• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York

Senenmut said:
heiwa-
i was wondering where ya got this info:
"It seems NIST have destroyed all records how they analysed and simulated the WTC7 structural failures as presented in its November 20, 2008, report. There is no calculations, etc, of any kind left by NIST to support the WTC7 final report! All destroyed ... if it ever existed."
Click to expand...

For details see my article at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm ! NIST has simply been asked to provide the info, so that their calculations and simulations can be verified, and NIST has informed no calculations exist.
 
Do you guys think that NIST used sponges and pizza boxes to make their report?
 
X said:
Heiwa?
Click to expand...

You asked: Why does the low density matter more than the large masses involved?

Let me re-phrase: Does the low density matter more than the large masses involved by gravity?

Answer: Evidently not! Gravity affects the mass, the density of the mass just affects the volume of the mass; the lower the density, the bigger the volume of the mass.

So the upper part of WTC1 - part C according BLGB - has a certain mass and a certain volume, the latter describes the uniform density of the mass. In reality the mass in question does not have this density. The mass consists of many parts with different densities. But assuming uniform density, we get a very low value. Part C is obviously mostly full of air!

When this mass - part C - drops and allegedly crushes other masses - part A - and forms an increasing layer of rubble - part B - it - part C - must conform to two basic principles of physics; that of conservation of energy (J) and conservation of momentum (kgm/s).

NIST ignores these principles, both in their 2008 Final Report about WTC7 and in their 2005 Final Report of WTC1/2.

The implications of these conservation principle are that the near free-fall crush-down and compression of masses allocated to part C cannot happen in a solely gravitational collapse or crush down of WTC1.

For that to happen the solid material making up part A must suddenly effectively "liquefy" into a form providing virtually no resistance to material falling from above - part C.

You see part C cannot near free fall and crush part A at the same time! It is as simple as that. And forming a layer or rubble - part B - that is also dropping - forget it.

The energy (J) and momentum (kgm/s) available from part C are too small; they can only produce some local structural failures to top of part A and bottom of part C and then the action is arrested.

NIST lamely suggests that the energy and momentum of part C are enormous (no calculations of course) and easily overcome any resistance provided by part A (lack of strain energy there - no calculations of course) but that suggestion is as valid as a three dollars bill.

The NIST report is clear evidence that US is bankrupt when it comes to basic science applied to a practical problem. It is really sad. Actually - all NIST reports are just a big conspiracy theory. I wonder why so many JREF members stand up and support that nonsense.
 
Last edited:
dtugg said:
I already did it. But for future reference, just go to the Stundie nominations thread in Conspiracy theories and quote the post.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Apart from sponges and pizza boxes let's now include a snow plough in the discussion. Snow plough? It clears away snow from roads. You know - it contacts the snow and because the plough normally is stronger than and inclined with regard to the snow, the snow is pushed aside. If the plough is not inclined but perpendicular to the snow, it just pushes the snow in front of the plough and more and more snow is compressed in front of the plough.

Now, let's assume that the upper part of WTC acts like a snow plough of the second version above - the one that compresses the snow - as assumed in the BLGB paper and that it is not working on a horizontal road but drops vertically into the snow. The driving force F of the plough with mass m is gravity g. It is free. F is then m*g. Let's assume the plough contacts the snow at velocity v. It then applies a momentum m*v on the snow ... and starts to compress the snow. The plough is evidently part C in the BLGB model.

Now it starts to get complicated - you need energy E to compress snow. Luckily we know the energy applied at start - it is m*v²/2 .

BLGB assumes that the snow is not only compressed. BLGB assumes that the compressed snow - part B in the BLGB theory - also obtains velocity v and assists the plough to compress more snow in front of the plough.

But that's an illusion. The snow is not moving with velocity v. It is just being compressed with velocity v - and gets denser and denser.

But - at a certain density of the snow - I agree - plough (part C) and snow (part B) act together on the snow (part A) and may compress more snow. But now it is evidently part B that compresses the snow (part A) with part C - the plough - pushing from behind.

So it is very simple - just calculate the energy required for part C - the plough - to compress the snow to form part B and see if it is sufficient to do the job. And also keep an eye on the momentum.

If part C continues to plough at increased velocity - momentum increases - you must ask yourself why? How is it possible? Energy is now doubt required to compress the snow and as this energy is only applied by gravity - part C dropping - there should be a reduction in velocity or rather acceleration of the plough during compression.

There is another problem to consider. The plough - part C - is not very strong! Its uniform density is less than the compressed snow's. Can it push part B and compress part A?

As I always say - drop anything on anything and see what happens. Now drop a push/crush plough on a big heap of snow and see how it compresses the snow!

Funny - after a while the plough stops on top of a layer of compressed snow! Gravity could not do the job.

I wonder why? According NIST it should not happen!

So before you award me the Stundie, do another one my experiments. The plough!
 
Last edited:
dtugg said:
Seriously Heiwa, are you an elaborate troll or actually crazy?
Click to expand...

It took you one minute to do the plough experiment? Please go out in the snow and push it. Use your physical strength. Don't hang on your PC 24/365. Out in the fresh air!!

Crazy? Me? You must be joking. I just encourage clear thinking, etc. using available things like sponges, pizza boxes, snow showels as illustrations.

Off you go - out in the snow!
 
Heiwa said:
Thanks. Apart from sponges and pizza boxes let's now include a snow plough in the discussion. Snow plough? It clears away snow from roads. You know - it contacts the snow and because the plough normally is stronger than and inclined with regard to the snow, the snow is pushed aside. If the plough is not inclined but perpendicular to the snow, it just pushes the snow in front of the plough and more and more snow is compressed in front of the plough.

Now, let's assume that the upper part of WTC acts like a snow plough of the second version above - the one that compresses the snow - as assumed in the BLGB paper and that it is not working on a horizontal road but drops vertically into the snow. The driving force F of the plough with mass m is gravity g. It is free. F is then m*g. Let's assume the plough contacts the snow at velocity v. It then applies a momentum m*v on the snow ... and starts to compress the snow. The plough is evidently part C in the BLGB model.

Now it starts to get complicated - you need energy E to compress snow. Luckily we know the energy applied at start - it is m*v²/2 .

BLGB assumes that the snow is not only compressed. BLGB assumes that the compressed snow - part B in the BLGB theory - also obtains velocity v and assists the plough to compress more snow in front of the plough.

But that's an illusion. The snow is not moving with velocity v. It is just being compressed with velocity v - and gets denser and denser.

But - at a certain density of the snow - I agree - plough (part C) and snow (part B) act together on the snow (part A) and may compress more snow. But now it is evidently part B that compresses the snow (part A) with part C - the plough - pushing from behind.

So it is very simple - just calculate the energy required for part C - the plough - to compress the snow to form part B and see if it is sufficient to do the job. And also keep an eye on the momentum.

If part C continues to plough at increased velocity - momentum increases - you must ask yourself why? How is it possible? Energy is now doubt required to compress the snow and as this energy is only applied by gravity - part C dropping - there should be a reduction in velocity or rather acceleration of the plough during compression.

There is another problem to consider. The plough - part C - is not very strong! Its uniform density is less than the compressed snow's. Can it push part B and compress part A?

As I always say - drop anything on anything and see what happens. Now drop a push/crush plough on a big heap of snow and see how it compresses the snow!

Funny - after a while the plough stops on top of a layer of compressed snow! Gravity could not do the job.

I wonder why? According NIST it should not happen!

So before you award me the Stundie, do another one my experiments. The plough!
Click to expand...

And his name again is Mr. Plough!
 
I'm confused as to what a 'big heap of snow' has to do with the bottom portion of the WTC. Heiwa, you seem to be the master of false analogies.
 
What comes to mind when Heiwa mentions snow is an avalanche....

How would you model that with pizza boxes and sponges, Heiwa?
 
twinstead said:
I'm confused as to what a 'big heap of snow' has to do with the bottom portion of the WTC. Heiwa, you seem to be the master of false analogies.
Click to expand...

The big heap of snow is the lower part - part A - of WTC1 in this analogy. The analogy is not too bad - the lower part of WTC1 has uniform density as per BLGB of snow and can be compressed. It could also be a sponge.

So we compress it with part C - the plough crushing down vertically (upper part of WTC1) - and a layer B is formed! OK, if part A was a sponge, no layer B would be formed; the whole part A would be compressed. But now part A is snow. And it is only compressed at contact with part C, so that part B forms - a layer of compressed part A.

Now - does anyone believe that part B - the compressed top part of part A - is accelerating? Or is it just compressed.

According BLGB/NIST part B is first compressed, then accelerates so it drops on part A again? Logic? Evidently not.

I understand you are confused by BLGB and NIST. It seems they believe that part A consists of storeys that can both be compressed and then can drop free fall!!??

The BLGB/NIST model must look like the following:

We have a lower structure part A with a subpart part A1 on top. Part C (the upper part of WTC1) drops (supports of part C are destroyed by fire/heat) on part A1 and compresses it, so part A1 becomes part B. OK? So far so good.

But why should now part C and part B drop again (!) on what remains on part A?

You follow? If not, go out, put your head in snow to cool it, and return to your PC!

OK - now you understand.

The only thing that can happen when you drop part C on part A with its top part A1 is that part A1 is compressed (and also lower part of part C - ignored by BLGB because BLGG assumes that part C is superstrong) and after that nothing else drops any more.

That's why you cannot destroy anything by dropping bit of anything on it.

Quite basic - NIST thought they could get away with it by writing 10 000 pages about something else. NIST wanted to be nice with their bosses. Tell them something they would like to hear! The public - you - NIST doesn't care the least about it.

I am never nice with bosses or clients. I tell them the truth and then they can cry and moan as they like. Sometimes they suggest that I change my report to something more pleasant ... a lie (!) but that would destroy my business.

NIST can do it because NIST is not really a business. It is a government authority and it can produce anything incl. lies.

Wake up!
 
To be fair, I wanted to try the snow plow experiment, but I wasn't going to do it unless I could get the simulation to be as close as possible to the actual state of the towers. I eventually had to give up because what I was using as the jet fuel wouldn't light the snow on fire.


Honestly, your quote here:

Heiwa: "Simple math + observations of videos prove the BLGB model and paper wrong."

Pretty much borks your credibility right from the start. The math is NOT simple, it's why engineers and architects go to school for so long. I'll even give you the benifit of the doubt, here: Your formulas might even be correct, but because of the complex nature of event, they're too coarse to be of any use.

The way the towers are built is far more complex than anything you could make with children's building blocks. You can't make your assumptions of how a collapse should look based on Pizza boxes.

But if it makes you feel better, the Collapse was, in fact, eventually arrested by the lower part of the building, when the pile was about 4 stories above street level.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom