WTC 1 & 2. What happened after collapse initiation?

Tsig said:
Very well, do disc brakes float?
Click to expand...

I know Heiwa is annoying but your way of discussing is not helping.

I don't know how you are able to continue this debate. It's just an old recycling of long stated facts followed by total ignorance of these simple facts by Heiwa. I'm just assuming that there is no kind of evidence that is able to convince him but if we stop debating he would just claim a mindboggling victory of stupidity by attrition.

The interesting thing about you, Heiwa, is that you seem to know something about steel structures. Why don't you accept that there are people who know more about buildings than you? Why do you seem to be unable to question your own results? Why do you continue to use long debunked "facts" about 9/11?

You remind me of the driver who questions the radio warning about a wrongway driver because he sees dozens of them coming his way.
 
Last edited:
PhantomWolf said:
what amazes me is that Heiwa can claim that the following:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/1557948aa121b8c4ee.jpg[/qimg]

could actually stop 10 stories of mass falling onto it and do it with a straight face.
Click to expand...

why not show some plans from the core?
 
Dictator Cheney said:
why not show some plans from the core?
Click to expand...


Heiwa is wise to ignore my repeated reminders of his staggering blunder. What about you? Do you agree with him that dropping the top third of a building onto the bottom two-thirds from a great height does not destroy the whole structure? He claims that Newton would have supported his preposterous error. What do you think?
 
OlbarStein said:
I know Heiwa is annoying but your way of discussing is not helping.

I don't know how you are able to continue this debate. It's just an old recycling of long stated facts followed by total ignorance of these simple facts by Heiwa. I'm just assuming that there is no kind of evidence that is able to convince him but if we stop debating he would just claim a mindboggling victory of stupidity by attrition.

The interesting thing about you, Heiwa, is that you seem to know something about steel structures. Why don't you accept that there are people who know more about buildings than you? Why do you seem to be unable to question your own results? Why do you continue to use long debunked "facts" about 9/11?

You remind me of the driver who questions the radio warning about a wrongway driver because he sees dozens of them coming his way.
Click to expand...

Who says we're here to help. Sometimes education is hard.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Where does NIST claim that the floors will stop the mass? They actaully claim that the seats on both ends will break free and the truss will fall with the top part. You are the one seems to be claiming that the thin welded metal seats on each end are so strong they can hold up to being landed on by the upper mass, in fact so strong that not only can the seats hold up, but that they would hold up when the concrete and steel floor failed and then so strong that they'd arrest the collaspe.
Click to expand...
Nowhere! I claim the locally damaged floors will arrest the destruction. Only one end fails, the other is intact and the floor hinges down. You see, when something is damaged it is normally only in one location. Pls read my articles at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm .
 
OlbarStein said:
The interesting thing about you, Heiwa, is that you seem to know something about steel structures. Why don't you accept that there are people who know more about buildings than you? Why do you seem to be unable to question your own results? Why do you continue to use long debunked "facts" about 9/11?
Click to expand...

What people?
 
pomeroo said:
Heiwa is wise to ignore my repeated reminders of his staggering blunder. What about you? Do you agree with him that dropping the top third of a building onto the bottom two-thirds from a great height does not destroy the whole structure? He claims that Newton would have supported his preposterous error. What do you think?
Click to expand...

are you stll running around with dropping it from 2 miles?:boggled: would you even hit the lower part of the building?
 
Its called a thought experiment, DC. What do you THINK would happen to a building under those circumstances. Please answer, or at least ask for clarification if anything is unclear.
 
Heiwa said:
Hm, so how does a disc brake work?
Click to expand...

Hydraulics.

I was quoting YOU when I said gravity times the coefficient of friction. That was your lame answer in response to me asking for your friction calculation for a column punching through the floor.
 
Heiwa said:
See my paper where the WTC1 upper block compresses say 20 metres with little smoke ejection before lower structure destruction starts. There seems to be an implosion.
Click to expand...

Why would I even bother reading a paper that makes a claim so clearly contrary to reality. The videos all show the lower block destruction starts as soon as the upper block starts to move.
 
Heiwa said:
Nowhere! I claim the locally damaged floors will arrest the destruction. Only one end fails, the other is intact and the floor hinges down. You see, when something is damaged it is normally only in one location. Pls read my articles at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm .
Click to expand...

You actually think those truss seats would hold up to being used as hinges?
 
What am i missing here, the upper block was literally blown to bits, and a very good portion of it blown outside the footprint of the PERFECTLY INTACT lower structure of the building.

There was a velvet foot, at best, to stomp on the lower structure of the building.

Anybody who looks at that upper section being blown to bits, and thinks whats left of it would cause the rest of the building to dissapear should sue the docor who performed they're lobotomy.

I honestly dont see how somebody can defend that story with a straight face.
 
Thing is roundhead, the bits that fall outside the footprint fall faster than the bits that fall inside the footprint. This can easily be seen as large chunks do start to break away later in the collapse. But as the upper block initially descends, there are no significant chunks seen falling away, just smoke.
 
TheRedWorm said:
Its called a thought experiment, DC. What do you THINK would happen to a building under those circumstances. Please answer, or at least ask for clarification if anything is unclear.
Click to expand...

i think it will fall down to the ground. in the direction of gravity :D
 
roundhead said:
What am i missing here, the upper block was literally blown to bits, and a very good portion of it blown outside the footprint of the PERFECTLY INTACT lower structure of the building.

There was a velvet foot, at best, to stomp on the lower structure of the building.

Anybody who looks at that upper section being blown to bits, and thinks whats left of it would cause the rest of the building to dissapear should sue the docor who performed they're lobotomy.

I honestly dont see how somebody can defend that story with a straight face.
Click to expand...

Blown to bits? You mean by the thermite?
 
Dictator Cheney said:
what is dishonest about it? did i get the direction wrong? or will it not fall down?
Click to expand...


Ron asked what would happen to the lower 2/3rds of the building after being struck by the upper 1/3rd of said building being dropped from a height of 2 miles. Care to answer that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom