But, frankly, we've all ripped your "articles" to shreds and all you've done is ignore the technical criticism or - and this always makes me chuckle - answer with a structural "analysis" so bad as to be best described as technically incompetent. In fact, you've failed to provide any credible structural analysis whatsoever.
Moderated Steel structures cannot globally collapse due to gravity alone
- Thread starter Heiwa
- Start date
But, frankly, we've all ripped your "articles" to shreds and all you've done is ignore the technical criticism or - and this always makes me chuckle - answer with a structural "analysis" so bad as to be best described as technically incompetent. In fact, you've failed to provide any credible structural analysis whatsoever.
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
I am worried, Bjorkman: about you. Every time someone shows you the real events in the real world that refute your nonsense, you cover your eyes and pretend they don't exist.
Real events in the real world, Bjorkman. Why do you fear them so?
I'll demonstrate yet again: tell us the minutes and seconds in the first video clip I posted above, when the detonation(s) occurred that initiated the south tower collapse. Show us how your fantasy stacks up against real events in the real world.
Here's the clip. Exactly when did the detonations occur that brought down this tower?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2873871255585611926#1m10s
As a reminder, here's 34 kg of RDX detonating.
I'm waiting. Don't be afraid.
Last edited:
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Because (a) you'll say it wasn't an e-mail, (b) you'll reply to it and then pretend you never saw it, and (c) you'll say "Phrased as a question, please!" You've established your lack of integrity so many times over that there's nothing much left to do now but point it out to the casual observer.
Referring to yourself in the third person, now, that's new. That suggests all sorts of interesting psychological conditions.
Dave
Indeed I do. A closed model would exclude explosives if you are testing a gravity driven progressive collapse. Would it not?
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
I don't think that anyone disputes a wide debris field, but rather it's the "hurled" that might be open to debate is it suggests - to me, at least - a straightforward 600 foot vector for substantial building elements rather than (say) at low level as a result of falling a hundred stories or so. But that's just my tuppence worth.....
Drs_Res
NWO Acorn Hoarder
Okay gentlemen and women,
We need to speak to Christopher7 in his own language and or use his own reasoning.
Christopher7,
Show me the video that shows a piece of the steel being "ejected".
I have watched the videos, hell, I watched in real time in 2001. I never have seen large chunks of outer or inner columns "ejected" or "hurled" 600 feet out from the tower.
I saw the outer parts of the tower "peel away" from the building as the towers collapsed.
I watched as the remaining inner core stood there and eventualy came down since they were long pieces and mostly unsupported.
So put up or shut up, show me the video of these large pieces of steel being "hurled" or "blown away" 600 feet from the building.
You can't.
We need to speak to Christopher7 in his own language and or use his own reasoning.
Christopher7,
Show me the video that shows a piece of the steel being "ejected".
I have watched the videos, hell, I watched in real time in 2001. I never have seen large chunks of outer or inner columns "ejected" or "hurled" 600 feet out from the tower.
I saw the outer parts of the tower "peel away" from the building as the towers collapsed.
I watched as the remaining inner core stood there and eventualy came down since they were long pieces and mostly unsupported.
So put up or shut up, show me the video of these large pieces of steel being "hurled" or "blown away" 600 feet from the building.
You can't.
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
There is one small problem with the "ejecta argument": HE detonations don't particularly hurl things anywhere. In fact, they tend to do the opposite; they break structures, but larger parts remain in position.
The many shots of controlled domolitions in Gravy's two links above show this very clearly. In particular, notice the steel bridge: In effect, the whole structure remains suspended in mid-air for a fraction of a second, then falls down. If demolition charges hurled large parts for hundreds of feet, then that bridge would be all over the landscape.
So what was that force that ejected large chunks of debris out from the WTC towers as they collapsed? It was exactly the opposite of a demolition: It was a largely intact structure buckling and braking under the force of wreckage crashing down on it. Some of the energy went into crushing and breaking the structure, some was deflected into flying parts.
Take a cofee mug (not your favorite), and drop it on a hard floor. Do the shards end up in a nice little heap or are they all over the floor?
Hans
Last edited:
Sorry - you have not ripped any of my articles at all to shreds. While you have been posting on JREF I actually improve my articles to debunk NIST and Bazant based on input I get.
You are OT as usual. Copy/paste anything I write in my articles and prove it wrong!
Disbelief
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2007
- Messages
- 3,608
To add to this, Chris should be able to tell us (and provide evidence) of what the debris field should look like in a progressive collapse. If he is saying that the field proves explosives because of this debris field, he should have some comparison to show how it would look like without them.
Heiwa is the nice guy that participates on JREF with funny parables and analogies of pizza boxes, sponges, lemons and so on that are supposed to be crushed by gravity alone according NIST (PE > SE). So Heiwa apply the Bazant model to these easy to visulize objects ... and nothing is crushed by gravity. Why is that. He never gets any sensible answers.
Reason is that pizza boxes, sponges, lemons and so on are quite difficult to crush at all and that gravity alone cannot do it.
Heiwa has just got some new steel sponges to clean his kitchen. They will never crush themselves by gravity alone but are useful to clean sinks and toilets, etc.
Bjorkman is also nice but more serious and he appears on his web site http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm and there subject is not pizza boxes but WTC 1 structural parts C (the top) and A (the lower structure). As these articles are for the general public they are in a clear simple language with necessary calculations to back up the conclusions. Comments are always welcome.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
I tried that a few weeks ago. You responded by lying about your calculations, and then pretended you'd never seen my post. You are a small child, standing on a chair in the pantry, his arm inserted up to the elbow in the cookie jar, telling his mother without a shred of guilt that he's really out in the garden playing football and has never stolen a cookie in his life.
Dave
NutCracker
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2008
- Messages
- 654
The Truther's dictionary
Interesting. A model is a good model, not because its behaviour matches that of the phenomenon under consideration, but because its behaviour is consistent with the desired conclusion. There is some logic, albeit twisted and insane, to the madness.
Something analogous goes for evidence, analysis (think the recent "no 31g jolt" paper) and Truth.
Allow me to quote the Truther's dictionary:
analysis A string of arguments that is followed by a conclusion consistent with the Truth (see: Truth).
anomaly Discrepancy between a personal opinion, an analysis (see: analysis), evidence (see: evidence), or model (see: model) and primary material such as photographs and video footage that is consistent with the Truth (see: Truth)
evidence Factlet possibly remotely and/or superficially, consistent with the Truth (see: Truth) or an anomaly (see: anomaly),.
model A physical phenomenon of which the behaviour is consistent with the Truth (see: Truth).
Truth Fantasy.
Interesting. A model is a good model, not because its behaviour matches that of the phenomenon under consideration, but because its behaviour is consistent with the desired conclusion. There is some logic, albeit twisted and insane, to the madness.
Something analogous goes for evidence, analysis (think the recent "no 31g jolt" paper) and Truth.
Allow me to quote the Truther's dictionary:
analysis A string of arguments that is followed by a conclusion consistent with the Truth (see: Truth).
anomaly Discrepancy between a personal opinion, an analysis (see: analysis), evidence (see: evidence), or model (see: model) and primary material such as photographs and video footage that is consistent with the Truth (see: Truth)
evidence Factlet possibly remotely and/or superficially, consistent with the Truth (see: Truth) or an anomaly (see: anomaly),.
model A physical phenomenon of which the behaviour is consistent with the Truth (see: Truth).
Truth Fantasy.
Last edited:
GStan
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2007
- Messages
- 1,350
Yes there was a wide debris field. That is not characteristic of CDs. Judging by your arguments in 10SH thread, (the first one), it seems that you are simultaneously suspsicious of cd in 1 & 2 because of the wide debris field and suspicious of cd in 7 because it fell largely within its own footprint.
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
Right. The question is, how much?
Bazant considers the energy needed to crush and pulverize but not the energy necessary to eject a great deal of mass, including 4 ton frame sections, up to 600 feet.
Someone here calculated the amount of explosives it would take to do the job. They estimated it would require a great deal of energy.
The amount of energy would be substantial. Bazant did not take this significant factor into consideration.
ETA: Nor did he did not subtract the ejected material in his calculations.
"Furthermore, l = height of compacted layer B, μc = specific mass of compacted layer B per unit height, which is considered to be constant and equal to the maximum possible density of compacted debris; m(z) = cumulative mass of the tower above level z of the crushing front (m(z) = m0 + μcl); and Fc = resisting force = energy dissipation per unit height;
Last edited:
BigAl
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 5,397
Since thermate/thermite/nano-anything can't "propel" anything and nobody heard any man-made explosives go off, what else is there besides gravity ?
Where did the "600 ft' claim come from? Cite, please.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Chris, do you still maintain that, in a gravitational collapse, the 30,000 ton upper section should have been ejected 208 feet so as to fall off the top of the lower section? If so, can you explain why a gravitational collapse should have been unable to eject a mass 7500 times smaller a mere three times further?
Dave