WTC collapses - Layman's terms again

Dictator Cheney said:
Do you understand the "collapses" or do you trust on those that claim to understand them and claim to prove the towers had no chance to survive?
Click to expand...
What I claim is that Anders Bjorkman lied. It wasn't just a little lie, either. Oh, no, no. It was a big big lie.

He wants people to read his article and take his gibberish seriously. To that end, he told the world, via this forum, that his paper was peer-reviewed. He did that to deceive us. If his paper had actually been peer-reviewed and published in some obscure "HC journal" somewhere, I would have been very interested to read it and examine the evidence contained in it. Knowing it was peer-reviewed would have led me to believe it had been fully vented through a rigorous scientific process and worthy of professional review. That's what Mr. Bjorkman wanted us to believe, so he lied.

And he keeps asserting this lie. He has not once retracted his assertion.

If he is willing to lie about this, who's to say his paper isn't stuffed full of crapiola?

It is time to wind this thread down. Heiwa's paper is a reject. Thank you for playing our little game. Maybe we can play again sometime.
 
Newtons Bit said:
It's because the lower part is still in the elastic stress region and the upper part goes into the plastic region. Simply put, the floors below the topmost stay "springy" and the one at the top buckles and breaks.

The energy required to compress the lower part of the tower does not simply vanish. If you take a normal spring, put a load on it then release it, it bounces back and forth. The lower tower does this.
Click to expand...

but why dont we have that "effect" on both sides, in diffrent ratios? in the lower part/tower/spring AND in the upper part/tower/spring? why do only the impacted columns buckle and brake, but not the impacting columns?
 
Last edited:
Dumb All Over said:
What I claim is that Anders Bjorkman lied. It wasn't just a little lie, either. Oh, no, no. It was a big big lie.

He wants people to read his article and take his gibberish seriously. To that end, he told the world, via this forum, that his paper was peer-reviewed. He did that to deceive us. If his paper had actually been peer-reviewed and published in some obscure "HC journal" somewhere, I would have been very interested to read it and examine the evidence contained in it. Knowing it was peer-reviewed would have led me to believe it had been fully vented through a rigorous scientific process and worthy of professional review. That's what Mr. Bjorkman wanted us to believe, so he lied.

And he keeps asserting this lie. He has not once retracted his assertion.

If he is willing to lie about this, who's to say his paper isn't stuffed full of crapiola?

It is time to wind this thread down. Heiwa's paper is a reject. Thank you for playing our little game. Maybe we can play again sometime.
Click to expand...

after i read the quotes on that link to patriotsq911 i agree that he made very wrong statements. about plane debris. sounds to me like a noplaner.

but after WMD lies/wrongintel debakel i will not label it a lie. the standard has changed. i hope its changing back soon.

i guess he took conclusions based on very wrong "intel".
i hope noone dies do to his "lies/wrongintel"

i didnt notice in the articel he linked to that he is a noplaner.
 
peteweaver said:
When you drop a concrete breezeblock on your foot, does your foot resist the impacting force ? Or would you agree that your foot is not designed to withstand the force of breezeblocks falling on it ?

The upper section of the twin towers falling onto the floors beneath, was a tad heavier than dropping a small steel spring onto the ground.
Click to expand...

well replace my foot with a bigger concrete block you want to drop on my feet. then we talk again.
 
pomeroo said:
Here's a sunburst: I cannot possibly remember everything that is said on the shows I host.

Here is what Mark wrote:

"One of the benefits of my work is that I sometimes get tours behind the scenes in a wide range places: theaters, TV studios, skyscraper mechanical systems, power plants, laboratories, museums, and exhibits.

The pieces of WTC aluminum I handled had characteristics of having cooled while falling in the air (I suppose falling through water is also a possibility). The curator said to me "I bet you can't guess what this is," but I guessed right away. This was before I knew of the conspiracy nonsense or the video of molten material coming from the south tower.

There is a place where the public can handle small debris from Ground Zero: steel, glass, and rubble (which has been cleared for this purpose by investigators and by families). I'm not going to advertise it here because I'm certain that 9/11 deniers would steal these things. People can PM me if they want to visit that place.

At Ground Zero, on Liberty Street next to FDNY 10 House there is a small exhibit that includes large pieces of structural steel, the battered uniform of a fallen firefighter, part of an aircraft fuselage, metal that has melted and cooled (appears to be mostly aluminum), and other artifacts from the towers. Tribute 9/11 WTC Visitor Center (http://www.tributewtc.org/)"

We conclude, then, that Mark told the truth, and--surprise!--the liars were attempting to twist his words. As usual, I am left wondering why you, a fantasist, would call attention to a statement that lends no support whatever to the false claims of your evil movement.
Click to expand...

The question was, why wasn't this aluminum turned over to NIST or FEMA so they could attempt verify its source and its actual condition? How was Mark able to verify that this was from the same material that was leaking out of the 82nd floor of the South Tower before it collapsed?
 
interesteing thing is that so many ppl want to drop something big and havy, moslty solid, on something softer,smalles, not so strong, to "demonstrate" the "collapses".
thats what logic tells us.
but how much more solid, bigger and stronger was the upper part of the tower? compared to the lower part of that very same tower?
 
Last edited:
Dictator Cheney said:
interesteing thing is that so many ppl want to drop something big and havy, moslty solid, on something softer,smalles, not so strong, to "demonstrate" the "collapses".
thats what logic tells us.
but how much more solid, bigger and stronger was the upper part of the tower? compared to the lower part of that very same tower?
Click to expand...


I often ask this question of twoofers, without ever receiving a satisfactory answer. There are, as you've no doubt noticed, several extremely bright engineers and architects on this forum. Why don't you believe what they write? Seriously? Do you think that they're all missing something simple?
 
pomeroo said:
Seriously? Do you think that they're all missing something simple?
Click to expand...

The 'truth' movement is founded on the arrogant assertion that the rest of the world is missing something simple and obvious.

'Truthers' have always delighted in telling people what to see on their youtube videos and telling people what to conclude from their quote mining.

But it's a strange kind of world the 'truthers' inhabit because obviously the whole world wasn't in on the conspiracy, and yet..... the evidence is all so obvious why can't we all see it?

I am also intrigued by the 'truther' mentality that does not allow them to even admit that the slightest possibility exists for the wtc towers to have collapsed through the damage caused by the plane impacts and the subsequent fires. There appears to be no room for doubt in the 'truther' mind on this, and yet with such certainty on the subject they still can't find any decent structural engineers to do the necessary calcs to back them up.
 
stateofgrace said:
Really?

So why doesn't a car accelerate to light speed? Air resistance?
Click to expand...
Yes + friction between tyres and road. And lack of energy. Force F must be applied for quite a long time and I assume you run out of fuel. Force times distance displaced = energy.
 
Dictator Cheney said:
erm ok, Heiwa, in case you are indeed Anders Björkman. Do you doubt the impact of airplanes `?
Click to expand...

It is not the subject of my article but two links on the last two lines of it are quite interesting. On 911 I was at Freiberg, Saxony without any TV, so I have to rely on later, independent analysis of videos of the event by news media. The news appear strange to say the least. Reminds me of DDR (or GDR for Americans). Glück auf with your computer model.
 
peteweaver said:
Because due to structural failiure, the upper section became a dynamic load, and fell onto the floors below with such force that they couldn't withstand the blow, and they too failed falling onto the floors below them, which failed and fell.

Its not rocket science.
Click to expand...

So you didn't read the article? The upper section disappears early in the action. And not even NIST support your old FEMA fantasy of dropping floors - the pancake theory - any longer. Now we are talking near free fall, impact, rigid/solid upper block, lack of strain energy of the lower structure (but plenty of it in the upper structure), shock waves, ... and other interesting matters (x,y,z,u,v,w). All impossible and not seen or proven. I just suggest that there cannot be any free fall and if there are local failures up top and the upper section moves down, some floors up there will be sliced up and the demolition will soon be arrested as gravity alone cannot produce what we see on the videos.
 
pomeroo said:
I often ask this question of twoofers, without ever receiving a satisfactory answer. There are, as you've no doubt noticed, several extremely bright engineers and architects on this forum. Why don't you believe what they write? Seriously? Do you think that they're all missing something simple?
Click to expand...

It is possible, isn't it? Collapse arrest seems to have been overlooked. So I raise the topic in this link (message #1).
 
pomeroo said:
I often ask this question of twoofers, without ever receiving a satisfactory answer. There are, as you've no doubt noticed, several extremely bright engineers and architects on this forum. Why don't you believe what they write? Seriously? Do you think that they're all missing something simple?
Click to expand...

Arent you talking to alot NIST engineers and others?

did you ask that question to them?

what is theyr answer that satisfied you?
 
Heiwa said:
It is not the subject of my article but two links on the last two lines of it are quite interesting. On 911 I was at Freiberg, Saxony without any TV, so I have to rely on later, independent analysis of videos of the event by news media. The news appear strange to say the least. Reminds me of DDR (or GDR for Americans). Glück auf with your computer model.
Click to expand...

no its indeed not a subject of your paper.
i also did not have any TV Coverage in the first few hours.
when it happened i was between Bejing and Shanghai.
the only thing i knew from some Chinese was that the WTC towers was hit by Airplanes. and after seeing the videos i never saw a reasson to doubt those planes.
and i never did find any "video analysis", i did see indeed "docu's" like septemberclues or 911tabu, but i dont call that an analysis.

i dont doubt the planes. i do doubt Bazant's Gravity driven progressive collapse.

but we agree about the collapse :) and this topic and your paper is about the collapse not the impact damage.
and i still like your paper into it.

and i think it is a good idea you let it peerreview here by the JREFers.
 
Panoply_Prefect said:
Heiwa is a fullblown noplaner - just google this site.
Click to expand...

?? Me, a no planer? After having read http://www.rense.com/general63/wtcc.htm and other sites it seems something flying with only one engine hit WTC 2 so that the engine could fly on to Murray street and land there. Question is on what type of air vehicle it was fitted 30 seconds earlier? Should be easy to establish. But topic is the WTC1 collapse.

On the other hand - a jet engine flying through a steel structure - evidently proves that the steel structure is mostly full of air (and not solid, rigid, uniform density, etc).
 
my "gutfeeling" says the second engine was somewhere "in" the core or i even can imagen it falling down the elevator shafts (the massive parts of such a turbine)

it will be much more damaged than the other engine on the street, because it hit the core beams. and when the "massive shaft" hits the columns, you have a very fast penetrator. it will simply "ripp" apart the steel. but i think it will be heavey damaged and "deflected" and not leave the building, like the other engine that only hit 2 lines of steel columns which it can penetrate without that significant "resistance"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom