Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

Status
Not open for further replies.
leftysergeant said:
No.

The debris falling inside the perimeter columns pushed them outward and broke the floors loose. It doesn't matter how much the columns could take verticlly. What matters most is how much they could take from the inside, andhow strong the brackets supporting the floor slabs were.
Click to expand...

What happened to the core columns there Lefty?
 
A W Smith said:
your late Tony
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q="missing+jolt"++site:randi.org&btnG=Search
Click to expand...

AW, sorry but I didn't have the time to discuss it everywhere. I chose to discuss it at Gregory Urich's forum. Frank Greening and Dave Benson, who have both been involved in papers on this topic with Zdenek Bazant, were involved in the discussion there.

I believe a link to the discussion, that was taking place on Gregory's forum concerning the paper, was provided on this forum.
 
Last edited:
leftysergeant said:
Theygot broken on the floor where the collapses originated. They were pounded by falling debris a the floors gave out

They shook themselves to pieces.
Click to expand...

Then there should have been a deceleration of the upper block when the core columns were pounded. Why isn't there one?
 
Tony, this is off topic, but I was shocked to **** when I read it. In the first line in your paper you claimed this:
Tony Szamboti said:
In the past two years there has been an exponential growth in the number of people questioning the explanations we have been given, by official U.S. government bodies, concerning the collapses of the three WTC buildings in NYC on 9/11/2001.
Click to expand...
Do you have a source for that?
 
:dl:
"Pre-positioned cutter charges"

Oh man, you sure know a lot about the demolition industry. :wackyrolleyes:
 
Thanks for proving progress8ve collapse Tony

Tony Szamboti said:
AW, sorry but I didn't have the time to discuss it everywhere. I chose to discuss it at Gregory Urich's forum. Frank Greening and Dave Benson, who have both been involved in papers on this topic with Zdenek Bazant, were involved in the discussion there.

I believe a link to the discussion, that was taking place on Gregory's forum concerning the paper, was provided on this forum.
Click to expand...


Yes tony. I saw where you you had your ass handed to you between Fri Jan 16, 2009 and Fri Apr 03
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/new-jones-paper-by-szamboti-and-graeme-macqueen-t119.html

Why would you expect to see deceleration "jolts" between your data points when there was a rotation and tilt of the upper floors? This tells us that the collision over an acre of floor area would not be instantaneous slap but a progressive crush wave spread out across the floor. Doesn't reading the replies in the thread I linked to from Benson, One White Eye, Greening and Dave Rogers cause you concern with your paper?

EDT: I went back and re-read a post by Ryan Mackey in the "debunk alert" thread
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4350623&postcount=73

In a controlled demolition. You would EXPECT to see a jolt because of the simultaneous cutting of columns. We don't see that, QED: progressive collapse due to gradual structural failure.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
AW, sorry but I didn't have the time to discuss it everywhere. I chose to discuss it at Gregory Urich's forum. Frank Greening and Dave Benson, who have both been involved in papers on this topic with Zdenek Bazant, were involved in the discussion there.

I believe a link to the discussion, that was taking place on Gregory's forum concerning the paper, was provided on this forum.
Click to expand...

I thought this was discussed here as well? I'm not up to date on my woo. ( I didn't even know Greg had a site?) From a quick read I'd say the data was interpolated over the point you are looking for and the FoS you quoted was well above what was quoted by both NIST and the designers. Not to mention any building codes I've ever seen. In the same breath I'm not sure what the FoS has to do with dynamic loads. I suppose I need to get up to speed.
 
A W Smith said:
Yes tony. I saw where you you had your ass handed to you between Fri Jan 16, 2009 and Fri Apr 03
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/new-jones-paper-by-szamboti-and-graeme-macqueen-t119.html

Why would you expect to see deceleration "jolts" between your data points when there was a rotation and tilt of the upper floors? This tells us that the collision over an acre of floor area would not be instantaneous slap but a progressive crush wave spread out across the floor. Doesn't reading the replies in the thread I linked to from Benson, One White Eye, Greening and Dave Rogers cause you concern with your paper?
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link. I must have seen this before and forgot. Either that or I'm pretty quick, because it seems to echo my statement that there's a tilt to consider and the data wouldn't necessarily indicate a jolt due to the sampling frequency (or error in measured distances).

Having failed at the 9/11 forum "many" months ago he's here now trying to get it incorported in Heiwa's fantasy challenge. Seems appropriate. :rolleyes:
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Then there should have been a deceleration of the upper block when the core columns were pounded. Why isn't there one?
Click to expand...
There was, but the video need about 100 to 300, all the way to 1000 frames per second to catch it. Your ideas on the WTC failed. 7 years and you can't figure out 911. Good job being all you can be; a failed 911Truth engineer, you and 0.0001 percent of all the engineers can't figure out 911. Failed ideas are few in engineering you and 911Truth have cornered the market on this delusion you have.


Tony, it comes down to bad physics for you. You can't do a proper study; what you are looking for is not to be found at video frames of 15 to 30 fps. 911Truth's failure to understand reality is expected how did you as an engineer fail and fall for delusions? Why can't you publish a paper and expose 911 as the big inside job with cutter charges, thermite and what every else Jones has dreamed up for you guys?

Since you and Heiwa are so right with your delusions and the rest of the 99.999 percent of all engineers are wrong with reality; you and 911Truth will have to take over the world to have your junk science prevail in a world dumbed down to your level of nonsense on 911.
 
Last edited:
Summary of Thread after 170 Postings.

In post #1 I explain why a one-way crush down process is not possible under any circumstances, sizes, scales, &c, where upper part C is <1/10A and C is dropped on A.

It also explains why controlled demolition companies do not drop top parts of buildings to demolish them. It doesn't work.

Actually if you even tried to drop C on A the result would just be one BIG JOLT and then immediate ARREST of C on A with a fair amount of local failures to A and C structure, iwo contact area unless C just bounced on A. But no one-way crush down of A by C.

I find it amazing that I have to explain this easy to understand phenomenons, jolt, arrest and bounce, to the public. Do people really believe that structures just collapse by themselves, when you drop a little piece of them on them selves?

Apparently they do! Probably because they watch too much TV where a lot of unreal things happen, a lot produced in Hollywood?

Even more surprising are all posters supporting the idea of structural one-way crush downs as common events. In their world, if you drop anything, it just continues to accelerate breaking everything in its way. If you tell them it is wrong, you are called .... many things! But crush-down. I would say it is a mental crush down. Somebody must have hit them on their heads and they crushed down.
 
3bodyproblem said:
Thanks for the link. I must have seen this before and forgot. Either that or I'm pretty quick, because it seems to echo my statement that there's a tilt to consider and the data wouldn't necessarily indicate a jolt due to the sampling frequency (or error in measured distances).

Having failed at the 9/11 forum "many" months ago he's here now trying to get it incorporated in Heiwa's fantasy challenge. Seems appropriate. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Poor Heiwa, proved wrong twice on 911. Priceless humor as we have a welder try his hand at engineering and inventing super fantasy engineering to help the delusions of the A&E for dumb ideas on 911. No idea is too dumb on 911 for Gage to turn down membership in his group out to present fraud and take donations.
 
Heiwa said:
In post #1 I explain why a one-way crush down process is not possible under any circumstances, sizes, scales, &c, where upper part C is <1/10A and C is dropped on A.

It also explains why controlled demolition companies do not drop top parts of buildings to demolish them. It doesn't work.

Actually if you even tried to drop C on A the result would just be one BIG JOLT and then immediate ARREST of C on A with a fair amount of local failures to A and C structure, iwo contact area unless C just bounced on A. But no one-way crush down of A by C.

I find it amazing that I have to explain this easy to understand phenomenons, jolt, arrest and bounce, to the public. Do people really believe that structures just collapse by themselves, when you drop a little piece of them on them selves?

Apparently they do! Probably because they watch too much TV where a lot of unreal things happen, a lot produced in Hollywood?

Even more surprising are all posters supporting the idea of structural one-way crush downs as common events. In their world, if you drop anything, it just continues to accelerate breaking everything in its way. If you tell them it is wrong, you are called .... many things! But crush-down. I would say it is a mental crush down. Somebody must have hit them on their heads and they crushed down.
Click to expand...

I was always worried that even if we debunked Bazant in a completely undeniable way the other side could just walk away and say 'well, it was just a hypothesis after all...no problem' What I am beginning to undertand is that it is not really a question of debunking Bazant. There IS no theory other than Bazant. Without Bazant it was definately a controlled demolition so the other side MUST stick with it or admit to that fact.

So we can drive the other side to ever more stretched and ridiculous claims in support of an indefensible hypothesis. They can only end up going (with their hands over their ears) ' Nah na ne-nah nah....I can't HEAR you).

Are we there in all but name already ?
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
I was always worried hat even if we debunked Bazant in a completely undeniable way the other side could just walk away and say 'well, it was just a hypothesis after all...no problem' What I am beginning to undertand is that it is not really a question of debunking Bazant. There IS no theory other than Bazant. Without Bazant it was definately a controlled demolition so the other side MUST stick with it or admit to that fact.

So we can drive the other side to ever more stretched and ridiculous claims in support of an indefensible hypothesis. They can only end up going (with their hands over their ears) ' Nah na ne-nah nah....I can't HEAR you).

Are we there in all but name already ?
Click to expand...

If you are, when will you do something beyond posting on the internet?
 
bill smith said:
I was always worried that even if we debunked Bazant in a completely undeniable way the other side could just walk away and say 'well, it was just a hypothesis after all...no problem' What I am beginning to undertand is that it is not really a question of debunking Bazant. There IS no theory other than Bazant. Without Bazant it was definately a controlled demolition so the other side MUST stick with it or admit to that fact.
Click to expand...

This is a classic example of conspiracy theorist denialism. There are two glaring fundamental errors in it. I'll try and explain both.

Firstly, Bazant's analysis is not only not the only collapse hypothesis, it isn't even intended to be an accurate model of the collapse. The concept of a limiting case has been explained so many times on this forum that it seems futile to try again, but I'll try. Bazant's collapse scenario is one which is unrealistically biased in favour of collapse arrest, and it is found that even in that biased scenario there is a considerable excess of energy over that required to collapse the structure. Therefore, in any realistic scenario, the excess of energy is even greater. If Bazant's model is shown to be an unrealistic depiction of the actual collapse, that's not disproving anything. The only valid criticism of Bazant would be if the actual collapse mechanism could be shown to be energetically even more unfavourable to collapse. However, it's clear from the actual evidence that the converse is the case; the energy requirements of the actual collapse were much less than those for Bazant's model.

Secondly, you're making the classic error of the false dilemma. Disproving a particular model of the collapse does not, and cannot, automatically prove a single alternative model of the collapse. If Bazant's model were invalidated, all it would prove is that Bazant's model of the collapse were not a good model, and that a better model was needed. This superior model would have to give a better explanation of all the observed phenomena than the Bazant model. The controlled demolition hypothesis (I'm being charitable in using the word "hypothesis", because there is effectively no fully developed hypothesis, just a general belief that the towers were demolished somehow) would automatically be excluded, because it is already known to give a worse explanation of all the observed phenomena than the Bazant model.

bill smith said:
So we can drive the other side to ever more stretched and ridiculous claims in support of an indefensible hypothesis. They can only end up going (with their hands over their ears) ' Nah na ne-nah nah....I can't HEAR you).
Click to expand...

That sounds strangely familiar, but it's not coming from this side of the debate.

bill smith said:
Are we there in all but name already ?
Click to expand...

Yes, you are, but not in the sense that you meant it.

Dave
 
A W Smith said:
Yes tony. I saw where you you had your ass handed to you between Fri Jan 16, 2009 and Fri Apr 03
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/new-jones-paper-by-szamboti-and-graeme-macqueen-t119.html

Why would you expect to see deceleration "jolts" between your data points when there was a rotation and tilt of the upper floors? This tells us that the collision over an acre of floor area would not be instantaneous slap but a progressive crush wave spread out across the floor. Doesn't reading the replies in the thread I linked to from Benson, One White Eye, Greening and Dave Rogers cause you concern with your paper?

EDT: I went back and re-read a post by Ryan Mackey in the "debunk alert" thread
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4350623&postcount=73

In a controlled demolition. You would EXPECT to see a jolt because of the simultaneous cutting of columns. We don't see that, QED: progressive collapse due to gradual structural failure.
Click to expand...

I'll even give you your tortured tilt explanation for the first floor there Smith. But what happens after that? There was no jolt for 114 feet that the upper block's fall was visible. Did it seesaw all the way down?

Your explanation is ridiculously tortured and without a basis. GRADUAL structural failure is not possible without an amplified load. You apparently don't understand that.

As for me getting my ass handed to me on Gregory Urich's forum, it seems that is in the eye of the beholder or should I say in the wishes of the beholder. There were a number of people who told me they saw it 180 degrees from the way you did.
 
bill smith said:
I was always worried that even if we debunked Bazant in a completely undeniable way the other side could just walk away and say 'well, it was just a hypothesis after all...no problem' What I am beginning to undertand is that it is not really a question of debunking Bazant. There IS no theory other than Bazant. Without Bazant it was definately a controlled demolition so the other side MUST stick with it or admit to that fact.

So we can drive the other side to ever more stretched and ridiculous claims in support of an indefensible hypothesis. They can only end up going (with their hands over their ears) ' Nah na ne-nah nah....I can't HEAR you).

Are we there in all but name already ?
Click to expand...

Bill, I think you are understanding the situation perfectly. As more evidence of controlled demolition comes to light, the Nah na na-nah nahs are actually heard in the ever more tortured explanations we are presently hearing from those who refuse to admit that those three NYC high rise buildings were brought down via controlled demolitions on Sept. 11, 2001.

You know total reality defying statements like like there was no jolt because there was a tilt and it was gradual, or there was no active thermite found in the dust it was just paint. Of course, these things are just thrown out there with very little to no basis for good reason, because there isn't any.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom