The STUNDIE is at it again!

[Quad4_72]

His latest rantings about why he thinks the upper portion of the towers could not destroy the lower portion...

I'm guessing that there would be a partial collapse but not a complete one. The undamaged floors underneath the failure point (Floor 78) should provide plenty of resistance against the upper portions as it was already holding the weight of the towers above it, enough to resist the entire collapse. Considering that the upper portions were lighter than the lower heavier portions as the thickness of the steel tapered in height (Something as a structual engineer you will be aware of)

So on 9/11, we have a lighter portion causing a complete failure to the heavier portions. Now I'm not expert in physics, but I know enough to know when I am being hoodwinked because that seems impossible to me. If you would like to prove otherwise, please feel free but provide scientific calculations, data and evidence and avoid the dumb analogies which the rest of the debonkers have been trying to post on here as scientific proof of the towers collapsing.

http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?showtopic=1728&pid=19399&st=0&#entry19399

[MG1962]

So on 9/11, we have a lighter portion causing a complete failure to the heavier portions. Now I'm not expert in physics, but I know enough to know when I am being hoodwinked because that seems impossible to me. If you would like to prove otherwise, please feel free but provide scientific calculations, data and evidence and avoid the dumb analogies which the rest of the debonkers have been trying to post on here as scientific proof of the towers collapsing.
[/QUOTE]

The trouble is, when confronted with the calculations he/she calls foul and runs away and hides

[CHF]

I'm guessing that there would be a partial collapse but not a complete one. The undamaged floors underneath the failure point (Floor 78) should provide plenty of resistance against the upper portions as it was already holding the weight of the towers above it, enough to resist the entire collapse.

What is it about dynamic loads vs static loads that twoofers find so hard to understand? How can they confuse the two?

[MG1962]

But this is a person who blieves in melting concrete - pyroclastic flows at the towers, and Richard Clarke is God

[Quad4_72]

I just don't know how to make it any more clear to him that there is a difference between thousands of tons of building intact and then thousands of pounds of building in motion.

[Architect]

should provide plenty of resistance


Hmm. Why oh why do I waste my clients' monies on pesky design calculations and certificates?!?

[qarnos]

If you would like to prove otherwise, please feel free but provide scientific calculations, data and evidence and avoid the dumb analogies which the rest of the debonkers have been trying to post on here as scientific proof of the towers collapsing.

Someone give the man a copy of the NIST report.



I'm guessing that <insert unrealistic scenario here>, because <insert flawed and oversimplified reasoning here>.

If you would like to prove me wrong, make sure you include some super-scientific calculations, or I will ignore you.



ETA: What's the difference between a "scientific calculation" and a regular one?

[Quad4_72]

Someone give the man a copy of the NIST report.



His main argument is that the NIST report does not give the calculations for why a building would not be able to withstand thousands of pounds of force crashing down on it. Though the type of logic required to understand that a building cannot withstand that kind of force is elementary, Stundie seems to lack even that.

[Quinn]

I just don't know how to make it any more clear to him that there is a difference between thousands of tons of building intact and then thousands of pounds of building in motion.

Get him in a room. Have him place his hand palm-up on a desk. Place a bowling ball on his hand. Confirm with him that he can hold the ball without damaging his hand. Now take the bowling ball, hold it up as high as you can, and drop it on his hand. Mission accomplished.

[HeyLeroy]

It's been tried. (http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?act=findpost&hl=coconut&pid=12740)

FFS!! How many times have you done analogies?? You debunkers love you analogies?? Well I'm afraid your analogy will not do because they bear sod all relavance to WTC.

Like the one about dropping a hammer on your foot? Or a coconut on your head? hahahahaha!

SO just give us science, data, evidence, calculations!

ETA: the 'coconut analogy' was his in the first place. (http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?act=findpost&hl=coconut&pid=8874)

[Cl1mh4224rd]

What is it about dynamic loads vs static loads that twoofers find so hard to understand? How can they confuse the two?
Easy. They refuse to learn what either of those phrases mean.

[Quad4_72]

It's been tried. (http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?act=findpost&hl=coconut&pid=12740)



ETA: the 'coconut analogy' was his in the first place. (http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?act=findpost&hl=coconut&pid=8874)

HAHAHAHAHAHA. That is absolutely priceless! He never ceases to amaze!

[qarnos]

Though the type of logic required to understand that a building cannot withstand that kind of force is elementary, Stundie seems to lack even that.

And yet , he claims to be a structural engineer? :confused:

[nicepants]

One of the times Stundie was accused of quote-mining....

I only quote mine because debonkers will make ridiculous claims

[Mobyseven]

Hey hey hey - don't forget that you can post Stundie's quotes as part of The Stundies. He isn't eligible for the award, but I did a "best of Stundie" section last month, and wouldn't mind doing it again this month!

[Belz...]

Considering that the upper portions were lighter than the lower heavier portions as the thickness of the steel tapered in height

Of course! Why didn't I ever think of that. Lighter cannot possibly damage heavier, which I why I should never worry about my car colliding with a smaller one.

Now I'm not expert in physics, but I know enough to know when I am being hoodwinked because that seems impossible to me.

So he doesn't know squat but the real experts don't fool him because he's got common sense.

He must still think the Earth is flat.