WTC collapses - Layman's terms again

[Minadin]

Kevin Ryan for example

Don't get me started on Kevin Ryan. He's a complete fraud, and you would be much better off putting your eggs in another basket.

 

[Heiwa]

Yes, this would be perfectly valid if...

The entire upper block completely MISSED the lower block!

Seeing as that's not true, though, the whole line of reasoning kind of falls apart. Oh well. If Heiwa could prove that the entire lower block was actually an illusion and really consisted of "air," then he would have something going.

Let's put it this way. The upper block has lots of mass. The upper block fell on the lower block. Kinetic energy = 1/2mv^2, where m = mass and v = velocity. Since the upper block has tons of mass, it also has tons of kinetic energy. This energy was FAR more than the floor impacted was designed to take...because the building designers did not imagine that a huge section of the building would be dropped on top of the rest of it.

This isn't hard.

By the way, the bike example isn't that hard to debunk either. There are numerous problems with it, one of which is that the lower half of the building is not going to dissipate a lot of the KE focused on it by flying through the air...

Edit: Specific energy calculations can be found in Frank Greening's work.

So you MISSED my point? The upper block (all its masses/parts) when dropping near free fall (never seen BTW) and its KE evidently misses the primary load bearing columns of the lower structure and only hit air or apply the KE to thin floors and then gets jammed by the intact lower columns due to gravity.

The hammer misses the nails and hits somethin else. Can we agree on that?

NIST, Bazant and Seffen suggest that the hammer actually hits the nails (the columns) and that the nails (columns) then goes into 10-20 pieces each. Quite magic, actually. Common sense tells me that it cannot occur.

It is not a question of energy - it is a question where the energy is applied. And no energy was applied on the columns of the lower block sufficient to break them like spaghetti. Frank Greening apparently MISSED that?

Are you going to debunk my motorbike experiences also? Bike + driver = one mass? 1 + 1 = 1 ? Pls do that on the new NWO physics thread where matter and mind is one is one or the same or what the cat brings in.

Luckily gravity has no mind or memory - it only does what it is supposed to do - and it does not globally collapse airy steel structures with strong columns and thin floors.

 

[AZCat]

Kevin Ryan for example

Kevin Ryan was not fired for questioning the NIST. He was fired, according to Paul Baker (UL spokesman), because he "expressed his own opinions as though they were institutional opinions and beliefs of UL." Ryan filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against UL in 2006 that was dismissed with prejudice last year. Obviously the court thought UL was justified in firing him.

 

[AZCat]

I was referring back to the comment made by CHF when he said:

Yeah, a dynamic load weighing as much as the Titanic or an aircraft carrier should have been stopped by floor slabs.

So he made the original comparison between the top part of the North Tower and the Titanic, not me. I think Frank Greening also made the same point in a radio interview once. Which descended faster, the top part of the North Tower through the area beneath the impact zone(steel and concrete) or the Titanic through the water?

Drawing an analogy between the two masses makes sense; extending it the way you did does not.

 

[Heiwa]

Heiwa,

you never told us who reviewed your paper.

But I did! Some clever guys! Very clever - so they prefer just to assist me.

 

[mortimer]

Kevin Ryan was not fired for questioning the NIST. He was fired, according to Paul Baker (UL spokesman), because he "expressed his own opinions as though they were institutional opinions and beliefs of UL." Ryan filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against UL in 2006 that was dismissed with prejudice last year. Obviously the court thought UL was justified in firing him.

There is only one conclusion that can be drawn... the judicial system is deep into the coverup!

 

[T.A.M.]

Kevin Ryan for example

yes he lost his boring job with Underwriter Labs, and has now become perhaps less financially secure, but a hero to hundreds (and kooks would say thousands) of people. I am sure he gets speaking dates (and fees).

But if that is the worst that happens to someone for speaking out on the coverup of modern times, and the deaths of 3,000 people, so what, wouldn't you step out and risk your job if you knew for sure that the murderers were still free men...3,000 people man!!

TAM

 

[Drudgewire]

But I did! Some clever guys! Very clever - so they prefer just to assist me.

Well I'll give them this. Not wanting their names to be publicly associated with your work does show SOME semblence of gray matter on their part.

 

[Heiwa]

Why is Heiwa still hiding behind the "layman's terms" when he's obviously trying to write a technical paper? Is he afraid of real criticism?

I just try to keep it simple common sense right clear thinking - fancy abstract differential equations to solve based on confused assumtions is not my style. And I am afraid of nothing. I like criticism as long as it is ... real, simple, common sense, right, honest, clear, based on facts, etc. Layman's terms, actually.

 

[DC]

yes he lost his boring job with Underwriter Labs, and has now become perhaps less financially secure, but a hero to hundreds (and kooks would say thousands) of people. I am sure he gets speaking dates (and fees).

But if that is the worst that happens to someone for speaking out on the coverup of modern times, and the deaths of 3,000 people, so what, wouldn't you step out and risk your job if you knew for sure that the murderers were still free men...3,000 people man!!

TAM

if you knew for sure? then maybe. but when you only want reinvestigations, you already count as a total kook like you deniers call it

and how many have the time to take a closer look at it?
its easy to drag all those who dont go public on your side.

when those "twoofexperts" are such frauds and liars etc, why isnt there a countermovement of you superreal experts to expose those frauds and liars?

a bunch of "skeptics" on jref and a few debunkers that think theyr theory is the only possible one.

but now back to topic

Heiwa has a good paper i think. pretty simple and understandable written.
and alot closer to reality than that Bazantsche collapse fantasy.

 

[Minadin]

I just try to keep it simple common sense right clear thinking - fancy abstract differential equations to solve based on confused assumtions is not my style. And I am afraid of nothing. I like criticism as long as it is ... real, simple, common sense, right, honest, clear, based on facts, etc. Layman's terms, actually.

Yes, well, real engineering isn't done in layman's terms. We need engineers to use specific language to be precise in what they are talking about.

And, common sense doesn't keep a building standing. There are a lot of things about structures, or probably any science, which are counter-intuitive, and you wouldn't understand them without the proper education.

 

[DGM]

So you MISSED my point? The upper block (all its masses/parts) when dropping near free fall (never seen BTW) and its KE evidently misses the primary load bearing columns of the lower structure and only hit air or apply the KE to thin floors and then gets jammed by the intact lower columns due to gravity.

The hammer misses the nails and hits somethin else. Can we agree on that?

NIST, Bazant and Seffen suggest that the hammer actually hits the nails (the columns) and that the nails (columns) then goes into 10-20 pieces each. Quite magic, actually. Common sense tells me that it cannot occur.

It is not a question of energy - it is a question where the energy is applied. And no energy was applied on the columns of the lower block sufficient to break them like spaghetti. Frank Greening apparently MISSED that?

You still can't grasp the concept of a simplified model geared toward collapse arrest. Don't say you do because that would mean you're purposely misrepresenting what NIST and the others are saying.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Heiwa,

Your claim, as far as I can see, is that the deceleration experienced by the falling parts of the structure will increase as more floors of the lower structure are punctured by the upper, and more floors of the upper by the lower. I have a few questions to ask about this.

(1) What is the effective force experienced by the upper part of the structure as a result of the resistance to penetration by columns of the floor below?

(2) Since this is a force invariant with the drop of the upper part of the structure - on average there are as many floors in any given interval of height as in any other - is the only component of effective force, therefore, the friction between the columns of one block and the floors of the other?

(3) If so, what is the value of this effective force as a function of the number of floors penetrated?

If you can determine the effective upward force on the falling part of the structure and demonstrate that at some point in the collapse it is greater than the downward force due to gravity, then you have an argument. In your paper you have simply stated without proof that the collapse will be arrested, so your arguments have no other force than your appeal to your own personal authority, which you have not satisfactorily established.

In other words, show your calculations, or your work is worthless.

Dave

 

[DC]

arent the pictures from video in Heiwas paper kinda debunking the Bazant assumption of the crush down first and then crush up phases?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

after seeing what happened to others that dared to question the NIST report, im pretty sure in the USA, most will not go public with theyr doubts.

DC:

Please explain to me the repercussions that others have received for questioning NIST???

That is a weak excuse if I ever heard one. Hiding the true perpetrators of the the murders of 3000 people because what? They might get reprimanded? They might lose their jobs?

Please.

TAM

Kevin Ryan for example

This is absolutely, positively absurd. Kevin Ryan lost his job for misrepresenting his status within Underwriters Laboratories, not for "speaking out against NIST". There are NO repurcussions for criticising NIST. None. Look at Dr. James Quintierre's and Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl's examples. Have they lost their jobs? Are they hounded by hordes of "NISTians"? No. Why? Because they built their critiques professionally and logically and based them on real concerns. Plus they didn't misrepresent their positions within their organizations. Not lying, and basing things in reality makes all the difference.

The reason we here criticize conspiracy peddler's myths about NIST is precisely because those folks are peddling myths about NIST. When criticism is substantive, there's nothing to rebut.

NIST isn't the mafia, people. Nor do the NIST reports comprise some Bible that requires adherence to doctrine. Again, Quintierre and Astaneh-Asl have severely criticized the report, and no one here's calling them heretics.

Get real about what constitutes genuine criticism and what constitutes fallacy. That's the difference between Ryan and the other two individuals.

 

[Dave Rogers]

arent the pictures from video in Heiwas paper kinda debunking the Bazant assumption of the crush down first and then crush up phases?

Crush down/crush up is an approximation to simplify modelling. And this is Heiwa's most pervasive fallacy: he claims that every assumption Bazant makes is a necessary condition for global collapse. Therefore, he has repeatedly claimed that axial impact is necessary for global collapse, when it is in fact a simplifying assumption biased heavily in favour of survival of the structure; he claims that uniform density of the upper block is necessary for global collapse, when it is in fact a simplifying assumption with very little impact on survival of the structure; and he assumes that crush down/crush up is necessary for global collapse, whereas it is a simplifying assumption that is biased slightly in favour of collapse progression. And the interpretation of Heiwa's photos requires that you agree with his indentification of the collapse zone as a level some floors below that where collapse began.

Dave

 

[Heiwa]

Yes, well, real engineering isn't done in layman's terms. We need engineers to use specific language to be precise in what they are talking about.

And, common sense doesn't keep a building standing. There are a lot of things about structures, or probably any science, which are counter-intuitive, and you wouldn't understand them without the proper education.

No, real engineering specifications are best written in layman's terms using common sense - so that everybody to carry out the job understands them. I have done it 100's of times. Lawyers and business people may use another lingo for their activities.

 

[DC]

This is absolutely, positively absurd. Kevin Ryan lost his job for misrepresenting his status within Underwriters Laboratories, not for "speaking out against NIST". There are NO repurcussions for criticising NIST. None. Look at Dr. James Quintierre's and Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl's examples. Have they lost their jobs? Are they hounded by hordes of "NISTians"? No. Why? Because they built their critiques professionally and logically and based them on real concerns. Plus they didn't misrepresent their positions within their organizations. Not lying, and basing things in reality makes all the difference.

The reason we here criticize conspiracy peddler's myths about NIST is precisely because those folks are peddling myths about NIST. When criticism is substantive, there's nothing to rebut.

NIST isn't the mafia, people. Nor do the NIST reports comprise some Bible that requires adherence to doctrine. Again, Quintierre and Astaneh-Asl have severely criticized the report, and no one here's calling them heretics.

Get real about what constitutes genuine criticism and what constitutes fallacy. That's the difference between Ryan and the other two individuals.

it seems that outside JREF the no-claimers are more respected.

 

[DC]

Crush down/crush up is an approximation to simplify modelling. And this is Heiwa's most pervasive fallacy: he claims that every assumption Bazant makes is a necessary condition for global collapse. Therefore, he has repeatedly claimed that axial impact is necessary for global collapse, when it is in fact a simplifying assumption biased heavily in favour of survival of the structure; he claims that uniform density of the upper block is necessary for global collapse, when it is in fact a simplifying assumption with very little impact on survival of the structure; and he assumes that crush down/crush up is necessary for global collapse, whereas it is a simplifying assumption that is biased slightly in favour of collapse progression. And the interpretation of Heiwa's photos requires that you agree with his indentification of the collapse zone as a level some floors below that where collapse began.

Dave

nowadays we would not need such simplifications. and Bazant has alot of them in his theory. would bazant be a twooferkook and simplyfied in his favor that way, you would simply call him a fraud and liar.

 

[Minadin]

No, real engineering specifications are best written in layman's terms using common sense - so that everybody to carry out the job understands them. I have done it 100's of times. Lawyers and business people may use another lingo for their activities.

Specifications are written to be understandable by idiots. That's ok, because the people doing the work don't need to understand the principles behind why the design works.