 12 times it's own weight or 29 million lbs.?

The columns below would have caused a jolt if they weren't being weakened/removed. I don't see any way the upper block completely misses the columns below and only lands on floor slabs. How do you account for the core columns in your thinking? Additionally, all four sides of the perimeters cannot move inside.

The estimate you're posting refers to a static load which was nevertheless exceeded in both towers.

As for the columns, once the collapse got started the upper section had tilted effectively nulling any hope of the ideal axial loading that you appear to be expecting out of taking Bazant's modeling literally...

Justin39640

7th July 2009, 09:07 AM

GlennB

7th July 2009, 09:34 AM

The problem with what you are saying here is that you don't explain that the kinetic energy has to be transferred to cause damage and that requires deceleration and velocity loss. Of course, the fall of WTC 1's upper block does not show any deceleration or velocity loss so it's kinetic energy was not transferred.

Repeat for Tony.
Have you thought about that bolded statement of yours yet?

A few clues, from your own paper:

"Using this formula, we discover that a freely falling object would travel 161.6 feet in the time it took the roof to drop 114.4 feet. "

"The velocity of the roof increases in a relatively linear way and is 68.65 ft./s after 3.00 seconds, which is about 71% of the free fall velocity of 96.52 ft./s for this fall time. "

Gamolon

7th July 2009, 09:39 AM

Do you know that each floor could support 12 times it's own weight or 29 million lbs.?

Is the each truss connection or is that 29 million lbs. distributed amongst the trusses, concrete floor, truss connections, and columns?

The columns below would have caused a jolt if they weren't being weakened/removed.

The perimeter columns were clong the OUTSIDE edge of the concrete floor and the core columns were along the INSIDE edge of the concrete floor. They were not BELOW the floors which is why they used "L" shaped truss connections welded to the plates on the perimeter columns. So when the bottom floor of the upper mass hit the top floor of the lower mass, what took the brunt of the force? Was it the columns or the truss connections? Can you draw a diagram and show the applicable forces to each structural member and connection? Was the force of the upper mass enough to shear off or bend the truss connections?

I don't see any way the upper block completely misses the columns below and only lands on floor slabs. How do you account for the core columns in your thinking? Additionally, all four sides of the perimeters cannot move inside.

So draw a diagram of how you think the bottom floor of upper mass met the top floor of the bottom mass?

Also, if you took a slab of concrete similar to the floors of the towers and slammed if onto the top of one of the core columns, would the columns crumple like and accordian or do you think the concrete would shatter?

What took the brunt of the downward force? The top og the columns or the floor truss connections?

alienentity

7th July 2009, 09:48 AM

Tony Szamboti wrote Now if you want to continue to maintain that the building collapses were not due to contolled demolitions you need to start trying to explain why there is no jolt in the fall of the upper block of WTC 1, which would be necessary if it was a natural collapse, and stop distorting reality in your effort to discredit me. So far it seems you have nothing else to support your position.

I've already done that, Tony. You're just deaf to any ideas outside the truthersphere echochamber apparently.

You're accusing me of distorting reality. That's a good one. I observe (as does anyone who cares to notice) that the upper block falls at a rate of acceleration LESS than freefall, which proves that energy was being transferred into destroying structure.

You fail to see this and acknowledge the inescapable truth of it. And I'M distorting reality?

Your own calculations show you that the mass of the upper block was more than sufficient to destroy the undamaged structure below, given a chance to accelerate.
The only point we differ on is your insistence that the impulse must manifest in a cartoon-like way as a 'jolt', and I (and many others) don't.

I've already quoted you on other forums questioning every aspect of reality which challenges your conspiracy beliefs, to the point of utter absurdity; and yet you accept the most highly speculative and thinly supported conjecture about mythical nanothermite explosives without batting an eyelash, so to speak.

And you're also offering, as your 'truther-improved' version of reality, that the explosives must've been somehow hidden away in the cores of the towers so they couldn't be detected on video or audio, and must've been special 'hush-a-boom' quiet explosives....never before seen or verified, of course. Yikes!!

You might want to have a chat with David Chandler about the explosives, since he's 'proven' through his marvelous insights how the deadly 'squibs' are very clearly seen in the videos.

At least get your stories straight before you embarrass yourselves on Hardfire.

tfk

7th July 2009, 09:56 AM

Yes I'm awfully awfully embarrassed. But never mind is what I say.

.
Well, bill, you are nothing if not self-absolving of you own foolishness.

See- I told you it was a lot of mesh that's missing from the rubble. The best part of a square mile in fact.

.
Yeah, bill, you did say that. And you know, given your unblemished record of "guaranteed 100% wrong", that is the SECOND most compelling reason to believe that there is absolutely no mesh or rebar missing from the rubble.

Right after "living in THIS universe, where matter does not spontaneously vanish".

I notice you didn't have any sensible answers to the question either.

.
I notice that for some (typical) reason, you were unable to read, process or understand the first sentence of my post, where I said:
Yes, bill. I know EXACTLY where the 3/4th of a square mile of mesh reinforcing has gone. It has gone nowhere.

That's as "sensible" as it gets, bill. It also happens to be the correct answer.
.

What about the '' Find the missing square mile of rebar '' Challenge.

.
This "challenge" does not exist. Anywhere except in "Little Billy World".

Do the sexual references get your rocks off then ? I was always uneasy about you following me around. A groupie is one thing but....

.
You know, bill, I was a little uncomfortable with that simile myself, when it first occurred to me.

But the more I thought about it, the more "pleasuring yourself in public" came to accurately & concisely describe your activities here.

It has all components of the traditional act:

The single incomprehensible perpetrator.
The innocent bystanders.
The seedy act.
The shock.
The momentary disorientation.
The pause of disbelief. ("He couldn't POSSIBLY be doing THAT, could he ...?")
The instant of recognition.
The averted eyes of the genteel.
The reflexive hoots & hollers. ("Oh damn. Bill's at it again!")
The emergent revulsion.
The influx of the outraged, angry mob.
The more experienced shouting, as they continued by, "if you guys would just ignore him, maybe he'd stop."

In the midst of the mini-maelstrom, you. Grinning vacuously.

Meanwhile, in the gathered crowd, the pummeling about your head & shoulders commences.
Each blow driving you to more incoherent mumblings. More vacuous grinning. More fervent, determined fumblings.
The beatings abate only when they are too much for civilized people to bear.
Or with the arrival of the sheriff (a mod) who pulls the mob off of you.
You are, of course, oblivious to it all.
The sheriff insincerely chastises the mob that they "should attack yes, even this buffoon's arguments, not the buffoon himself".
Finally the slow dispersal of the uneasy mob, dissatisfied with the lack of "frontier justice".

And at the end of the fracas, there you are. Trampled & beaten to a bloody pulp. Claiming victory.

Then, the post-fracas let-down & discussion:
The unanimous condemnation of your public indiscretions.
The regret that we can't think of a civil way to get you to understand the essential seediness of your behavior.
The determination of the dignified to avoid contact with you (aka, "Ignore Feature").
The wringing of hands amongst the town council (i.e., the mods), anguishing over their helplessness to stop this.
The consensus view: "that boy just ain't right in the head! Been that way ever since he was kicked by that mule."
The resignation that "Yep, he'll be doin' it again. Soon."
The perfunctory whack upside the head that the less tolerant citizens casually administer to you daily, in passing.
Your unrepentant addiction to your own compulsion

The inevitable repeat from the beginning.
And the daily call, "Oh damn. Bill's at it again!"

Did I miss anything??

Tom

Gamolon

7th July 2009, 09:59 AM

Do you know that each floor could support 12 times it's own weight or 29 million lbs.?

Do you know that my 14 year old son can stand on top of a pop can without it crushing down, but then if he jumps on top of it, it crushes into a nice neat package?

Do you know that my 14 year old son can stand on top of a pop can without it crushing down, but while still standing on it, if he bends over and taps the sides of the can slightly, it then crushes down in a nice neat package?

Controlled demolition?

How many lbs. of force came down on the top floor of the bottom mass? Was it more than 29 million lbs.? Was the downward force evenly distributed among all the connections that supported that 29 million lbs.?

Gamolon

7th July 2009, 10:05 AM

Do you know that each floor could support 12 times it's own weight or 29 million lbs.?

On page 7 of your paper you say this:
The mass above the 98th floor, from the mass analysis, is 68,295,000 lbs.,

Is that not more that 68 million lbs.? Is this estimated figure what the mass above weighed in total or does it mean something else?

bill smith

7th July 2009, 10:16 AM

Greening was shown to be wrong about the columns acting like springs in series in a collision. While it is true that two equal springs stacked on top of one another and loaded from one end will cause the stiffness to be halved and the elastic energy absorption to be halved, this is not true in a collision, and will not occur due to the elastic wave traveling in opposite directions from either side of the impact.

Additionally, the elastic compression is only a portion of the energy loss. I explained to Greening that even if coupling could occur it would only amount to a 9% difference in the energy drain from the upper block, not the 50% he thought, as the axial plastic deformation and buckling losses, on both sides of the collision, would be unaffected by any spring coupling.

The only legitimate thing Dr. Frank Greening found in his review of the paper was a minor arithmetic error (which I thanked him for and promptly corrected). That is it. So much for your large errors and distortion of reality. It is telling that you don't include a link to where I corrected Greening on the issue of coupling on the same forum.

Now if you want to continue to maintain that the building collapses were not due to contolled demolitions you need to start trying to explain why there is no jolt in the fall of the upper block of WTC 1, which would be necessary if it was a natural collapse, and stop distorting reality in your effort to discredit me. So far it seems you have nothing else to support your position.

If you want to see a truly disgusting example of how they try to discredit people have a little read through this short thread. (if you can handle it that long)
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=147369

newton3376

7th July 2009, 10:18 AM

Do you know that my 14 year old son can stand on top of a pop can without it crushing down, but then if he jumps on top of it, it crushes into a nice neat package?

That's unpossible!!!

Was there observed deceleration?

If not then it is unpossible for there to be any transfer of kinetic energy to support your "one way crush down" scenerio....

You have violated Newton's third law!!! The can would push up with equal force resulting (somehow) in a net upward force...which would decelerate your son and cause deformation of his shoe/foot at least equal to any damage to the can!!!

Do you know that my 14 year old son can stand on top of a pop can without it crushing down, but while still standing on it, if he bends over and taps the sides of the can slightly, it then crushes down in a nice neat package?

Once again unpossible...you do not understand basic physics....

Controlled demolition?

Is there another kind?

How many lbs. of force came down on the top floor of the bottom mass? Was it more than 29 million lbs.? Was the downward force evenly distributed among all the connections that supported that 29 million lbs.?

Please do not employ the usual debunker strategy of using mathematics, physics, or engineering to prove your point.....the truthers have google video and youtube which trumps any actual equations or calculations...

tfk

7th July 2009, 10:18 AM

Tony,

Do you know that each floor could support 12 times it's own weight or 29 million lbs.?

It is beyond comprehension that a person claiming to be an engineer would say something this removed from reality.

First, I believe that the number for which you are desperately grasping is more like 6 floors. When the building was "as designed". As properly built. As undamaged. When the weight was symmetrically loaded onto the proper weight bearing structures. Statically.

NOBODY in their right mind claims that the massively damaged, blazing, tilting, and finally completely disintegrating top floor, where 2/3rds of the supports have been ripped away, along with their cross trusses, would be able to support six stories... when they were loaded, dynamically, onto the 4" thick concrete floors.

Floors that were rated for approximately 300 psi loads.

Floors that were being impaled with about 150 spikes (aka, columns) bearing about 75 tons apiece.

Your comment is breathtakingly (uh ... I'm struggling for a civil adjective here, Tony. Let's keep it simple & go with) wrong.

Would you please address just this one point for me.

Thank you.

Tom

Gamolon

7th July 2009, 10:23 AM

Please do not employ the usual debunker strategy of using mathematics, physics, or engineering to prove your point.....the truthers have google video and youtube which trumps any actual equations or calculations...

My apologies. I will try to control myself in the future and apply the proper thinking techniques in this forum.

:o

bill smith

7th July 2009, 10:33 AM

.
Well, bill, you are nothing if not self-absolving of you own foolishness.

.
Yeah, bill, you did say that. And you know, given your unblemished record of "guaranteed 100% wrong", that is the SECOND most compelling reason to believe that there is absolutely no mesh or rebar missing from the rubble.

Right after "living in THIS universe, where matter does not spontaneously vanish".

.
I notice that for some (typical) reason, you were unable to read, process or understand the first sentence of my post, where I said:

That's as "sensible" as it gets, bill. It also happens to be the correct answer.
.

.
This "challenge" does not exist. Anywhere except in "Little Billy World".

.
You know, bill, I was a little uncomfortable with that simile myself, when it first occurred to me.

But the more I thought about it, the more "pleasuring yourself in public" came to accurately & concisely describe your activities here.

It has all components of the traditional act:

The single incomprehensible perpetrator.
The innocent bystanders.
The seedy act.
The shock.
The momentary disorientation.
The pause of disbelief. ("He couldn't POSSIBLY be doing THAT, could he ...?")
The instant of recognition.
The averted eyes of the genteel.
The reflexive hoots & hollers. ("Oh damn. Bill's at it again!")
The emergent revulsion.
The influx of the outraged, angry mob.
The more experienced shouting, as they continued by, "if you guys would just ignore him, maybe he'd stop."

In the midst of the mini-maelstrom, you. Grinning vacuously.

Meanwhile, in the gathered crowd, the pummeling about your head & shoulders commences.
Each blow driving you to more incoherent mumblings. More vacuous grinning. More fervent, determined fumblings.
The beatings abate only when they are too much for civilized people to bear.
Or with the arrival of the sheriff (a mod) who pulls the mob off of you.
You are, of course, oblivious to it all.
The sheriff insincerely chastises the mob that they "should attack yes, even this buffoon's arguments, not the buffoon himself".
Finally the slow dispersal of the uneasy mob, dissatisfied with the lack of "frontier justice".

And at the end of the fracas, there you are. Trampled & beaten to a bloody pulp. Claiming victory.

Then, the post-fracas let-down & discussion:
The unanimous condemnation of your public indiscretions.
The regret that we can't think of a civil way to get you to understand the essential seediness of your behavior.
The determination of the dignified to avoid contact with you (aka, "Ignore Feature").
The wringing of hands amongst the town council (i.e., the mods), anguishing over their helplessness to stop this.
The consensus view: "that boy just ain't right in the head! Been that way ever since he was kicked by that mule."
The resignation that "Yep, he'll be doin' it again. Soon."
The perfunctory whack upside the head that the less tolerant citizens casually administer to you daily, in passing.
Your unrepentant addiction to your own compulsion

The inevitable repeat from the beginning.
And the daily call, "Oh damn. Bill's at it again!"

Did I miss anything??

Tom

Less would be more T. This is just repetetive, circular and boring. Better to stick with the debunkng while it lasts given that you have no future in creative writing.

aggle-rithm

7th July 2009, 10:35 AM

If you want to see a truly disgusting exmple of how they try to discredit people have a little read through this short thread. (if you can handle it that long)
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=147369

I'm sorry you find it disgusting, but that is what happens when you come to a skeptics' forum and aggressively disseminate crank theories. You get discredited.

aggle-rithm

7th July 2009, 10:36 AM

Less would be more T. This is just repetetive, circular and boring. Better to stick with the debunkng while it lasts given that you have no future in creative writing.

Relax and take in a "Garfield".

Heiwa

7th July 2009, 10:46 AM

.
Well, one of the world's premier experts is Zdenek Bazant.

You would do well to attempt to emulate this paper:
"Stability of Elastic, Anelastic, and Disintegrating Structures, and Finite
Strain Ejects: an Overview"
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/S49.pdf

Next would be Leslie Robertson, who has stated clearly that, once the collapse began, collapse to the street was inevitable.

Next would be about 100 structural engineers who produced NIST report.

According to you, there is no such thing as progressive collapse in a building due just to gravity. For you, the beginning & end of "Engineering Principles of Progressive Collapse" is "keep explosives away from buildings".

So, you should consider the approximately 10,000 authors of the following 4500 papers, books regarding "progressive collapse" to believe that there is just a tad more to it than you believe.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22progressive+collapse%22&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search

Just a sampling.

Others here have also posted the names of hundreds of experts.

You were saying, as to why we should believe you...??

Tom

Hm, this Bazant paper from year 2000 is just a review about the first failure that may develop in a structure due, e.g. overload, and of little value to proper structural damage analysis and its multiple failures one after the other, the first failure causing the second failure, loads being transferred and/or shifted, and so on.

Bazant's only venture into WTC 1 destruction on 911 has resulted into a couple of papers, the latest so called BLGB 2008 with Greening and Benson assisting. In all these papers the model is 1-D and upper part (line!) C is considered rigid with an extremely strong bottom floor (#97) that remains intact during destruction of floors #1-97 including all intermediate support structure; columns. As part/line C bottom floor (#97)/point doesn't displace relative to other floors #98-110/points on line C and the other floors #98-110 remain fixed relative each other, line C thus remain constant.

The lower structure, part A, is also a line of floors #1-96 or points and this line is compressed, point by point starting from point 96, from above by line C. So when point 96 is compressed down towards point 95 by line C, the line in between these two points in line A become shorter - it is compressed so it becomes 1/4 of its original length. The compressed line is called line B (rubble).
This compression of line A into line B is thus done in 97 steps et voilà! Line A has disappeared and become a line B = A/4, with line C still on top.
At this stage line C is also compressed! By line B from below and C becomes C/4.
With this strange 1-D model of lines C, A and B Bazant suggests that structures can be one-way crushed down (C crushing/compressing A into B) and crushed up (B crushin/compressing C into 1/4 its original length).

Evidently it is just a mathematical model with very strange assumptions, e.g. C being constant during crush down and being compressed during crush up.

What kind of structure is that? Does it exist? Answer is no.

You can evidently improve on the Bazant model and assume that line C behaves exactly as line A when force is imposed on it, i.e. line C is also being compressed into line B. Then line C disappears very early!

Another assumption is about line B. According Bazant line B becomes very solid and cannot get further damaged and due to gravity force, it compresses first line A more and more during crush down and then line C during crush up and finally line B - compressed lines A and C - becomes unstable and a heap of bits - the model is not 1-D any more.

So anther question; what is really B? Bazant suggests it is rubble - a line representing rubble - that can apparently destroy structures like A and C in any direction; down or up.

Does such rubble (of previous intact structure) exist? Answer is no.

This is another version of my paper to ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechancis to be published soon (after apparent peer review) as informed by editor Ross Corotis.

Re Mr Robertson it is just an opinion based on no facts at all.

Re the 100+ world famous experts of NIST you say have explained the WTC 1 destruction, the simple answer is that NIST never made any structural damage analysis of WTC 1 and only suggested that potential energy applied on the structure at and after initiation (part C dropping on part A) exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure (A and C) and that global collapse ensued. No calculations of any kind.

Actually the potential energy applied at initiation (assuming a big free fall drop of 3.7 m) is very small and the strain energy that the structure could absorb was say 10 000 times that! Due to that you would expect, apart from an immediate jolt at contact C/A, very limited local failures of both C and A, if upper part C was actually dropped on lower part A. That's why a one-way crush down is not possible. In any scale! For any structure.

I have of course explained this before in my popular papers and nobody seems to be able to debunk them. I have asked Bazant for comments = no replies.

Any other world famous structural design experts supporting the OCT?

Re your Google search on progressive collapse they are all about an initial failure for various reasons and subsequent local failures. There are many papers about ship structures! Search and you may find mine! But you will not find any paper about a structure where dropping a part of this structure will destroy the rest of the structure.

alienentity

7th July 2009, 11:04 AM

Heiwa wrote Re Mr Robertson it is just an opinion based on no facts at all.

No, what you wrote is an opinion based on no facts. Robertson reported doing calculations to the point of collapse. Are you calling him a liar?

bill smith

7th July 2009, 12:56 PM

Heiwa wrote

No, what you wrote is an opinion based on no facts. Robertson reported doing calculations to the point of collapse. Are you calling him a liar?

Personlly I am slow to call anybody a liar but in certain cases it definitely applies. If this ever comes on top the people I mention here will be among the first to be arrested. Les Robertson, Shyam Sunder, Mark Loiseaux, and John Lloyd. There are many others of course but these are prime among them.

alienentity

7th July 2009, 01:03 PM

Personlly I am slow to call anybody a liar but in certain cases it definitely applies. If this ever comes on top the people I mention here will be among the first to be arrested. Les Robertson, Shyam Sunder, Mark Loiseaux, and John Lloyd. There are many others of course but these are prime among them.

Thanks Bill. I've just added that statement to my signature. You've done yourself proud.

I really, really want to believe that you're just spoofing us and you're not really a truther. But Ishouldn't be too hopeful, I spose.

triforcharity

7th July 2009, 01:08 PM

This is what Bill has said in other threads

Bill: Where are the 10 miles of steel columns??

Me: Under the pile, and some are right here. (Posts picture, noting many steel column pieces in plain sight.)

Bill: Where?

Me: RIGHT HERE!!! (points out many steel columns, iincluding some piled neatly near a crane)

Bill: But where is the steel mesh in the concrete??

Me: Right here bill. See this?? Thats steel mesh.

No response from bill.

Im sorry bill, you have lost this argument.

Heiwa

7th July 2009, 01:27 PM

Heiwa wrote

No, what you wrote is an opinion based on no facts. Robertson reported doing calculations to the point of collapse. Are you calling him a liar?

No! I was only aware of Robertson stating that a big plane hitting WTC1/2 would just cause local structural failures. That I agree with and that is a fact. Plenty of redundancy in the structure. If Robertson has suggested that a structure can collapse from top down later as a result of further local failures caused by, e.g. fire - upper part C free falls and impacts lower part A - he must be misquoted or done some wrong calculations.
Pls correct me if I am wrong! Has Robertson produced calculations that a structure self-destroys from top down?

alienentity

7th July 2009, 01:50 PM

Heiwa originally wrote 'Re Mr Robertson it is just an opinion based on no facts at all. '

That is false or incorrect.

Heiwa, I find it very hard to accept that someone who purports to be a student of 9/11 collapse physics wouldn't have this basic info about Robertson.
Robertson made the reference in an interview with Steven Jones in 2006.

I'll leave it to you to find the link, but caution you against making repeated false statements.

I suppose in your paranoid and arrogant mind the calculations and opinions of the chief structural engineer of the WTC towers don't mean much, but that's your shortcoming, not his. Hand wave it away and go back to your truther fantasies - I don't care.

alienentity

7th July 2009, 01:59 PM

I should also mention that Mr. Robertson, who has been responsible for many, many tall building designs, including the newish World Financial Center in Shanghai, thinks that controlled demolition theories such as those espoused by Heiwa are nonsense.

I'm inclined to agree with Mr. Robertson. However, Mr. Robertson has never built any ships, so perhaps we can argue he doesn't have the qualifications of the great Heiwa when it comes to tall buildings.

why didn't I think of that sooner? :D

Heiwa

7th July 2009, 02:05 PM

Gamolon

7th July 2009, 02:34 PM

Link, please.

I'll do better than that Heiwa. I have an email from Mr. Robertson from not to long ago when I was asking about other information pertaining to the towers. I was discussing another person's core ideas, a person who shall remain nameless as saying the name drives people into a fit of rage. I originally wrote to Sawteen See at LERA who is listed as a contact for questions pertaining the towers and 9/11.

Here is the link to the LERA page with SawTeen's contact information:
http://www.lera.com/sep11.htm

Here is the email from Robertson to me. His response is in capital letters beneath the body of my original email:
---------------
Date: 6/9/2009 9:54:05 AM
To: "Leslie E Robertson" <leslie.robertson@lera.com>
From: xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Trying to get some information on the general layout of the WTC
towers

I would first like to thank you very much for your reply to my email. I know
you are a busy person and I really appreciate it.

Why this information is important to me is because of one reason. I am
involved in a few internet discussion forums that debate conspiracy theories
about September 11th. I am against conspiracy theories outright. I can't stand
the fact that there are people out there that think that the government was
involved in it. I have been trying to set these people straight, maybe even
try to convince them that their information and beliefs are very wrong.
HOW IS IT POSSIBLE TO BELIEVE THAT THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT HAS THE SMARTS REQUIRED TO PULL IT OFF AND KEEP IT UNDER WRAPS?...

There is more to the email, but it pertains to my questions concerning the core structure and what a certain person thought was contained therin.

The important part of the email is the response from Mr. Robertson that I have bolded.

He IS approachable as I have shown. Why don't you email your claims to SawTeen See and Mr. Robertson and see what they say about your theory and claims.

Maybe you'll get a response. It took awhile and a couple of emails, but he finally got back to me.

Heiwa

7th July 2009, 02:52 PM

I'll do better than that Heiwa. I have an email from Mr. Robertson from not to long ago when I was asking about other information pertaining to the towers. I was discussing another person's core ideas, a person who shall remain nameless as saying the name drives people into a fit of rage. I originally wrote to Sawteen See at LERA who is listed as a contact for questions pertaining the towers and 9/11.

Here is the link to the LERA page with SawTeen's contact information:
http://www.lera.com/sep11.htm

Here is the email from Robertson to me. His response is in capital letters beneath the body of my original email:

There is more to the email, but it pertains to my questions concerning the core structure and what a certain person thought was contained therin.

The important part of the email is the response from Mr. Robertson that I have bolded.

He IS approachable as I have shown. Why don't you email your claims to SawTeen See and Mr. Robertson and see what they say about your theory and claims.

Maybe you'll get a response. It took awhile and a couple of emails, but he finally got back to me.

??? Is Mr Robertson still alive?

Anyway, topic is Why a one-way Crush down is not possible and I am curious if Robertson has any ideas about it?

aggle-rithm

7th July 2009, 03:04 PM

??? Is Mr Robertson still alive?

Anyway, topic is Why a one-way Crush down is not possible and I am curious if Robertson has any ideas about it?

That's what your absurd "theory" needs... ideas!

And from someone actually qualified. Good plan!

alienentity

7th July 2009, 03:06 PM

Link, please.

I've got the links Heiwa, and I'll post them, provided you come clean and tell the truth about your claim to have 1 million dollars.

Do you have 1 million dollars to award for your challenge?
And if yes, can you provide verification for its existence?

If you want to retract your claim, and simply say 'I don't have the money, and never did, and I'm sorry I misrepresented the situation' or something like that, I'll be happy to accept this and post the link as well.

Your call.

alienentity

7th July 2009, 03:08 PM

'??? Is Mr Robertson still alive? ' Hehe, if not, it'll make it all that more difficult to get his comments via email.

Although we could always hire Sylvia Browne or Yawn Hedgeword (John Edward). Yeah, that's it.

Tony Szamboti

7th July 2009, 07:06 PM

Tony Szamboti wrote

I've already done that, Tony. You're just deaf to any ideas outside the truthersphere echochamber apparently.

You're accusing me of distorting reality. That's a good one. I observe (as does anyone who cares to notice) that the upper block falls at a rate of acceleration LESS than freefall, which proves that energy was being transferred into destroying structure.

You fail to see this and acknowledge the inescapable truth of it. And I'M distorting reality?

Your own calculations show you that the mass of the upper block was more than sufficient to destroy the undamaged structure below, given a chance to accelerate.
The only point we differ on is your insistence that the impulse must manifest in a cartoon-like way as a 'jolt', and I (and many others) don't.

I've already quoted you on other forums questioning every aspect of reality which challenges your conspiracy beliefs, to the point of utter absurdity; and yet you accept the most highly speculative and thinly supported conjecture about mythical nanothermite explosives without batting an eyelash, so to speak.

And you're also offering, as your 'truther-improved' version of reality, that the explosives must've been somehow hidden away in the cores of the towers so they couldn't be detected on video or audio, and must've been special 'hush-a-boom' quiet explosives....never before seen or verified, of course. Yikes!!

You might want to have a chat with David Chandler about the explosives, since he's 'proven' through his marvelous insights how the deadly 'squibs' are very clearly seen in the videos.

At least get your stories straight before you embarrass yourselves on Hardfire.

A resistance of 0.3g is comparable to the material of the building moving through custard. But people like you say "oh, look there was resistance!", so it couldn't have been a demolition.

The 0.3g resistance is due to the lower structure having 10% of it's normal 300% plus resistance remaining.

This reply should also answer some of the other naysayers here, who said the same thing you did about this facet of the collapses.

How would you know about Hardfire?

Justin39640

7th July 2009, 07:14 PM

How would you know about Hardfire?

maybe you should read more of the sub-forum topics lol
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=147480
ETA: what smelled fishy? i see you took it out

Tony Szamboti

7th July 2009, 07:21 PM

Personlly I am slow to call anybody a liar but in certain cases it definitely applies. If this ever comes on top the people I mention here will be among the first to be arrested. Les Robertson, Shyam Sunder, Mark Loiseaux, and John Lloyd. There are many others of course but these are prime among them.

Leslie Robertson has said some curious things since 911, as some of them seem to contradict things that John Skilling had previously said and even things Robertson said in the past himself.

It is a shame Skilling isn't alive.

Tony Szamboti

7th July 2009, 07:23 PM

maybe you should read more of the sub-forum topics lol
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=147480
ETA: what smelled fishy? i see you took it out

Okay, I hadn't seen that. I agree no conspiracy there.

tfk

7th July 2009, 07:23 PM

Robertson's comments from 2006 KGNU discussion with Steven Jones.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/Roberts_AnnotatedJones-RobertsonTranscript.pdf

You have to ignore completely the inane comments by Gregg Roberts.

ROBERTSON: —This is a very robust floor system, rather different from that portrayed in the British press, but in any event—the other issue having to do with the failure mechanism, again, I’ve not performed an in-depth study on the matter, but I carried the event far enough along so that I became convinced that if you dropped the floors above onto the floors below, i.e., caused a collapse in the middle of the building some place, that without question, the collapse would continue, right down to the foundations. There’s no way that the structure below would be able to carry, let us say 14 floors. Not possible, not even close to being possible.

I am not aware of any calculations that Robertson has done on collapse dynamics for the WTC towers post 9/11.

Note: Neither has Bjorkman done any calculations. Bjorkman does prose. Incorrect prose.

tk

tfk

7th July 2009, 07:24 PM

Less would be more T. This is just repetetive, circular and boring. Better to stick with the debunkng while it lasts given that you have no future in creative writing.
.

I actually thought that it was pretty fair writing.

I was amused. And, according to the "Bill Smith Rules for Posting", that is ALL that is required.

Excuse me while I "LoL" my way outta here...

Tom

Justin39640

7th July 2009, 07:43 PM

Tony Szamboti

7th July 2009, 07:54 PM

care to elaborate?

His comment that as far as he knows they didn't consider the fuel from the aircraft in the analysis. Skilling says they did.

alienentity

7th July 2009, 08:05 PM

A resistance of 0.3g is comparable to the material of the building moving through custard. But people like you say "oh, look there was resistance!", so it couldn't have been a demolition.

The 0.3g resistance is due to the lower structure having 10% of it's normal 300% plus resistance remaining.

This reply should also answer some of the other naysayers here, who said the same thing you did about this facet of the collapses.

How would you know about Hardfire?

Your boy wonder, David Chandler, has measured the WTC 1 collapse at 6.31 m/s^2 for the upper block of WTC 1 and says that this is equal to 64 % of g.

I know you truthers love to use the terms 'near-freefall speed', like Dr. Steven Jones and Richard Gage do. Since this 'freefall speed' handle is like a kind of holy grail to the 'truth' movement, isn't it inconvenient that WTC 1 fell at a much slower rate?

Based on a scale of 1 to 100, 64 is just past midway, isn't it? When I was in University, I could've used the truther scaling effect when my parents asked about my grades: 'oh, almost 100%, or full marks' (actually, 64%!!)

Luckily I didn't need cheap tricks like that to obfuscate reality, but you guys do.

That's pretty obvious.

Tony Szamboti

7th July 2009, 09:11 PM

Your boy wonder, David Chandler, has measured the WTC 1 collapse at 6.31 m/s^2 for the upper block of WTC 1 and says that this is equal to 64 % of g.

I know you truthers love to use the terms 'near-freefall speed', like Dr. Steven Jones and Richard Gage do. Since this 'freefall speed' handle is like a kind of holy grail to the 'truth' movement, isn't it inconvenient that WTC 1 fell at a much slower rate?

Based on a scale of 1 to 100, 64 is just past midway, isn't it? When I was in University, I could've used the truther scaling effect when my parents asked about my grades: 'oh, almost 100%, or full marks' (actually, 64%!!)

Luckily I didn't need cheap tricks like that to obfuscate reality, but you guys do.

That's pretty obvious.

When I was in school 64% would have been described as a lot closer to 2/3 than 1/2 or 1. But that is just me.

I don't think you use cheap tricks when you obfuscate reality.

triforcharity

7th July 2009, 09:33 PM

64%=FAIL. Here is a common grading scale.

A+ 98-100
A 95-97
A- 93-94
B+ 90-92
B 87-89
B- 85-86
C+ 82-84
C 79-81
C- 77-78
D+ 74-76
D 72-73
D- 71-69
F <69

So, with a 64%, its a FAIL!!!

http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h131/triathlete247/failbigtime.jpg

Justin39640

7th July 2009, 10:26 PM

His comment that as far as he knows they didn't consider the fuel from the aircraft in the analysis. Skilling says they did.

citation?

to model those fires accurately was impossible with pen and paper in the 60s

The capability to conduct rigorous simulations of the aircraft impact, the growth and spread of the ensuing fires, and the effects of fires on the structure is a recent development. Since the approach to structural modeling was developed for the NIST WTC investigation, the technical capability available to the PANYNJ and its consultants and contactors to perform such analyses in the 1960s would have been quite limited in comparison to the capabilities brought to bear in the NIST investigation.

did they have the particle modeling systems required for such a humongous simulation?
of course not

i think he was being optimistic if he did say it
real world scenarios proved him wrong

i cant understand why you and bill would think les robertson would need to be arrested:confused:
he designed it and gave his opinions after

from his interviews i really feel for him
he feels directly responsible for every death in the towers
his hindsight is his torture
i dont feel he deserves it
he did nothing wrong
i say leave the man alone

you morons spew your "opinions" (crapola) all over the internet and at GZ itself
maybe you should count your lucky stars you live in a free country that doesnt punish people for having stupid ideas
or you 2 would have been gone long ago

us callin you out on it i feel would be considered a check and balance not censorship or being NWO disinfo agents (how dumb and paranoid can you be?)

Gamolon

7th July 2009, 10:34 PM

Did you miss this questions Tony?

You said this:
Do you know that each floor could support 12 times it's own weight or 29 million lbs.?

On page 7 of your paper you say this:
[QUOTE=Tony's paper]The mass above the 98th floor, from the mass analysis, is 68,295,000 lbs.,[?QUOTE]

Is 68,295,000 lbs. not more that 29 million lbs.?

Gamolon

7th July 2009, 10:39 PM

First this:
Leslie Robertson has said some curious things since 911, as some of them seem to contradict things that John Skilling had previously said and even things Robertson said in the past himself.

It is a shame Skilling isn't alive.

Then this:
His comment that as far as he knows they didn't consider the fuel from the aircraft in the analysis. Skilling says they did.

Two questions for you:
1. Do you have links to both parties comments? I haven't seen this claim before.
2. You said "curious comments" as in plural, more than one. What other comments/contradictions between Skilling and Robertson are you talking about?

funk de fino

8th July 2009, 02:36 AM

Please don't use fire weakening as an excuse here as there is no physical evidence of the steel experiencing high enough temperatures to even weaken it.

You ran away from this when I called you on it. I say this is false and you are lying. Care to take a wager on it?

bill smith

8th July 2009, 04:00 AM

Leslie Robertson has said some curious things since 911, as some of them seem to contradict things that John Skilling had previously said and even things Robertson said in the past himself.

It is a shame Skilling isn't alive.

Suppose Robertson is eventually called before some kind of tribunal. What do you think would be the most awkward question they could ask him in that context ?

Tony Szamboti

8th July 2009, 04:11 AM

Did you miss this questions Tony?

You said this:

On page 7 of your paper you say this:
Tony's paper "The mass above the 98th floor, from the mass analysis, is 68,295,000 lbs."

Is 68,295,000 lbs. not more that 29 million lbs.?

Your contention that the columns would all land on the floors is impossible and not even worthy of consideration.

I only showed the fact that the floors could handle 29 million lbs. to show that they were not insignificant.

Tony Szamboti

8th July 2009, 04:20 AM

Suppose Robertson is eventually called before some kind of tribunal. What do you think would be the most awkward question they could ask him in that context ?

I would have to think about it but I would say it would be about one of the below issues

- the comment he made about jet fuel not being considered in the analysis

- about the second analysis he claims to have done in late 1964 where he says he looked at a plane lost in the fog and looking to land moving under 200 knots. They would ask him if he considered jet fuel in his alleged analysis and if not why not

- why if there already was an analysis did he perform a second analysis

There is no trace of that analysis as opposed to the February 1964 analysis that describes a fully loaded 707 moving at 600 mph, which is 30% more kinetic energy than either of the two aircraft that hit the towers would have had.

Tony Szamboti

8th July 2009, 04:22 AM

You ran away from this when I called you on it. I say this is false and you are lying. Care to take a wager on it?

Show where the NIST has anymore than a few pieces which experienced up to 600 degrees C. The vast majority of what they have did not experience more than 250 degrees C, where steel has not even begun to lose strength.

funk de fino

8th July 2009, 04:24 AM

Show where the NIST has anymore than a few pieces which experienced up to 600 degrees C. The vast majority of what they have did not experience more than 250 degrees C, where steel has not even begun to lose strength.

Arwe you shifting the goalposts again Tony?

Do you stand by this claim?

Please don't use fire weakening as an excuse here as there is no physical evidence of the steel experiencing high enough temperatures to even weaken it.

Tony Szamboti

8th July 2009, 04:26 AM

First this:

Then this:

Two questions for you:
1. Do you have links to both parties comments? I haven't seen this claim before.
2. You said "curious comments" as in plural, more than one. What other comments/contradictions between Skilling and Robertson are you talking about?

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

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

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

bill smith

8th July 2009, 04:36 AM

I would have to think about it but I would say it would be about one of the below issues

- the comment he made about jet fuel not being considered in the analysis

- about the second analysis he claims to have done in late 1964 where he says he looked at a plane lost in the fog and looking to land moving under 200 knots. They would ask him if he considered jet fuel in his alleged analysis and if not why not

- why if there already was an analysis did he perform a second analysis

There is no trace of that analysis as opposed to the February 1964 analysis that describes a fully loaded 707 moving at 600 mph, which is 30% more kinetic energy than either of the two aircraft that hit the towers would have had.I've always noticed that the guys I mentioned strive to stay just outside outright lying. At such a tribunal that could be enough to get them off the hook.We should be looking for and recording any existing outright lie and devising questions that would force them to lie in order to maintain the official fiction.

funk de fino

8th July 2009, 04:46 AM

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

They said the Titanic was unsinkable Tony. Do you believe everything you hear?

funk de fino

8th July 2009, 04:48 AM

There is no trace of that analysis as opposed to the February 1964 analysis that describes a fully loaded 707 moving at 600 mph, which is 30% more kinetic energy than either of the two aircraft that hit the towers would have had.

Not pushing that old falsehood are you Tony?

funk de fino

8th July 2009, 04:49 AM

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

Are you the guy who said you saw a documentary which actually did not exist?

aggle-rithm

8th July 2009, 06:28 AM

Leslie Robertson has said some curious things since 911, as some of them seem to contradict things that John Skilling had previously said and even things Robertson said in the past himself.

It is a shame Skilling isn't alive.

If he were, then he would probably contradict what he had said earlier, too. Want to know why?

Although I'm not an engineer, as a software developer I have experience designing and implementing complex solutions. I can tell you first hand that despite all the planning, all the testing, all the refactoring, it is the real world that has the final say on whether a design will behave the way you expect it to. There are always real-world issues that are unanticipated in the design, no matter how careful you think you have been.

Robertson's comments contradicted what he said earlier because real world experience proved him wrong. That's what rational people do...instead of sticking to an absurd belief that clearly contradicts reality, they alter their beliefs to be consistent with what actually happens.

You should try it.

Grizzly Bear

8th July 2009, 06:40 AM

Show where the NIST has anymore than a few pieces which experienced up to 600 degrees C. The vast majority of what they have did not experience more than 250 degrees C, where steel has not even begun to lose strength.
Please inform your audience how a sampling that represents only one percent of all the columns on those floors justifies such a sweeping conclusion on your part. Did you mention to your audience that the testing method was based on paint spalling which only provides a minimum temperature?

aggle-rithm

8th July 2009, 06:51 AM

If this ever comes on top the people I mention here will be among the first to be arrested. Les Robertson, Shyam Sunder, Mark Loiseaux, and John Lloyd. There are many others of course but these are prime among them.

So...you believe that people who disagree with you on matters in which they are experts and you -- to put it kindly -- are not, should be arrested.

Thank God you're not in a position of authority. Nor will you ever be. Not even if the last two people on Earth are you and Zippy the Pinhead.

Justin39640

8th July 2009, 07:44 AM

Your contention that the columns would all land on the floors is impossible and not even worthy of consideration.

I only showed the fact that the floors could handle 29 million lbs. to show that they were not insignificant.

your idea that in a random event (collapse) that the columns should land squarely on each other (when only half failed at 1st and the top part was tilted) is so out there its insane

correction - 29 million static pounds over the entire surface of the floor (1 acres worth)
3 times that coming down on one portion of that will tear through that floor like it was going through a wet paper bag

Suppose Robertson is eventually called before some kind of tribunal. What do you think would be the most awkward question they could ask him in that context ?

id love to hear Bill
what crimes would they charge him with bill?
what crimes did he commit?

none

you have 0 idea on legal science or anything relevant to this forum
youre just C&Ping other peoples crapola
the real gems come when your own thoughts spill out onto the internet
(vaporized columns. rebar, concrete)

we just point and laugh
not bring you up on charges

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

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

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

unlikely is a very far cry from impossible
maybe you should think about that
smh :rolleyes:

---
general thought
so based on what you guys perceive to be lies
les robertson should be dragged before a tribunal?

so what sofia did in 911 mysteries (edit video and overlay audio) what should happen to her?
and the 100,000 other deceptively edited videos posted by truthers
what should happen to them?
to every truther whos ever falsely accused the FDNY of murdering their own
etc etc etc

before you post think of both sides of the coin bill
and again be grateful you live in a place where stupid isnt a crime

what if tony in a court your paper is shown to be wrong
should you then be brought up on charges and thrown over to a hangman?

you guys really want to live in a world like that go move to the tribal regions of pakistan

Gamolon

8th July 2009, 07:50 AM

Tony,

You said this in a post:
Leslie Robertson has said some curious things since 911, as some of them seem to contradict things that John Skilling had previously said and even things Robertson said in the past himself.

It is a shame Skilling isn't alive.

You were asked to elaborate. You then said this:
His comment that as far as he knows they didn't consider the fuel from the aircraft in the analysis. Skilling says they did.

I asked you for links to this information and you Said Skilling made comments to the Seattle Times in 1993 about fuel from the jet affecting the steel structure.

Here is Skillings comment about the analysis:
Skilling recounts his people having carried out an analysis which found the Twin Towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. He says, “Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed.”

Skilling says that his people did an analysis of the IMPACT of a Boeing 707. IMPACT. I see no quote whatsoever that Skilling and his people did a fire analysis to identify the effects of a large office fire on the steel structure. They did an IMPACT study. Skilling even says that the biggest problem would be the FUEL WOULD DUMP INTO THE BUILDING....THERE WOULD BE A HORRENDOUS FIRE, but mentions nothing of HORRENDOUS fire's effect on the steel, only that there would be a lot of people killed.

Here are comments from Robertson:
Leslie Robertson, one of the two original structural engineers for the World Trade Center, is asked at a conference in Frankfurt, Germany what he had done to protect the Twin Towers from terrorist attacks. He replies, “I designed it for a 707 to smash into it,” though does not elaborate further.

Again. IMPACT study.

In 2002, though, Robertson will write, “To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance.”

So no, they didn't contradict one another. You just assumed (and were quite wrong) that Skilling meant they did a study of the effects of fire on the columns and structural steel in addition to the impact of a 707.

Justin39640

8th July 2009, 07:53 AM

Tony,

You said this in a post:

You were asked to elaborate. You then said this:

I asked you for links to this information and you Said Skilling made comments to the Seattle Times in 1993 about fuel from the jet affecting the steel structure.

Here is Skillings comment about the analysis:

Skilling says that his people did an analysis of the IMPACT of a Boeing 707. IMPACT. I see no quote whatsoever that Skilling and his people did a fire analysis to identify the effects of a large office fire on the steel structure. They did an IMPACT study. Skilling even says that the biggest problem would be the FUEL WOULD DUMP INTO THE BUILDING....THERE WOULD BE A HORRENDOUS FIRE, but mentions nothing of HORRENDOUS fire's effect on the steel, only that there would be a lot of people killed.

Here are comments from Robertson:

Again. IMPACT study.

So no, they didn't contradict one another. You just assumed (and were quite wrong) that Skilling meant they did a study of the effects of fire on the columns and structural steel in addition to the impact of a 707.

good job
tony lied (outright)
where do we submit the complaint to start his tribunal?

just working by your rules bill ;)

FineWine

8th July 2009, 08:02 AM

Suppose Robertson is eventually called before some kind of tribunal. What do you think would be the most awkward question they could ask him in that context ?

"Mr. Robertson, isn't it embarrassing, indeed surreal, to be asked technical questions by ignorant Jew-hating cretins who have formed a kangaroo court to lynch innocent Americans and exonerate murderous Islamist terrorists?"

Gamolon

8th July 2009, 08:18 AM

Your contention that the columns would all land on the floors is impossible and not even worthy of consideration.

I only showed the fact that the floors could handle 29 million lbs. to show that they were not insignificant.

Can you draw us a diagram of what you think the initial floor impact physically looked like for the towers? I mean the south tower's upper mass leaned over and then collapsed downward. What did the perimeter columns on the deformation side of the south tower impact first? I mean if they buckled inward and then the mass fell down, would the corner of upper mass's deformation side's buckled/snapped columns and floor meet the floor inside the perimeter columns of the lower mass first?

newton3376

8th July 2009, 08:54 AM

Tony,

You said this in a post:

You were asked to elaborate. You then said this:

I asked you for links to this information and you Said Skilling made comments to the Seattle Times in 1993 about fuel from the jet affecting the steel structure.

Here is Skillings comment about the analysis:

Skilling says that his people did an analysis of the IMPACT of a Boeing 707. IMPACT. I see no quote whatsoever that Skilling and his people did a fire analysis to identify the effects of a large office fire on the steel structure. They did an IMPACT study. Skilling even says that the biggest problem would be the FUEL WOULD DUMP INTO THE BUILDING....THERE WOULD BE A HORRENDOUS FIRE, but mentions nothing of HORRENDOUS fire's effect on the steel, only that there would be a lot of people killed.

Here are comments from Robertson:

Again. IMPACT study.

So no, they didn't contradict one another. You just assumed (and were quite wrong) that Skilling meant they did a study of the effects of fire on the columns and structural steel in addition to the impact of a 707.

Tony....you just got PWND.

Maybe you should climb down from that mountain of stupid you have climbed and actually READ SOMETHING BEFORE CLAIMING IT SAYS SOMETHING IT DOESN'T SAY.

GlennB

8th July 2009, 08:55 AM

Can you draw us a diagram of what you think the initial floor impact physically looked like for the towers? I mean the south tower's upper mass leaned over and then collapsed downward. What did the perimeter columns on the deformation side of the south tower impact first? I mean if they buckled inward and then the mass fell down, would the corner of upper mass's deformation side's buckled/snapped columns and floor meet the floor inside the perimeter columns of the lower mass first?

Yep. But maybe it goes deeper -- collapse didn't commence until the core columns buckled/broke at about the same time. At onset, what condition would those columns be in? To envision a broken column end meeting what was previously a part of the *same* column must mean that both ends were deformed to breaking point. So they don't 'meet' in any normal sense of the word whatsoever. On the contrary, they separate. Collapse of a given column happens at the point where the ends part company. One or both ends must therefore be displaced laterally. By definition.
It seems truthers cannot comprehend that Bazant proposed a model, not a realistic collapse scenario.

Gamolon

8th July 2009, 09:19 AM

Yep. But maybe it goes deeper -- collapse didn't commence until the core columns buckled/broke at about the same time. At onset, what condition would those columns be in? To envision a broken column end meeting what was previously a part of the *same* column must mean that both ends were deformed to breaking point. So they don't 'meet' in any normal sense of the word whatsoever. On the contrary, they separate. Collapse of a given column happens at the point where the ends part company. One or both ends must therefore be displaced laterally. By definition.
It seems truthers cannot comprehend that Bazant proposed a model, not a realistic collapse scenario.

Ok.

I am no engineer as I have stated before, but I can look at the collapse videos and see how the upper mass of each tower came down and sytematically sheared/severed/bent/broke/pulled columns and floors. The lower mass was "taken apart" (for lack of a better term) by the descending mass and debris.

There were many tons of elevator motors, panels, elevator switch gear, concrete pads, etc, in the core. How is it NOT possible that this stuff broke free and sheared connections or broke concrete on their way down in addition to the upper mass of concrete floors?

I don't understand how Hewia and others can say the lower mass AS A WHOLE, should have stopped the upper mass from descending when it is clear the the lower mass was systematically destroyed (a bunch of local failures). I actually envision local connection failures (floor truss connections) failing individually thus creating the lrager failure of the lower mass as a whole.

Does this make sense?

:boggled:

Heiwa

8th July 2009, 09:55 AM

Interesting discussion above but a little off topic.

Anyway, it seems eveybody agrees that upper part C of WTC 1 had mass between 32 000 and 36 000 tons with a cross area of 4 000 m². Thus the average load/pressure was 8-9 ton/m² - let's say 10 ton/m² at interface with structure below, part A. As the upper part C was say 50 m high (actually more) the density of mass is only 0.2 (actually less).

Reason for this is that the upper part is mostly air.

Most steel/concrete (composite) tower structures for offices, etc, are of course same. Mostly air. The actual, heavy density structural elements takes up very little space of the total structure.

So if some element fails in the structure there is ample room for deformations and displacements to take place before elements, previously apart, come in contact with each other ... and more failures may develop.

It is suggested that in WTC 1 280+ columns separating parts C and A failed and allowed part C to first free fall and then impact part A. Or that 4 exterior walls and an assembly of core columns between parts C and A suddenly failed. Same thing! This suggestion confirms that the structure was mostly air and by removing the elements between C and A, C could free fall through the air and BANG impact A.

Evidently the suggestion that 280 local elements suddenly fail is not really confirmed. They could all sag, buckle, deform, etc, allowing a more slow displacement of C down towards A = no free fall ... and no impact.

Anyway, let's suppose C contacts A and applies a load on A. What happens? Well, we are back to origin, because A carried C before for 30+ years. Why would C now suddenly one-way crush down A?

It is suggested that C starts to break elements and element connections in A so that A starts to disintegrate, floor by floor, and that broken elements of A also assist in the destruction of A.

Same people suggesting this, suggest that upper part C remains virtually intact!

However, that is simply wrong. When two identical structures collide BOTH stuctures suffer local failures. And if one structure, e.g., C, is much smaller than the other, let's say A, C has no chance whatsoever to destroy A.

And that's Why a one-way Crush down is not possible (topic).

I assume Leslie Robertson agrees with me.

GlennB

8th July 2009, 09:58 AM

Ok.

I am no engineer as I have stated before, but I can look at the collapse videos and see how the upper mass of each tower came down and sytematically sheared/severed/bent/broke/pulled columns and floors. The lower mass was "taken apart" (for lack of a better term) by the descending mass and debris.

There were many tons of elevator motors, panels, elevator switch gear, concrete pads, etc, in the core. How is it NOT possible that this stuff broke free and sheared connections or broke concrete on their way down in addition to the upper mass of concrete floors?

I don't understand how Hewia and others can say the lower mass AS A WHOLE, should have stopped the upper mass from descending when it is clear the the lower mass was systematically destroyed (a bunch of local failures). I actually envision local connection failures (floor truss connections) failing individually thus creating the lrager failure of the lower mass as a whole.

Does this make sense?

:boggled:

Makes sense to me. There is no 'whole' to do any arresting, just components. Tony S's 'millions of pounds of strength in the floors', for example, ignores this. Nobody took the upper section apart and gently spread it out anywhere on the lower section. Large lumps fell and hit parts not designed for it.

Heiwa thinks in terms of a welded structure with no 'gaps' (a ship) hitting a similar structure. The impact only affects a small part of that structure where contact is made, and I suspect this is where he gets his 'friction arrest' nonsense. Tony S thinks in terms of a Bazantian clean axial impact of columns. Neither is realistic in WTC terms.

alienentity

8th July 2009, 10:09 AM

You guys are on a (very justifiable) roll in schooling Tony about his bad habit of sloppy quote mining combined with glib hand waving.

No wonder his conclusions are out to lunch. It's no coincidence.

Going back to his colleague David Chandler's observation that WTC 1 upper block began to fall at only 64% acceleration of freefall, it is inescapable to all but these half-crazed conspiracy cultists that the structure was weakened, but not entirely destroyed.

This is overwhelming evidence that the structural weakening was partial at the time of collapse initiation - totally unlike a controlled demolition.

Tony and his closest colleagues are caught in a trap of their own making: they bleat endlessly about freefall speed, as conclusive evidence of CD, but the reality is that neither tower collapsed at freefall speed anyway.
They try in vain to 'splain their way out of it.

Tony's main excuse (for the failure of truther assumption) is that there should have been a discernible 'jolt'. There is no scientific consensus that this is a reasonable assumption, as it relies on an oversimplified concept of the points of impact, and the initial failure modes of the structure.

This is not really a surprise either - to accurately model the collapse of these structures one would need exponentially more complex calculations, at colossal cost to whomever chose to undertake them. And while that would certainly increase the depth of knowledge about the collapses, it is exceedingly unlikely that it would change the basic conclusions about their initiation.

Controlled demolition of the WTC buildings will never become the most plausible hypothesis in the serious scientific community, simply because it doesn't fit with the totality of data - it cannot.

aggle-rithm

8th July 2009, 10:17 AM

I assume Leslie Robertson agrees with me.

That alone gives us useful insight into how your mind works.

tsig

8th July 2009, 10:19 AM

It is a shame Skilling isn't alive.

Why, would the laws of physics change?

If you damage a structure enough it will fall due to gravity.

Structural damage(planes) + heat weakening (fire) + gravity = collapse.

aggle-rithm

8th July 2009, 10:20 AM

Suppose Robertson is eventually called before some kind of tribunal. What do you think would be the most awkward question they could ask him in that context ?

Hee, hee!

Thanks, Bill, that was hilarious!

(...tribunal...!)

aggle-rithm

8th July 2009, 10:30 AM

What our truther friends are overlooking is a concept that was stated eloquently in Carl Sagan's "Baloney Detection Kit":

If your theory relies on a chain of reasoning, then every link in the chain must be sound. A single weak link invalidates the theory.

Or something like that.

The problem here is that we have spent 53 pages discussing ONE LINK in the chain...whether it is possible for the towers to have collapsed from the airline crash damage alone. Even if this link was rock-solid (it isn't), there are many other links that are equally important.

The truthers would have to show that:

1) It is POSSIBLE to demolish a building that is heavily damaged and on fire without anyone noticing
2) Anyone had a REASON to do this, given the extreme complexity of the operation, the high likelihood of failure, and the great risk if the plot were uncovered
3) How the conspirators were able to keep quiet for so many years, given the large number of people that would have to be involved in the operation

...and there's probably more.

Given the daunting task of facing these additional challenges once you've somehow managed to convince a single person in a position of authority (they haven't and probably won't), most rational people would give this up as a futile enterprise.

Our truthers are made of different stuff, I suppose.

alienentity

8th July 2009, 10:34 AM

Tony's utter contempt for the value of Leslie Robertson's direct knowledge is breathtaking as well.

Here's one man who should know, does know, and needed to know about such things as plane impacts, and who has offered his insights numerous times, but is either ignored by 9/11 truthers or set aside as 'curious things' not to be taken seriously(Tony Szamboti's words).

Tony doesn't even have a good reference for Mr. Robertson's opinions, showing that he hasn't researched them seriously - why would he? They go against Tony's political agenda to blame his government and absolve the hijackers and Al Qaeda.

Unfortunately this type of intellectual corruption is a necessary component of the 9/11 'truth' cult.

Here is what Mr. Robertson said during a radio interview on KGNU Radio, Denver, October 26, 2006.
'The project was designed for the impact of a, what we call a low-flying, slow-flying
Boeing 707, that was the largest aircraft of its time, actually the intercontinental version.
We envisioned it much as was the case for the aircraft that struck the Empire State
Building in the Second World War, the same condition, lost in the fog, i.e. an accidental
impact of an aircraft into the building. It was not designed for high-speed impact from the jets that actually hit it. '
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/Roberts_AnnotatedJones-RobertsonTranscript.pdf

And the audio interview without the misleading annotations by Gregg Roberts
Associate Editor http://911research.wtc7.net

http://www.911blogger.com/node/4076

Tony Szamboti

8th July 2009, 10:49 AM

Please inform your audience how a sampling that represents only one percent of all the columns on those floors justifies such a sweeping conclusion on your part. Did you mention to your audience that the testing method was based on paint spalling which only provides a minimum temperature?

They did metallurgical testing also and it will show actual temperatures experienced.

Heiwa

8th July 2009, 10:50 AM

The problem here is that we have spent 53 pages discussing ONE LINK in the chain...whether it is possible for the towers to have collapsed from the airline crash damage alone.

LOL! This link is about Why a one-way Crush down is not possible!

Breach of Rule 11: Posts must be on topic to the thread subject.

But you are right! 53 pages ... and nobody seems to be able to explain that a one-way crush down is possible. It makes me happy.

Tony Szamboti

8th July 2009, 10:55 AM

Tony....you just got PWND.

Maybe you should climb down from that mountain of stupid you have climbed and actually READ SOMETHING BEFORE CLAIMING IT SAYS SOMETHING IT DOESN'T SAY.

It looks like Gamolon left some important parts out of John Skilling's comments to the Seattle Times. Read the actual article here

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698

It sounds like you and Gamolon might be the ones who need to read something before claiming it says something it doesn't say.

This kind of thing is getting kind of tiring lately.

tfk

8th July 2009, 10:57 AM

Your contention that the columns would all land on the floors is impossible and not even worthy of consideration.

I only showed the fact that the floors could handle 29 million lbs. to show that they were not insignificant.

There were approximately 300 total columns (core & peripheral).

2/3rd of the columns spanned the 98/99 floors. That is, had no connection at the midpoint of floor 98. These columns were gone, blown outward or inward, and could not have impacted the floor of F98.

1/3rd of the columns had a floor 98 joint & fractured at that connection.

Of those 100 columns, since the upper block had shifted to the side, ~50 fell into space & ~50 landed on the concrete floor of F98. Those 50 columns carried ALL of the weight of the upper block. Each column had a surface area of approximately 1 square foot. (Actually, substantially less, since they were thin walled rectangular tubes, not solid posts.)

According to Greg Urich, the upper block (F99 - F110) weighed 3.4E+07 Kg for a total of 75 million pounds. If we apportion just half that weight onto these 50 columns, you get 180 tons/column. (Others have calculated this number at 79 tons/column. Close enough. It doesn't matter, the column won't be able deliver either load.)

Now, the concrete is rated to support 100psf live load, with a FS of about 3. Let's pretend that it's made of superduper concrete that will be able to withstand 1000 psf.

Are you REALLY contending that this 4" thick piece of concrete flooring, that is sized for people, desks & office equipment, will be able to stop 50 spears delivering over 100,000 psf each???

That is the ONLY question that matters.

Tom

tfk

8th July 2009, 11:03 AM

Suppose Robertson is eventually called before some kind of tribunal ... blah, blah, blah...

He will never be.

Next baseless, specious speculation ...

Tom

Gamolon

8th July 2009, 11:05 AM

Tony or Heiwa.

In this linked video, can you please explain what caused the perimeter columns to buckle inward at :10 in? The buckling of the perimeter occurs just above the floor seen through the perimeter columns to the right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rbfLLp7rBI&feature=fvw

Gamolon

8th July 2009, 11:08 AM

Gamolon

8th July 2009, 11:10 AM

Are you REALLY contending that this 4" thick piece of concrete flooring, that is sized for people, desks & office equipment, will be able to stop 50 spears delivering over 100,000 psf each???

That is the ONLY question that matters.

Tom

Excellent. In addition to the sheared floor truss connections.

tfk

8th July 2009, 11:11 AM

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

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

He also made comments in 1984/85 along the lines of no matter how the buildings were attacked that a collapse would be very unlikely.
.
Do you REALLY think that one of the principle structural engineers of the towers is going to say anything OTHER than "no matter how the buildings were attacked that a collapse would be very unlikely"???

You have no future anywhere NEAR the top of any engineering organization. You will NOT be allowed to speak to the public on behalf of your organization. You will be kept huddled in the bowels of some department. From the evidence that I've seen, it will not be the engineering department.

Tom

Please answer a few of my questions to you...

Grizzly Bear

8th July 2009, 11:12 AM

They did metallurgical testing also and it will show actual temperatures experienced.
This is not a complete answer. You're conclusion is based on taking sample data and then extropolating it as if the samples that were available are representative of the whole. What procedures are involved in establishing a conclusion on this basis?

Gamolon

8th July 2009, 11:14 AM

It looks like Gamolon left some important parts out of John Skilling's comments to the Seattle Times. Read the actual article here

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698

Funny, but you seemed to have ADDED your own quotes into the article:
His comment that as far as he knows they didn't consider the fuel from the aircraft in the analysis. Skilling says they did.

Show me the exact quote in the article that you are speaking of which shows him saying they did an analysis on the effects of fire and the structural steel.

FineWine

8th July 2009, 11:17 AM

Heiwa

8th July 2009, 11:26 AM

tfk

8th July 2009, 11:30 AM

Excellent. In addition to the sheared floor truss connections.

... which happened about 100 milliseconds after the concrete floor punch thru.

Since approximately 2/3rds of all floor trusses, truss support plates, welds and bolts are already gone before the impact, then there are only about 600 5/8" bolts, 100 fillet welds &/or 100 angle plates that must be destroyed.

But to be fair, this collision is also going to destroy another 600 on Floor 97 and another 600 on Floor 96. With their associated welds & support plates. Of course, these are going to be much easier to destroy, since the remaining columns act like 36' long pry-bars.

Oh yeah, 1200 1" diameter bolts and welds tying together the columns.

So, a grand total of about 3000 small bolts, 300 fillet welds and/or 300 angle iron support plates NEED to be destroyed in order for the collapse to continue.

Of course, a lot more was destroyed. The above is all that NEEDED to be destroyed.

Tom

Gamolon

8th July 2009, 11:32 AM

Gamolon

8th July 2009, 11:33 AM

Result of controlled demolition, no doubt. But you are off topic. Rule 11!

You mean there were explosives used on those perimeter columns that made them DEFORM and BUCKLE?

Gamolon

8th July 2009, 11:39 AM

Result of controlled demolition, no doubt. But you are off topic. Rule 11!

Sorry, but it's not off topic You say a one way crush down is not possible and that it had to be a controlled demolition. I am asking you to explain how your controlled demolition worked in regards to video evidence that we all have access to.

When you post comments in a thread about a certain topic, those comments can be scrutinized and questioned.

Sorry old chum, but you're wrong.

FineWine

8th July 2009, 11:39 AM

Tony, Heiwa, Bill.

Since you all seem to think that you are adept at discrediting the official collapse explanation and have provided ample proof that the sory is bogus, I have a proposition.

How about you come up with YOUR theory of how the towers were brought down by explosives/thermite. Step by step. From the collapse initiation all the way to the end. Complete with calculations and diagrams. Make sure that your explanations match all the videos that we have on hand.

Show us what you think DID happen and how it worked.

Or has this been done already and I just missed it?

Heiwa has NEVER supplied any sort of calculation, and he never will.

newton3376

8th July 2009, 11:48 AM

It looks like Gamolon left some important parts out of John Skilling's comments to the Seattle Times. Read the actual article here

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698

It sounds like you and Gamolon might be the ones who need to read something before claiming it says something it doesn't say.

This kind of thing is getting kind of tiring lately.

That article still doesn't prove your "point"....I'll try to go slow here Tony since your reading comprehension seems to be not quite "up to par"....

You said....

Leslie Robertson has said some curious things since 911, as some of them seem to contradict things that John Skilling had previously said and even things Robertson said in the past himself.

It is a shame Skilling isn't alive.

So what are you implying here? You use the word "curious" as if the statements contradict each other in a manner that implies deceit...if you simply thought one or both of them were simply wrong you wouldn't bother since that doesn't fit in with your conspiracy nonsense.

So right from the start you are implying something with your language....

You were then asked about this comment and you replied....

His comment that as far as he knows they didn't consider the fuel from the aircraft in the analysis. Skilling says they did.

Since this conversation is in the context of a discussion about the buildings collapsing.... your comment implies that they did an analysis on the effects that fire would have on the collapse. But this is an assumption on your part and without some kind of proof it is just an assumption.

But here is the interesting part....EVEN IF YOUR ASSUMPTION IS CORRECT it proves nothing. Why? Well notice what you yourself wrote...

"as far as he knows they didn't consider the fuel...."

As far as he knows. That leaves the possibility that maybe just maybe he is simply WRONG.

As in...incorrect...in error....mistaken. But you, of course, assume that it implies deceit....

So even if you can provide a quote PROVING that they considered the fire from the fuel as part of a collapse scenerio, you still have not proven any deliberate deceit.

Let's take a look at a quote from Gamolon (I've bolded the really really important part for you Tony)....

Skilling says that his people did an analysis of the IMPACT of a Boeing 707. IMPACT. I see no quote whatsoever that Skilling and his people did a fire analysis to identify the effects of a large office fire on the steel structure. They did an IMPACT study. Skilling even says that the biggest problem would be the FUEL WOULD DUMP INTO THE BUILDING....THERE WOULD BE A HORRENDOUS FIRE, but mentions nothing of HORRENDOUS fire's effect on the steel, only that there would be a lot of people killed.

Here is the bolded part again...

no quote whatsoever that Skilling and his people did a fire analysis to identify the effects of a large office fire on the steel structure.

If you can provide such a quote then I can at least agree with you that Robertson and Skilling are in disagreement...if you can't then your assumption is unproven. Put up or shut up.

Once you provide such a quote, you then have to prove that Robertson was being deceitful instead of simply being wrong. Something that shows this (like maybe another quote) would be helpful in proving this implication of yours. Again....put up or shut up.

alienentity

8th July 2009, 11:57 AM

... which happened about 100 milliseconds after the concrete floor punch thru.

Since approximately 2/3rds of all floor trusses, truss support plates, welds and bolts are already gone before the impact, then there are only about 600 5/8" bolts, 100 fillet welds &/or 100 angle plates that must be destroyed.

But to be fair, this collision is also going to destroy another 600 on Floor 97 and another 600 on Floor 96. With their associated welds & support plates. Of course, these are going to be much easier to destroy, since the remaining columns act like 36' long pry-bars.

Oh yeah, 1200 1" diameter bolts and welds tying together the columns.

So, a grand total of about 3000 small bolts, 300 fillet welds and/or 300 angle iron support plates NEED to be destroyed in order for the collapse to continue.

Of course, a lot more was destroyed. The above is all that NEEDED to be destroyed.

Tom

Well done.
I posit that if Tony or any of his other colleagues had bothered to consult industry leaders in relevant areas (which would have had to include people like Leslie Robertson and Mark Loiseaux for example) when formulating their theories, they would quickly have received good guidance and altered them.
They have assiduously avoided doing this, in fact consulting with some of the least qualified people, when they've even bothered to consult.

A few pages back I asked Tony to list just these types of mentors, and he had to make all sorts of excuses why he didn't follow that prudent course, and with regard to demolitions, offered nothing.

And while he now has formulated a rather questionable theory as to where explosives might have been placed, he apparently has come up with this on his own, without consulting demolition industry leaders. How could he possibly be competent to do this?
Similarly, he relies on Dr. Steven Jones for the nature of the explosives, which of course are going to be thermite-related, since that's all Dr. Jones sees thru his blinders.
Dr. Jones himself has only a vague knowledge of how such nanothermites might be produced, and doesn't seem to have succeeded in consulting those who do have the expertise.
Nor has Dr. Jones succeeded in demonstrating, by his own experiments or by citation of others, that these hypothetical materials can actually perform the tasks he, Chandler, Harrit and Szamboti claim they did.

All the above nonsense and slander could have been avoided if these people had not appointed themselves as experts in fields where they clearly are not.

I suspect, almost 8 years after 9/11, that their motivations come more from ego and emotion rather than anything else.

alienentity

8th July 2009, 12:09 PM

Well well, this is very interesting. I wonder what Tony's reaction to this will be...

moorea34
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4880046#post4880046

and response from TFK

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4884133#post4884133

Heiwa

8th July 2009, 12:19 PM

You mean there were explosives used on those perimeter columns that made them DEFORM and BUCKLE?

No, just some sort of controlled demolition. Reason being that a one-way crush down of any structure is not possible = topic.

newton3376

8th July 2009, 12:33 PM

bill smith

8th July 2009, 12:33 PM

Wasn't Robertson only an undrstudy of Skiling ? I think I woud prefer tohear what the organ-grinder had to say rather than the monkey.

This is what Skilling said:

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Saturday, February 27, 1993 - Page updated at 12:00 AM

Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision

By Eric Nalder

Engineers had to consider every peril they could imagine when they designed the World Trade Center three decades ago because, at the time, the twin towers were of unprecedented size for structures made of steel and glass.

"We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," said John Skilling, head structural engineer. "However, back in those days people didn't think about terrorists very much."

Skilling, based in Seattle, is among the world's top structural engineers. He is responsible for much of Seattle's downtown skyline and for several of the world's tallest structures, including the Trade Center.

Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

Skilling - a recognized expert in tall buildings - doesn't think a single 200-pound car bomb would topple or do major structural damage to a Trade Center tower. The supporting columns are closely spaced and even if several were disabled, the others would carry the load.

"However," he added, "I'm not saying that properly applied explosives - shaped explosives - of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage."

He took note of the fact that smoke and fire spread throughout the building yesterday. He said that is possibly because the pressurizing system that stops the spread of smoke didn't work when the electric power went off. Skilling, 72, was not involved in the design of the building mechanics.

Although Skilling is not an explosives expert, he says there are people who do know enough about building demolition to bring a structure like the Trade Center down.

"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."

Copyright (c) 1993 Seattle Times Company, All Rights Reserved.

newton3376

8th July 2009, 12:35 PM

No, just some sort of controlled demolition. Reason being that a one-way crush down of any structure is not possible = topic.

See this is the problem Heiwa....

"Some sort" of controlled demolition is so ambiguous it's meaningless...

Heiwa

8th July 2009, 12:35 PM

Tony, Heiwa, Bill.

Since you all seem to think that you are adept at discrediting the official collapse explanation and have provided ample proof that the story is bogus, I have a proposition.

How about you come up with YOUR theory of how the towers were brought down by explosives/thermite. Step by step. From the collapse initiation all the way to the end. Complete with calculations and diagrams. Make sure that your explanations match all the videos that we have on hand.

Show us what you think DID happen and how it worked.

Or has this been done already and I just missed it?

How the criminals did it - destroyed WTC 1, 2 and 7 on 911 - can be clarified by proper forensic investigation of the remains of the structures and structural damage analysis of the destruction itself by qualified people. There are apparently plenty of innovative and new devices available to destroy anything. I have mentioned one possibility in one of my papers.

But destruction of steel structures is not my business.

I work with maintenance and inspections and repairs of steel structures to avoid failures. Very proactive. Some of these structures I actually participated designing and constructing >30 years ago in a minor, junior way then.

Anyway, don't tell me that a part C of a structure A can one-way crush down A. It doesn't work like that ... even if the spin doctors of the criminals that destroyed WTC 1, 2 and 7 tell you so. Not very convincing in my opinion.

Gamolon

8th July 2009, 12:37 PM

No, just some sort of controlled demolition. Reason being that a one-way crush down of any structure is not possible = topic.

I am asking you to explain how the perimeter columns bowed inward due to a controlled demolition. How did a controlled demolition produce deformed/buckled perimeter columns.

you seem to have detailed explanations for everything else, why can you not explain in detail what I asked above?

Please explain yourself. You made the statement.

newton3376

8th July 2009, 12:38 PM

Gamolon

8th July 2009, 12:39 PM

But destruction of steel structures is not my business.

Then how are you qualified to make the claim that is was a controlled demolition?

Justin39640

8th July 2009, 12:41 PM

It is suggested that in WTC 1 280+ columns separating parts C and A failed and allowed part C to first free fall and then impact part A. Or that 4 exterior walls and an assembly of core columns between parts C and A suddenly failed. Same thing! This suggestion confirms that the structure was mostly air and by removing the elements between C and A, C could free fall through the air and BANG impact A.

Evidently the suggestion that 280 local elements suddenly fail is not really confirmed. They could all sag, buckle, deform, etc, allowing a more slow displacement of C down towards A = no free fall ... and no impact.

so you think all those connections failed at the exact moment in time
you can take 1 second and break it down almost infinitely
a few milliseconds apart is not the same as "simultaneously"
esp when youre talking about objects of this size

the top listed
it didnt move uniformly

you fail

Gamolon

8th July 2009, 12:44 PM

Heiwa

8th July 2009, 12:46 PM

Then how are you qualified to make the claim that is was a controlled demolition?

Sherlock Holmes logic. The only remaining answer.

But if you can explain how a little part C of a structure A can one-way crush down A, please be my guest on this thread.

alienentity

8th July 2009, 12:47 PM

Heiwa. 'no free fall ... and no impact. '

Incorrect. no freefall doesn't mean no impact.

Actually, strictly speaking, freefall means no impact. ;)

Heiwa

8th July 2009, 12:49 PM

so you think all those connections failed at the exact moment in time
you can take 1 second and break it down almost infinitely
a few milliseconds apart is not the same as "simultaneously"
esp when youre talking about objects of this size

the top listed
it didnt move uniformly

you fail

Of course not. Just look at any video of the WTC 1 destruction and you see that upper part C is destroyed first and lower part A later! All described in my papers. I recommend the David Chandler video analysises.

Gamolon

8th July 2009, 12:49 PM

Anyway, don't tell me that a part C of a structure A can one-way crush down A. It doesn't work like that ... even if the spin doctors of the criminals that destroyed WTC 1, 2 and 7 tell you so. Not very convincing in my opinion.

Well, I would expect that from you because your evidence and calculations are fraught with mistakes and incorrect diagrams.

Of course it doesn't work for you.

If you input crap, you get crap as the result.

Simple.

:D

Justin39640

8th July 2009, 12:51 PM

Sherlock Holmes logic. The only remaining answer.

But if you can explain how a little part C of a structure A can one-way crush down A, please be my guest on this thread.

you know shelock holmes was a fictional character created by a physician
not by a real detective

dont you?

Heiwa

8th July 2009, 12:51 PM

Well, I would expect that from you because your evidence and calculations are fraught with mistakes and incorrect diagrams.

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

Justin39640

8th July 2009, 12:52 PM

Of course not. Just look at any video of the WTC 1 destruction and you see that upper part C is destroyed first and lower part A later! All described in my papers. I recommend the David Chandler video analysises.

you describe a perfectly uniform collapse
that isnt what happened

FAIL!

Heiwa

8th July 2009, 12:55 PM

you know shelock holmes was a fictional character created by a physician
not by a real detective

dont you?

Of course. MD's work like that. And me, too, as an engineer. Actually one of my daughters is an MD and she diagnoses using latest scientific methods of all kinds. Sometimes she detects mistakes by her peers. The patients are quite happy.

Heiwa

8th July 2009, 12:57 PM

you describe a perfectly uniform collapse
that isnt what happened

FAIL!

?????????????????????? I describe that local failures are arrested at once. http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm

alienentity

8th July 2009, 12:57 PM

Heiwa, the smart thing to do at this point is put your papers aside, take a deep breath, and stop defending the woo.

You're on the wrong track, and all you're doing is stubbornly defending a narrow, irrelevant position. Is that really how you want to spend your time?

Surely there are more productive things to do. Let it go.

Gamolon

8th July 2009, 12:59 PM

Sherlock Holmes logic. The only remaining answer.

But if you can explain how a little part C of a structure A can one-way crush down A, please be my guest on this thread.

But part C did NOT crush down Part A. If that was the case then we would have "accordianed" columns. You keep saying that Part C as one entity fell symmetrically on top of Part A as one unit.

The correct terminology is that Part C fell in such a way that it systematically sheared/broke/bent many local connections of Part A leading to total failure.

Easy!

Much like what we are doing to your theory here. We are exposing each weak link in your claim which brings the whole thing crashing down.

:D

See! A one way crush down IS possible! Even a verbal one!

bill smith

8th July 2009, 01:02 PM

Show me where Skilling says that he and his people did analysis concerning what an office fire would do to structural steel.

Is this really that hard?

'' There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

This was a fire from jet-fuel that he was talking about. No office fire could be hotter than that.

alienentity

8th July 2009, 01:05 PM

See! A one way crush down IS possible! Even a verbal one!

Congratulations! You win the nonexistent 1 million dollar prize!

Justin39640

8th July 2009, 01:07 PM

?????????????????????? I describe that local failures are arrested at once. http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm

whats the sum of 400 local failures?
global collapse

FAIL

Justin39640

8th July 2009, 01:09 PM

Gamolon

8th July 2009, 01:23 PM

Deleted

Heiwa

8th July 2009, 01:25 PM

But part C did NOT crush down Part A.

Good! We agree! Pls tell Bazant, Mackey, Seffen, NIST & Co that suggest the opposite.

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

Heiwa

8th July 2009, 01:28 PM

whats the sum of 400 local failures?
global collapse

FAIL

You need 1 000 000+ structural failures for global collapse of WTC 1. 400 are easily arrested as shown in my papers. Pls, copy paste anything from my papers and show any mistake, etc. I look forward to it.

Heiwa

8th July 2009, 01:29 PM

Deleted

Thanks!

Gamolon

8th July 2009, 01:31 PM

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

My pleasure! :D

On your site, you show a diagram of what should have happened:
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/WTC1slicea.gif

Those 4 vertical black lines represent perimeter columns. Look at Figure D. I agree that the furthest right columns represents the row of perimeter columns along the side of the tower. I can agree that that row of column would indeed hit the concrete floor as show. What I have a problem with is the two middle verticle black lines.

The perimeter columns along that face are OUTSIDE the concrete concrete floors.

So how would those perimeter columns, represented by the two middle verticle black lines, spear the floor above when the said perimeter columns along that face ARE NOT BELOW THE FLOOR? They are OUTSIDE the floor on the edge.

Have at it my friend.

Gamolon

8th July 2009, 01:33 PM

Thanks!

Your welcome!

BigAl

8th July 2009, 01:36 PM

'' There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

This was a fire from jet-fuel that he was talking about. No office fire could be hotter than that.

And the designers of HMS Titanic said it was unsinkable. When asked hypothetical questions, even experts say things that turn out to be wrong when tested by reality.

We have this quote from someone else with frist-hand expertise in the WTC structure:

Recently, Henry Guthard, 70, one of Yamasaki's original partners who also worked as the project manager at the [WTC] site, said, "To hit the building, to disappear, to have pieces come out the other side, it was amazing the building stood. To defend against 5,000 (sic) gallons of ignited fuel in a building of 1350 feet is just not possible.

http://snurl.com/j54gc (Bottom of page 188)

aggle-rithm

8th July 2009, 01:37 PM

Breach of Rule 11: Posts must be on topic to the thread subject.

Stop whining, troll-baby.

Justin39640

8th July 2009, 01:39 PM

My pleasure! :D

On your site, you show a diagram of what should have happened:
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/WTC1slicea.gif

Those 4 vertical black lines represent perimeter columns. Look at Figure D. I agree that the furthest right columns represents the row of perimeter columns along the side of the tower. I can agree that that row of column would indeed hit the concrete floor as show. What I have a problem with is the two middle verticle black lines.

The perimeter columns along that face are OUTSIDE the concrete concrete floors.

So how would those perimeter columns, represented by the two middle verticle black lines, spear the floor above when the said perimeter columns along that face ARE NOT BELOW THE FLOOR? They are OUTSIDE the floor on the edge.

Have at it my friend.

i pointed this out to him several times and hand drew a 3D representation of his "illustration"

see this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4838349&postcount=121)

he just ignores that an entire side of a building and part of the roof sheared off

no to mention thats a very deceptive pic as you pointed out

based on the
h man = FAIL!!! lol

Gamolon

8th July 2009, 01:43 PM

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

Contradiction time!

You said this:
Is it? I clearly say that the intact floors are just hanging on the columns; like pictures on a wall. Or a pin for a bird to sit on in a cage.

And if a picture drops from the wall it doesn't one-way crush down the wall. Same for the pin! The bird has no pin to sit on. And the cage does not collapse.

But on your site you say this:
Section C consists of 14 horizontal elements/floors, each with mass m as section A, stacked on top of each other with vertical support elements in between of height h. Total mass of C is 14 m. It is 52 meters tall.

Shall I break them out so you can clearly see?
I clearly say that the intact floors are just hanging on the columns;

and
stacked on top of each other with vertical support elements in between

:D

aggle-rithm

8th July 2009, 01:44 PM

thanks!

breach of rule 11!!!! Alert, alert!!!!

Justin39640

8th July 2009, 01:49 PM

i pointed this out to him several times and hand drew a 3D representation of his "illustration"

see this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4838349&postcount=121)

he just ignores that an entire side of a building and part of the roof sheared off

no to mention thats a very deceptive pic as you pointed out

based on the
h man = FAIL!!! lol

his response then was this
You are wrong everywhere. My illustrations are 2-D to start with. Purpose is only to demonstrate how local structural failures are arrested, e.g. strong elements damage weak elements. Not the other way around. Do you belong to some religious sect believing something else? If yes, join The Heiwa Challenge thread! There you have your chance!

i responded with this and he never answered

yeah but that has nothing to do with the collapse of the towers which you are trying to illustrate
the core columns dont extend from the core to the walls

you put the TV mast on there too so that is how you view WTC1 apparently
there is no way for the floors to arrest that way in the towers
it had open floor spaces

id still like to have that answer Heiwa

Gamolon

8th July 2009, 01:55 PM

'' There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

This was a fire from jet-fuel that he was talking about. No office fire could be hotter than that.

:rolleyes:

Read S L O W L Y....

Point me to the quote that says Skilling said that he and his people did an analysis of how an office fire or jet fuel fire would affect the structural steel as claimed by Tony. Here is Tony's quote to help you out:

His comment that as far as he knows they didn't consider the fuel from the aircraft in the analysis. Skilling says they did.

Show me where it says he said that.

Gamolon

8th July 2009, 02:18 PM

Good! We agree! Pls tell Bazant, Mackey, Seffen, NIST & Co that suggest the opposite.

Nope. It's not the same as they way you try and make it out to be. I don't agree with you in the least.

I'm flattered you value my opinion though.

Thanks!

Gamolon

8th July 2009, 02:23 PM

his response then was this
You are wrong everywhere. My illustrations are 2-D to start with. Purpose is only to demonstrate how local structural failures are arrested, e.g. strong elements damage weak elements. Not the other way around. Do you belong to some religious sect believing something else? If yes, join The Heiwa Challenge thread! There you have your chance!

i responded with this and he never answered

Should that have read (bolding mine, added):
You are wrong everywhere. My illustrations are 2-D to start with. Purpose is only to demonstrate how I think the local structural failures should have been arrested in WTC1, e.g. strong elements damage weak elements. Not the other way around. Do you belong to some religious sect believing something else? If yes, join The Heiwa Challenge thread! There you have your chance!

Justin39640

8th July 2009, 04:39 PM

Should that have read (bolding mine, added):

or a big fat IMO right before it lol

Grizzly Bear

8th July 2009, 05:23 PM

My pleasure! :D

On your site, you show a diagram of what should have happened:
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/WTC1slicea.gif

Those 4 vertical black lines represent perimeter columns. Look at Figure D. I agree that the furthest right columns represents the row of perimeter columns along the side of the tower. I can agree that that row of column would indeed hit the concrete floor as show. What I have a problem with is the two middle verticle black lines.

The perimeter columns along that face are OUTSIDE the concrete concrete floors.

So how would those perimeter columns, represented by the two middle verticle black lines, spear the floor above when the said perimeter columns along that face ARE NOT BELOW THE FLOOR? They are OUTSIDE the floor on the edge.

Have at it my friend.
Not that it needs to be said but the real problem with the 2D model Heiwa pushes is it completely ignores the slenderness ratio of such long unsupported column lengths and the kind of bending and torsional strains put on the connections. Anyone with half a brain in either architecture or engineering would have figured that out a long time ago, Heiwa has made it quite clear that he's oblivious to this idiocy, and you shouldn't need to be wasting time trying to convince him otherwise. Look at how long he's been on this forum, and how long people have tried to correct him...

Justin39640

8th July 2009, 05:26 PM

Not that it needs to be said but the real problem with the 2D model Heiwa pushes is it completely ignores the slenderness ratio of such long unsupported column lengths and the kind of bending and torsional strains put on the connections. Anyone with half a brain in either architecture or engineering would have figured that out a long time ago, Heiwa is apparently quite oblivious to this idiocy, and you shouldn't need to be wasting time trying to convince him otherwise.

im just kinda pointing and laughing lol

engineer indeed lol

triforcharity

8th July 2009, 06:06 PM

[QUOTE=Tony Szamboti;4884031]................

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

Yeah, because we all know that 911 Mysteries would NEVER quote mine, or take things out of context don't we Tony??

If it was such a great movie, why hasn't it won a SINGLE award of ANY KIND??? Right......

I believe the Naudet Brothers' documentary won quite a few awards.

Including:

2003-Nominated for a CAS Award for Outstanding Sound Mixing for Television - Non-Fiction, Variety or Music Series or Specials

2002 Won the following Emmys
-Outstanding Non-Fiction Special (Informational)
-Outstanding Sound Mixing for Non-Fiction Programming (Single or Multi-Camera)

And nominated for the following:
-Outstanding Cinematography for Non-Fiction Programming (Single or Multi-Camera)
-Outstanding Picture Editing for Non-Fiction Programming (Single or Multi-Camera)
-Outstanding Sound Editing for Non-Fiction Programming (Single or Multi-Camera)

German Awards

2002-Won German Television Award for Best International Program

2003-Won a Peabody Award

2003 Won Special Humanitarian DVD Award

2002-Nominated for TCA Award (Television Critics Award) for Outstanding Achievement in Movies, Mini-Series and Specials

2003-Won- WRG (Writers Guild of America) Award for Documentary - Current Events

Now, how many did that pile of garbage strung together win??

I can't find any that is reputable. I think it might have won the Clunkidy Clunk award for Biggest bunch of BS ever put on a DVD. They would win that hands down. LC coming in a very close second.

Bluesky

8th July 2009, 06:42 PM

my models dont collapse square
G11YxEUmW60
altough ill admit theyre not very accurate scientifically
and theres a lot of limits i work with there

but they are operating in a game engine that uses basic laws of physics
unsquare shifting of weight always results in total or near total collapse

except the 1 i made for Heiwa where i did drop it square
then just the top few floors of the lower part collapsed
but that was again in a perfect virtual world

check out my YT page :D
http://www.youtube.com/user/justin39640

Yes that is the thing about Heiwa's nutty challenge. He forgets eccentricity, angle of impact, stack joints and the game software shows all of these issues. Your model wins the Heiwa Challenge and its easy to make a million other structures like it. You win a dollar.!

It is an impressive demonstration of progressive collapse, and although it does not demonstrate the issues of frame action, impact damage, fire weakening, air blasting out of the floors: it does demonstrate the principles of rapid failure, no jolt etc. Very nice

Bluesky

8th July 2009, 06:44 PM

Suppose Robertson is eventually called before some kind of tribunal. What do you think would be the most awkward question they could ask him in that context ?

Can you please make a model out of cardboard boxes to show why the twin towers fell so quickly?

Bluesky

8th July 2009, 07:01 PM

LOL! This link is about Why a one-way Crush down is not possible!

Breach of Rule 11: Posts must be on topic to the thread subject.

But you are right! 53 pages ... and nobody seems to be able to explain that a one-way crush down is possible. It makes me happy.

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

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

God save us.!

triforcharity

8th July 2009, 07:09 PM

Use some lemons, saltines, sugarcubes, lets see, OH YEAH, Spagetti, what else has he used..... Didn't he use marinara once too??? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!

newton3376

8th July 2009, 07:39 PM

Use some lemons, saltines, sugarcubes, lets see, OH YEAH, Spagetti, what else has he used..... Didn't he use marinara once too??? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!

LOL

Cardboard and fruit as models....classic truther idiocy....

tsig

8th July 2009, 07:52 PM

LOL

Cardboard and fruit as models....classic truther idiocy....

Tables.

Tony Szamboti

8th July 2009, 08:50 PM

Yeah, because we all know that 911 Mysteries would NEVER quote mine, or take things out of context don't we Tony??

Leslie Robertson is shown saying he didn't think they considered the fuel in the 1964 analysis and says no more about it, so I don't see how it could be labeled as quote mining or taken out of context.

Have you watched it? If so, do you have a different interpretation of what he said?

Justin39640

8th July 2009, 10:29 PM

Yes that is the thing about Heiwa's nutty challenge. He forgets eccentricity, angle of impact, stack joints and the game software shows all of these issues. Your model wins the Heiwa Challenge and its easy to make a million other structures like it. You win a dollar.!

It is an impressive demonstration of progressive collapse, and although it does not demonstrate the issues of frame action, impact damage, fire weakening, air blasting out of the floors: it does demonstrate the principles of rapid failure, no jolt etc. Very nice

ty
i know it def has limitations but it does show some key points
then again ive only been using that program for about 2 weeks
give me 3 months i might give NIST a run for their money lol
but it might take that long to render it

as for the dollar make it 2
WqZuBJm5-98

i think cusack plays a good heiwa in the 1st scene lol

Heiwa

8th July 2009, 11:37 PM

My pleasure! :D

On your site, you show a diagram of what should have happened:
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/WTC1slicea.gif

Those 4 vertical black lines represent perimeter columns. Look at Figure D. I agree that the furthest right columns represents the row of perimeter columns along the side of the tower. I can agree that that row of column would indeed hit the concrete floor as show. What I have a problem with is the two middle verticle black lines.

The perimeter columns along that face are OUTSIDE the concrete concrete floors.

So how would those perimeter columns, represented by the two middle verticle black lines, spear the floor above when the said perimeter columns along that face ARE NOT BELOW THE FLOOR? They are OUTSIDE the floor on the edge.

Have at it my friend.

??? Evidently a vertical element displacing down outside the structure contacts nothing! A vertical or horizontal element displacing down inside the structure evidently contacts a horizontal or vertical element there.

That's why a one-way crush down is not possible.

Heiwa

8th July 2009, 11:43 PM

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

God save us.!

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

funk de fino

9th July 2009, 04:20 AM

Ragnarok

9th July 2009, 05:00 AM

Tony Szamboti

9th July 2009, 05:04 AM

Are you running away from my questions Tony?

Want to wagr on the steel temps like you claimed?

Is this another imaginary documentary? It was you was it not? I will retract and apologise if it was not.

ETA - Context on the bold above shows he could not have been lying.

Your questions have already been answered.

The NIST essentially has no physical evidence of the steel reaching high enough temperatures to weaken it in any significant way.

Are you saying that Leslie Robertson is not shown in 911 Mysteries saying what I have mentioned here?

aggle-rithm

9th July 2009, 06:13 AM

The NIST essentially has no physical evidence of the steel reaching high enough temperatures to weaken it in any significant way.

Even if that were true, it is the most plausible mechanism by which the steel would become weakened.

Do you have physical evidence that the steel failed by any other mechanism? Now would be the time to present that evidence.

(And please don't mention those ridiculous paint chips. We know all about those.)

Gamolon

9th July 2009, 06:16 AM

aggle-rithm

9th July 2009, 06:19 AM

Can someone explain this for me:-

If the weight of the buildings and the loss of structural integrity due to intense heat, was enough to almost pulverise the cores, why would there be any core left standing at the base at all, seeing as this would seem to be the most vulnerable part, considering the immense weight coming down against it? It's as though the core wasn't able to support so much weight all at once...but then it was again!

The floors collapsed around the core. Although the towers appeared from the outside to have uniform strength from top to bottom, the cores were built in much the same way old-fashioned skyscrapers were -- large at the bottom, small at the top. The part that was briefly left standing was the sturdiest, but it couldn't stand for long without the combination of floors and perimeter columns holding it up.

aggle-rithm

9th July 2009, 06:20 AM

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

So...your beliefs define reality, and theirs don't?

Ragnarok

9th July 2009, 06:35 AM

The floors collapsed around the core. Although the towers appeared from the outside to have uniform strength from top to bottom, the cores were built in much the same way old-fashioned skyscrapers were -- large at the bottom, small at the top. The part that was briefly left standing was the sturdiest, but it couldn't stand for long without the combination of floors and perimeter columns holding it up.

It was the sturdiest, but it was never built to withstand all that unfettered weight upon it; why did it manage to stay up at all?

Because it wasn't weakened by heat? Neither was the almost two thirds or so that would have been above it.

GlennB

9th July 2009, 06:38 AM

The NIST essentially has no physical evidence of the steel reaching high enough temperatures to weaken it in any significant way.

Science has never had any physical evidence of many things that are held to be true. That the earth's core is a solid ferro-nickel ball, for example. Nobody has ever been down there.

NIST, though, provides detailed analysis of calculated fire intensity, path and duration at WTC, based on real workstation fires in a laboratory, with different configurations of material, location and material integrity.

We'd all be mighty grateful if you could even begin to describe the size, composition and location of your WTC CD charges. You're a physicist, after all.

Looking forward to your analysis, however simple.

Gamolon

9th July 2009, 06:49 AM

funk de fino

9th July 2009, 07:00 AM

Your questions have already been answered.

The NIST essentially has no physical evidence of the steel reaching high enough temperatures to weaken it in any significant way.

You said they had none.

I say they have. Retract your false statement from earlier and stop moving goalposts. You are adding qualifiers to change your initial claims instead of admitting it was an incorrect claim. Very childish. They had steel which has evidence of reaching around 800 and 1000 deg C. You know it and so do I.

I guess you are not a thermite man then? Just bog standard CD with high explosives?

Are you saying that Leslie Robertson is not shown in 911 Mysteries saying what I have mentioned here?

No, I am asking you if it was you who said they had seen a documentary previously in which you claimed something was admitted when in fact you made it up. If it was not you I will retract.

funk de fino

9th July 2009, 07:03 AM

Grizzly Bear

9th July 2009, 08:04 AM

Even if that were true, it is the most plausible mechanism by which the steel would become weakened.

Do you have physical evidence that the steel failed by any other mechanism? Now would be the time to present that evidence.

(And please don't mention those ridiculous paint chips. We know all about those.)

What he keeps doing is parroting that stupid misrepesentation of NIST's data. I've been telling Tony he's been doing this and he ignores it. Mackey's talked about this as well (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4797242&postcount=2) more times than ever needed. The trade centers were ignited with 10 thousand gallons of ignitor fluid on 6 floors! And to exasperate the problem the plane impacts completely paralyzed any sprinkler system the upper floors had. Unless Tony has justification for a several hundred degree temperature gradient in the interface between the columns and the air temperature of the fires.

Gamolon

9th July 2009, 08:33 AM

??? Evidently a vertical element displacing down outside the structure contacts nothing! A vertical or horizontal element displacing down inside the structure evidently contacts a horizontal or vertical element there.

That's why a one-way crush down is not possible.

Let's get granular so you can explain something to me. We'll use your "accurate" diagram as a visual aid that I have marked up.
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/WTC1slicea2.gif
I can agree with your representation of the extreme right and left of your diagram that the entire row of those perimeter columns, coming inside/outside as a whole would indeed shear the concrete floors from there respective connections.

What you fail to show correctly OR explain is the points I circle in purple in the diagram above. You are representing one or two perimeter columns that you suggest as sprearing through the concrete floor and cracking it lengthwise into nice long slabs. That's not possible since there where about 60 perimeter columns per side. How can a 208' wall of about 60 perimeter columns slam onto the very edge of a reinforced concrete floor and not bend or shear the floor truss connection down?

How can you show the middle two lines in your diagram as spearing through the concrete floor and there were 60 columns in the wall?

How can you expect a 208' long wall of about 60 perimeter columns (including the weight all the floors above) to come smashing down on the extreme edge of the concrete floor slab below and expect the 30 "L" shaped truss connections welded to the SIDE of the peimeter columns to arrest that downward collapse? I mean hontestly? The "L" shaped truss connection was about 6" deep?

Your red floors would not seperate like you show in the diagram above.

Your diagram is extremely incorrect.

FineWine

9th July 2009, 08:34 AM

Leslie Robertson is shown saying he didn't think they considered the fuel in the 1964 analysis and says no more about it, so I don't see how it could be labeled as quote mining or taken out of context.

Have you watched it? If so, do you have a different interpretation of what he said?

Yesterday I posted the following excerpt from the NIST FAQ page. You ignored it as inconvenient to the rubbish you peddle, so here it is again:

Speaking of the kind of thing that is getting extremely tiresome...

(from NIST's FAQ page)

"The capability to conduct rigorous simulations of the aircraft impact, the growth and spread of the ensuing fires, and the effects of fires on the structure is a recent development. Since the approach to structural modeling was developed for the NIST WTC investigation, the technical capability available to the PANYNJ and its consultants and contactors to perform such analyses in the 1960s would have been quite limited in comparison to the capabilities brought to bear in the NIST investigation."

Gamolon

9th July 2009, 08:48 AM

His comment that as far as he knows they didn't consider the fuel from the aircraft in the analysis. Skilling says they did.

All I hear is crickets Tony...

Where is the direct quote from Skilling that says they did do fire analysis on the srtuctural steel?

WTF is so hard here? You obviously read it to make the statement.

Or did you just make this up?

aggle-rithm

9th July 2009, 10:02 AM

And to exasperate the problem the plane impacts completely paralyzed any sprinkler system the upper floors had.

This highlights another problem with the truther fantasy that they continually ignore. After you crash an airliner into a building, what madness could possess you to make you think you could activate any kind of demolition system that was set up in the exact spot where the damage was greatest and fires were raging out of control?

...the mind boggles.

Heiwa

9th July 2009, 10:36 AM

So...your beliefs define reality, and theirs don't?

Knowledge helps to understand reality. On 911 a new phenomenon was allegedly seen for the first two times ever - one-way crush downs of composite stuctures. A little bit part C of a composite structure A was alleged to drop (free fall) on A by gravity and then, one-way crush down A by gravity.
Nobody has really been able to explain the phenomenon.
Attempts to recreate the phenomenon have all failed.
I have simply suggested that the alleged phenomenon is not possible, i.e. does not exist in reality. No structures of any kind exists where a part C of A can one-way crush down A. A always arrests C! It is a fact!

A lot of people disagree. They suggest One-way crush downs are normal and natural phenomenons. But they cannot support the suggestion by any facts. It seems to be a simple belief.

aggle-rithm

9th July 2009, 10:38 AM

Knowledge helps to understand reality. On 911 a new phenomenon was allegedly seen for the first two times ever - one-way crush downs of composite stuctures. A little bit part C of a composite structure A was alleged to drop (free fall) on A by gravity and then, one-way crush down A by gravity.
Nobody has really been able to explain the phenomenon.
Attempts to recreate the phenomenon have all failed.
I have simply suggested that the alleged phenomenon is not possible, i.e. does not exist in reality. No structures of any kind exists where a part C of A can one-way crush down A. A always arrests C! It is a fact!

A lot of people disagree. They suggest One-way crush downs are normal and natural phenomenons. But they cannot support the suggestion by any facts. It seems to be a simple belief.

I'm sure you realize this, but saying that something is a fact, or even an axiom, doesn't make it so.

Heiwa

9th July 2009, 11:00 AM

Let's get granular so you can explain something to me. We'll use your "accurate" diagram as a visual aid that I have marked up.
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/WTC1slicea2.gif
I can agree with your representation of the extreme right and left of your diagram that the entire row of those perimeter columns, coming inside/outside as a whole would indeed shear the concrete floors from there respective connections.

What you fail to show correctly OR explain is the points I circle in purple in the diagram above. You are representing one or two perimeter columns that you suggest as sprearing through the concrete floor and cracking it lengthwise into nice long slabs. That's not possible since there where about 60 perimeter columns per side. How can a 208' wall of about 60 perimeter columns slam onto the very edge of a reinforced concrete floor and not bend or shear the floor truss connection down?

How can you show the middle two lines in your diagram as spearing through the concrete floor and there were 60 columns in the wall?

How can you expect a 208' long wall of about 60 perimeter columns (including the weight all the floors above) to come smashing down on the extreme edge of the concrete floor slab below and expect the 30 "L" shaped truss connections welded to the SIDE of the peimeter columns to arrest that downward collapse? I mean hontestly? The "L" shaped truss connection was about 6" deep?

Your red floors would not seperate like you show in the diagram above.

Your diagram is extremely incorrect.

Thanks for comments. The figure is just one simple example what can happen when an upper part C of a structure contacts a similar structure part A below. I show others.

Your ringed details inside the structures evidently show internal vertical elements, e.g. failed, strong core columns, contacting horizontal, weak elements, e.g. floors; it is thus suggested that the strong elements damages/cuts/punches through the weak elements.

If you look carefully, you see how the strong elements of lower part A damages weak elements, the green floors in upper part C! Hopefully you agree that this is a realistic result! That is the main purpose of the figure!

However, Bazant, the world famous expert of the subject, suggests that the bottom horizontal element of part C (floor #97 in WTC 1) is not damaged (sic!) at impact and that this thin element destroys the strong A columns below, then compress the A columns into rubble (part B) that protects part C. Parts B and C then continue to destroy A. All nonsense of course.

NIST suggest that part C applies potential energy, PE, on A at impact and that A lacks strain energy, SE, to absorb this PE, so that global collapse ensues. PE>SE=global collapse according NIST.

NIST unfortunately forgets that A also applies energy/forces on C at impact and that C can absorb even less strain energy than A. This should show up as jolt of C! C being decelerated by A. A provides resistance!

Thus A will immediately start to destroy C at impact. As the PE applied by C is very small - see my paper you quote from - that PE will soon be transformed into local failures (heat) and friction between displaced elements in contact (more heat) of C and A and the local failures should be arrested within ONE second. C should stop up on top of A.

A one way crush down by C of A is not possible under any circumstances.

Heiwa

9th July 2009, 11:05 AM

I'm sure you realize this, but saying that something is a fact, or even an axiom, doesn't make it so.

Sorry! No structure of any kind exists where a part C of A can one-way crush down A. A always arrests C! It is a fact!

newton3376

9th July 2009, 11:07 AM

Knowledge helps to understand reality. On 911 a new phenomenon was allegedly seen for the first two times ever -

You mean the new phenomenon of the WTC 1 and 2 being hit by a commercial airliner and then having out of control multi-floor fires?

one-way crush downs of composite stuctures. A little bit part C of a composite structure A was alleged to drop (free fall) on A by gravity and then, one-way crush down A by gravity.
Nobody has really been able to explain the phenomenon.

People have tried but you don't seem to be able to understand the explanations....you prefer playing with lemons and cardboard....

Attempts to recreate the phenomenon have all failed.

Are you referring to your "attempts" with fruit and cardboard?

I have simply suggested that the alleged phenomenon is not possible, i.e. does not exist in reality. No structures of any kind exists where a part C of A can one-way crush down A. A always arrests C! It is a fact!

You think it's a fact because you have "demonstrated" it with fruit and cardboard?

If you really can't figure out why such "demonstrations" are not valid then you really need to talk to this guy....

Heiwa

9th July 2009, 11:10 AM

1. You mean the new phenomenon of the WTC 1 and 2 being hit by a commercial airliner and then having out of control multi-floor fires?

2. People have tried ....

3. Are you referring to your "attempts" with fruit and cardboard?

4. You think it's a fact because you have "demonstrated" it with fruit and cardboard?

5. If you really can't figure out why such "demonstrations" are not valid then you really need to talk to this guy....

1. No.

2. They all failed.

3. No.

4. No.

5. Why?

newton3376

9th July 2009, 11:12 AM

2. They all failed.

No surprise there...

5. Why?

See my signature for the answer.....

beachnut

9th July 2009, 12:33 PM

Leslie Robertson is shown saying he didn't think they considered the fuel in the 1964 analysis and says no more about it, so I don't see how it could be labeled as quote mining or taken out of context.

Have you watched it? If so, do you have a different interpretation of what he said?
Robertson thinks your realcddeal is nuts.

Robertson designed for an aircraft impact and the WTC towers were confirmed to repel impacts of aircraft below 200 mph, confirming Robertson's 180 mph impact study was accurate. On 911 two planes exceeded the design impact by 7 and 11 times and contributed in a big way to the collapse of the WTC and proving Heiwa ideas are delusions. You fail to do the work and come up with numbers and use your failed opinions to make up delusional conclusions. Robertson used engineering, you use opinions wave your hands and say CD.

FineWine

9th July 2009, 12:36 PM

Sorry! No structure of any kind exists where a part C of A can one-way crush down A. A always arrests C! It is a fact!

It may be a fact to an agenda-driven incompetent, but your foolishness has been exposed by the real engineers.

Heiwa

9th July 2009, 01:03 PM

It may be a fact to an agenda-driven incompetent, but your foolishness has been exposed by the real engineers.

Link!

FineWine

9th July 2009, 01:14 PM

Link!

Oh, I forgot to provide links.

Please see EVERY thread you've posted on.

Gamolon

9th July 2009, 01:21 PM

Thanks for comments. The figure is just one simple example what can happen when an upper part C of a structure contacts a similar structure part A below. I show others.

Very deceptive Anders. Notice the bold part of your quote "just a structure" yet the diagram looks just like the WTC1 tower. It even has an antennae on it.

So no, your diagram is not "of a structure", but of the actual WTC1 tower and thus your diagram is wrong.

Fix it.

aggle-rithm

9th July 2009, 01:42 PM

Sorry! No structure of any kind exists where a part C of A can one-way crush down A. A always arrests C! It is a fact!

Well, let's apply a little parsimony here:

Either the towers collapsed by some mysterious mechanism that makes no sense and left no evidence, or...

You are wrong.

It's a no-brainer, as far as I'm concerned.

aggle-rithm

9th July 2009, 01:45 PM

1. No.

2. They all failed.

3. No.

4. No.

5. Why?

Ooooh...uncharacteristically sloppy.

No exclamation points.

How can you expect to force the laws of the universe to conform to your beliefs without copious exclamation points?!?

Try to do better from now on.

Heiwa

9th July 2009, 01:57 PM

Well, let's apply a little parsimony here:

Either the towers collapsed by some mysterious mechanism that makes no sense and left no evidence, or...

You are wrong.

It's a no-brainer, as far as I'm concerned.

Mysterious mechanism? No sense? Why not old-fashioned controlled demolition? It is always used to get rid of structures as they cannot be one-way crushed down. Keep it simple. Do not invent a new phenomenon as cause that have never been verified by science.

Imagine if you could one-way crush down structure by gravity by a bit of itself. It would be a very unsafe environment. I am not wrong in this respect.

FineWine

9th July 2009, 02:16 PM

Mysterious mechanism? No sense? Why not old-fashioned controlled demolition? It is always used to get rid of structures as they cannot be one-way crushed down. Keep it simple. Do not invent a new phenomenon as cause that have never been verified by science.

Imagine if you could one-way crush down structure by gravity by a bit of itself. It would be a very unsafe environment. I am not wrong in this respect.

No explosives were used anywhere in the WTC complex, Heiwa. Stop lying.

I keep asking you how you will react when the real engineers at the ASCE journal tear apart your idiocy, and you keep running away. Will they all turn out to be NWO religious fundamentalists?

Justin39640

9th July 2009, 04:12 PM

Thanks for comments. The figure is just one simple example what can happen when an upper part C of a structure contacts a similar structure part A below. I show others.

Your ringed details inside the structures evidently show internal vertical elements, e.g. failed, strong core columns, contacting horizontal, weak elements, e.g. floors; it is thus suggested that the strong elements damages/cuts/punches through the weak elements.

If you look carefully, you see how the strong elements of lower part A damages weak elements, the green floors in upper part C! Hopefully you agree that this is a realistic result! That is the main purpose of the figure!

However, Bazant, the world famous expert of the subject, suggests that the bottom horizontal element of part C (floor #97 in WTC 1) is not damaged (sic!) at impact and that this thin element destroys the strong A columns below, then compress the A columns into rubble (part B) that protects part C. Parts B and C then continue to destroy A. All nonsense of course.

NIST suggest that part C applies potential energy, PE, on A at impact and that A lacks strain energy, SE, to absorb this PE, so that global collapse ensues. PE>SE=global collapse according NIST.

NIST unfortunately forgets that A also applies energy/forces on C at impact and that C can absorb even less strain energy than A. This should show up as jolt of C! C being decelerated by A. A provides resistance!

Thus A will immediately start to destroy C at impact. As the PE applied by C is very small - see my paper you quote from - that PE will soon be transformed into local failures (heat) and friction between displaced elements in contact (more heat) of C and A and the local failures should be arrested within ONE second. C should stop up on top of A.

A one way crush down by C of A is not possible under any circumstances.

your diagram stinks
and i dont like it

and it is WTC 1 (tv mast)
it represents the goings on inside your head
nothing in the real world collapses like that

if you get 20 floors of building occupying 10 floors now WITH NO SUPPORT!
thats gonna blow out the sides
the unsupported "walls" or "columns" could never hold that back
as the walls shear more damage will happen below (progressively)

not only that how can the entire left side of the building in your drawing just fall off without damaging the structure below
it cant
only in cartoons (poorly drawn ones at that)

you fail
horrendously
yet again

aggle-rithm

9th July 2009, 04:16 PM

Mysterious mechanism? No sense? Why not old-fashioned controlled demolition?

Because it's stupid.

Keep it simple. Do not invent a new phenomenon as cause that have never been verified by science.

Like a demolition system that can be secretly installed, can survive a plane crash and fire, and leaves no evidence of itself?

Imagine if you could one-way crush down structure by gravity by a bit of itself. It would be a very unsafe environment. I am not wrong in this respect.

So you say. Why should be believe you? Repetition does not make you correct.

Heiwa

9th July 2009, 11:46 PM

your diagram stinks
and i dont like it

and it is WTC 1 (tv mast)
it represents the goings on inside your head
nothing in the real world collapses like that

if you get 20 floors of building occupying 10 floors now WITH NO SUPPORT!
thats gonna blow out the sides
the unsupported "walls" or "columns" could never hold that back
as the walls shear more damage will happen below (progressively)

not only that how can the entire left side of the building in your drawing just fall off without damaging the structure below
it cant
only in cartoons (poorly drawn ones at that)

you fail
horrendously
yet again

If you look carefully on the diagram, you see how the strong elements of lower part A damages weak elements, the green floors in upper part C! Hopefully you agree that this is a realistic result! That is the main purpose of the figure!

However, Bazant, the world famous expert of the subject, suggests that the bottom horizontal element of part C (green floor #97 in WTC 1) is not damaged (sic!) at impact and that this thin, weak element destroys the strong A columns below, then compress the A columns into rubble (part B) that protects part C. Parts B and C then continue to destroy A. All nonsense of course.

You see, a composite structure consists of strong and weak elements + plenty of open space in between. When a part C of this structure collides due to gravity with part A of same structure, the strong elements damage the weak elements. Everything in the real world is damaged like that.
Therefore a one-way crush down of A by C and gravity is not possible. Bazant is thus wrong.

Justin39640

9th July 2009, 11:56 PM

If you look carefully on the diagram, you see how the strong elements of lower part A damages weak elements, the green floors in upper part C! Hopefully you agree that this is a realistic result! That is the main purpose of the figure!

However, Bazant, the world famous expert of the subject, suggests that the bottom horizontal element of part C (green floor #97 in WTC 1) is not damaged (sic!) at impact and that this thin, weak element destroys the strong A columns below, then compress the A columns into rubble (part B) that protects part C. Parts B and C then continue to destroy A. All nonsense of course.

You see, a composite structure consists of strong and weak elements + plenty of open space in between. When a part C of this structure collides due to gravity with part A of same structure, the strong elements damage the weak elements. Everything in the real world is damaged like that.
Therefore a one-way crush down of A by C and gravity is not possible. Bazant is thus wrong.

not even close to realistic
sorry try again

jhunter1163

10th July 2009, 12:06 AM

not even close to realistic
sorry try again

It's closer to "realistice". :runaway

Tony Szamboti

10th July 2009, 02:13 AM

You said they had none.

I say they have. Retract your false statement from earlier and stop moving goalposts. You are adding qualifiers to change your initial claims instead of admitting it was an incorrect claim. Very childish. They had steel which has evidence of reaching around 800 and 1000 deg C. You know it and so do I.

I guess you are not a thermite man then? Just bog standard CD with high explosives?

No, I am asking you if it was you who said they had seen a documentary previously in which you claimed something was admitted when in fact you made it up. If it was not you I will retract.

The NIST has no evidence whatsoever of any steel reaching 800 to 1000 degress C. They only have a few pieces which reached 600 degrees C and the rest never got above 250 degrees C.

funk de fino

10th July 2009, 03:38 AM

The NIST has no evidence whatsoever of any steel reaching 800 to 1000 degress C. They only have a few pieces which reached 600 degrees C and the rest never got above 250 degrees C.

Care to wager Tony? Tread carefully though as you should know this.

Are you the guy who said they saw someone admitting something in a documentary and this documnetary does not actually exist?

Tony Szamboti

10th July 2009, 04:46 AM

Care to wager Tony? Tread carefully though as you should know this.

Are you the guy who said they saw someone admitting something in a documentary and this documnetary does not actually exist?

Are you talking about Leslie Robertson discussing the fact that he didn't think the fuel was considered in the analysis done for aircraft impact on the Twin Towers? If you are there is a clip of him saying it in 911 Mysteries.

As for the steel temperatures you want to say that the NIST has physical evidence of steel reaching 800 to 1000 degrees C and I say they don't if you exclude the couple of pieces that Jonathan Barnett analyzed for the FEMA report in Appendix C. One of those pieces was also from WTC 7. Which would have been the only piece of steel saved from WTC 7.

I am saying that out of the 236 pieces that the NIST got from the Towers only a few pieces had experienced temperatures above 250 degrees C and none above 600 degrees C.

tsig

10th July 2009, 05:08 AM

It's closer to "realistice". :runaway

We are approaching that territory.

tsig

10th July 2009, 05:11 AM

Are you talking about Leslie Robertson discussing the fact that he didn't think the fuel was considered in the analysis done for aircraft impact on the Twin Towers? If you are there is a clip of him saying it in 911 Mysteries.

As for the steel temperatures you want to say that the NIST has physical evidence of steel reaching 800 to 1000 degrees C and I say they don't if you exclude the couple of pieces that Jonathan Barnett analyzed for the FEMA report in Appendix C. One of those pieces was also from WTC 7. Which would have been the only piece of steel saved from WTC 7.

I am saying that out of the 236 pieces that the NIST got from the Towers only a few pieces had experienced temperatures above 250 degrees C and none above 600 degrees C.

So you were there in the towers with a pyrometer and measured this?.

Gamolon

10th July 2009, 05:22 AM

You see, a composite structure consists of strong and weak elements + plenty of open space in between. When a part C of this structure collides due to gravity with part A of same structure, the strong elements damage the weak elements. Everything in the real world is damaged like that.
Therefore a one-way crush down of A by C and gravity is not possible. Bazant is thus wrong.

I assume you mean the columns are the strong elements and the truss connections are the weak elements? If I am wrong, can you tell me which elements are which when speaking of the steel support structure of the tower?

Thanks!

Gamolon

10th July 2009, 07:00 AM

Heiwa, From your site:
All videos of the destruction show that the upper part in fact telescopes into or shortens itself for 2-4 seconds, while the steel structure below is still intact!

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

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

Gamolon

10th July 2009, 07:06 AM

Heiwa, you also say that there is no evidence of buckling columns yet I find this picture (one of many):
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/ST1-full.jpg

Justin39640

10th July 2009, 07:09 AM

Heiwa, From your site:

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

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

i love how he never explains HOW the entire top of the building shoves over 5 or 10 feet to line up the way he shows it lol

o boy any one got an ETA on the complete decimation of his paper

if (and when) it fails peer review
will only he be notified or will the comments still be public?

Gamolon

10th July 2009, 07:14 AM

Tony,

Having a little problem finding the actual quote from Skilling saying that they he and his people did fire analysis on the stell structure of the towers?

*crickets*

Either you have it or you don't.

funk de fino

10th July 2009, 07:16 AM

Are you talking about Leslie Robertson discussing the fact that he didn't think the fuel was considered in the analysis done for aircraft impact on the Twin Towers? If you are there is a clip of him saying it in 911 Mysteries.

No, I am talking about an earlier claim about demolition. I believe you said you saw someone admit it had been a demolition in a documentary but you could not name it or ever find it. Is this correct?

As for the steel temperatures you want to say that the NIST has physical evidence of steel reaching 800 to 1000 degrees C and I say they don't if you exclude the couple of pieces that Jonathan Barnett analyzed for the FEMA report in Appendix C. One of those pieces was also from WTC 7. Which would have been the only piece of steel saved from WTC 7.

How can you exclude anything Tony? Your claim was that they had none. It was a false claim. You have just admitted it. You are also leaving out the fact that there was much more steel that was found with temps higher than 600 but this was not tested or analyzed by NIST. It was irrelevant as they could not identify where it came from. Why would you miss out all that other steel Tony? If there was no steel that experienced hese high temps then I guess you are not a thermite man eh? If there was no evidence of high temps then it could othave been thermite, right?

I am saying that out of the 236 pieces that the NIST got from the Towers only a few pieces had experienced temperatures above 250 degrees C and none above 600 degrees C.

Well you are wrong.

Gamolon

10th July 2009, 07:25 AM

newton3376

10th July 2009, 07:33 AM

triforcharity

10th July 2009, 07:34 AM

Blah blah blah...BS removed.

As for the steel temperatures you want to say that the NIST has physical evidence of steel reaching 800 to 1000 degrees C and I say they don't if you exclude the couple of pieces that Jonathan Barnett analyzed for the FEMA report in Appendix C. One of those pieces was also from WTC 7. Which would have been the only piece of steel saved from WTC 7.

I am saying that out of the 236 pieces that the NIST got from the Towers only a few pieces had experienced temperatures above 250 degrees C and none above 600 degrees C.

So, if they had 236 pieces, and, just for arguments sake, they had 20, thats 11.8% of the total. Even if they had 10, that is still 5.9% of the total metal has temeratures above 600 Deg. C. So, how many beams caame from the area of the crash?? I would say not many. How many beams did WTC 1&2 have TOTAL??? A S****TON more than 236. I would say that even if the floors that were impacted had 10,000 pieces total, that 236 is a VERY SMALL representation. Come on Bill. Lets use logic here.

triforcharity

10th July 2009, 07:38 AM

ElMondoHummus

10th July 2009, 07:49 AM

Wait wait wait....I JUST saw this!! Holy sweet fluffy baby jesus, how could I miss that.

Ok, so Leslie Robertson did not account for fuel in an airplane crash?? How could you POSSIBLY do an analysis of an AIRPLANE crashing into a building while its in FLIGHT, if you can't FLY A PLANE WITHOUT GAS?!?!?!?!

Must be a nano-therm*te powered plane.

Because we ALL KNOW that 9/11 mysteries would NEVER take someone's words and twist them around, or quote mine, or take them out of context.

1-2-3 FIGHTS OVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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

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

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

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

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