Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sounds simple enough to model it, ozeco. However, it fails. The concrete floors are supported as well as the concrete floors above. It's the same construction. The collapse would be arrested.

NIST tried that angle already. They failed also. Go figure.
 
Andrew; said:
A US stealth fighter apparently dropped a 500lb fin stabilised GPS guided lump of concrete on the roof, from 20,000ft altitude and the "9/11 physics crush down kinetic energy explosiveness theory" meant that the whole cave complex and entire mountain imploded in 6.66 seconds. Which is why this particular imaginary cave complex and evil bogeyman Osama was never found and why 9/11 kinetic energy physics is so very interesting.

Grizzly Bear; said:
What color is the sky in your world? I'm curious since apparently your physics analogies seem to equate buildings with mountains... truly a strange realm you delve into...

Well if the clearly hoax and non-existent honeycombed hollowed out mountain, bogeyman Osama Cave complex, genuinely exists in a hypothetical parallel universe, with strange physical properties like 9/11 physics, it could be pink sky with green clouds for all I would be able to tell you. Concrete and steel in the 9/11 universe is amazingly explosive, so why not mountains when hit by a quickly moving block of magically explosive American concrete?

Of course 9/11 physics introduced us 9/11 physics sceptics to a kind of Douglas Adams Hitchhikers Guide to an "Improbability Theory" for how concrete floors and steel frame buildings might conceivably behave in your US Regime narrative "true believer" kind of universe. We were told that a single "final-straw" truss connection, to either the core or perimeter columns, heated up, or a single truss heated up and this caused it "to sag" like plastic. It must have been a single truss because the fire heating to the underside of the initially failing floor was asymmetrical, so necessarily the fire heating effect was localised. This theoretical single sagging truss pulled away from the rigid floor pan above it, under its own weight alone, pulling the truss cross bracing with it, that was deliberately left out of the implausible animations that we were all shown. How did that happen? Who the hell knows!
coll_truss.gif

So, having sagged implausibly, there was a failure of the connections at one end of this initial sagging truss. Well OK, they said that the initial single "final straw" failure was at the perimeter columns rather than at the core, in the weird animation, which is clearly just a guess as a variable in the implausibility theory. This then meant that the weight of the square donut floor pan, with a rectangular hole in the centre, was suddenly supported, within the building, by just one too few trusses to carry that weight of just one floor. Well, something very odd happens next in the bizarre 9/11 physics universe.

Up to this point we were presented with steel behaving in a very ductile and indeed plastic manner, ostensibly because it became too hot. Some say that a "chimney effect" (that the building was designed specifically to avoid) caused localised heating to 1000C of the initial failing steel truss, that had unfortunately had the fireproof coating ripped off by the aircraft impact. Had the fireproof coating remained, the building would not have disintegrated. This localised heat also apparently caused the observed eutectic phenomena that required 1000C and some kind of forced, hurricane speed, air-input "chimney effect" to raise the temperature of the fire that high. Of course the dark black smoke actually indicated rather lower, oxygen starved, temperatures, than anything like 1000C.

So what happens when the final straw connection on the final straw, plastically sagging, truss breaks? Well all the steelwork connections, welds and bolts, suddenly stop being made out of ductile steel that is immensely strong in compression and tension. It suddenly becomes immensely brittle steelwork, as though it had just been super-cooled to absolute zero or something. Because all the other remaining steelwork truss connections to the core and perimeter columns, beneath this initial failing floor, simultaneously shattered within a fraction of one second! How did that happen? Who the hell knows! Just believe the authoritative magician hypnotist weaving his magical hypnotic spell over your mind!

Well, OK, we might let that pass as well, anyway, next step in the implausibility theory. The initial failing donut floor is now presumably, suddenly, symmetrically hanging unsupported in space, rather like a cartoon character that just ran off the edge of a cliff. Oops! Nowhere left to go but downwards, under the acceleration of gravity at 9.8m/s/s or 32ft/s/s. How far does the initial concrete floor pan have to fall before it hits the floor below? Only about 12 feet! But remember that even if all the truss connections to the perimeter and core columns suddenly failed in an impossibly brittle manner, the still rigid concrete floor pan would still experience friction. Serious friction as it slid down around the core columns and downwards inside the perimeter columns, so the acceleration of the initial floor pan downwards could not be friction free. Even forgetting the crushing and cushioning of the remaining un-burnt office material in the initial inter-floor pancake sandwich.

Sigh, my scepticism has been stretched well past breaking point already, but let us proceed with the pancake theory. As the initial floor impacts the floor below, not particularly swiftly because it did not have far to go (12ft) even if it fell in an implausible resistance free manner, it suddenly creates an unexpected kinetic energy explosion. Huh? Yes, the concrete floor pan poured onto a corrugated steel surface, reinforced by internal reinforcing steel bars and supported underneath by the both apparently brittle and ductile (simultaneously) steel truss and cross brace system, suddenly becomes kinetically explosive. As all of the potential energy in the weight of the initial floor pan is converted to kinetic energy explosiveness, from this first mutually annihilating impact, between these first two floors, with the floor above not moving downwards very quickly anyway. Wow, how did that happen? Who the hell knows! Perhaps they originally mixed mercury fulminate instead of concrete by mistake! So just believe the terrorist magician, weaving his magical hypnotic spell over your mind! Like the cheating husband caught in bed with his mistress, by his wife, "are you going to believe me, or your lying eyes?" Believe in the magic of 9/11 physics, you know it makes sense, because so many authoritative people have told your mind that it makes sense, and they gave you the maths variables to use and the maths works out just fine.

OK, so these first two floors slapped each other, not very quickly, and kinetically exploded in a mutually annihilating event. Whatever! This initial gravity fed "kinetic energy" blow out explosion, that we all witnessed, blows and breaks the perimeter columns out, at that level alone, and perhaps explosively blows some of the core columns inwards. This then leaves the remaining core columns suddenly overloaded. How do they react? Well in the case of WTC2 the north to south orientation of the core network of columns seems to encourage a tip eastwards, as though the rectangular core network was failing in an expected ductile rather than brittle manner. OK so far, but then the tipping over top suddenly explosively disintegrates upwards, faster than it can fall downwards, so that within 2 seconds or so, the tipped over top is nothing but a broiling mass of junk! Some of the exploding top shoots steelwork upwards and outwards, against the tendency for gravity to pull things downwards. Amazing, so much additional over-abundance of energy from gravity was available it seems we might be able to exploit this kind of phenomenon as a new energy source. This sudden loss of the top load does not seem to discourage the continuing mutually annihilating exploding pancake floor phenomena that rushes down the building, ripple-down explosive demolition, faster than the now disintegrated top load components can initially fall out of the sky, so faster than 32ft/s/s acceleration. Very odd indeed, but later the rate of ripple-down destruction slows a little so that the exploded falling top material can "catch up" to form a discrete curtain around the building, so hiding the final stages of the ripple-down low-resistance gravity-fed kinetic-energy explosive "collapse process".
wtc2_collapse_pops.jpg

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc2_collapse_pops.wmv

"You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on." G.W.B.

"Tell a Lie That is Big Enough, and Repeat it Often Enough, and the Whole World Will Believe It!" - Joseph Goebbels


 
"Tell a Lie That is Big Enough, and Repeat it Often Enough, and the Whole World Will Believe It!" - Joseph Goebbels
YES Goebbels, a dirt dumb NAZI, and 911Truth both like to spew lies until the weakminded fall for them! AI is repeating the lies of 911Truth like an open fire hydrant.

Why do 911Truth believers quote NAZIs idiots, the biggest losers in the world?

Why does 911Truth quote NAZIs when they need Einstein!?

Einstein depicts what most of the typical filled with failed ideas 911Truth believer use to figure out 911.
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.

One picture debunks AI and Heiwa!
Sag1.jpg
 
Hurrah for that photo, beachnut.

It debunks more or less anything nonsense-sellers have to say about 9/11.

Collapse from the impact sites and whole storeys buckling and crashing, one after another. End of story.

Bananaman
 
One picture debunks AI and Heiwa!
[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/Sag1.jpg[/qimg]

How does photo refute Why a one-way Crush down is not possible? Pls do not spam thread with off topic matter. Pls explain why you consider one-way crush downs are possible!
 
Hiewa:
How does photo refute Why a one-way Crush down is not possible?

Because it shows what was actually happening, you numpty, rather than your haphazard, upside down A,B abd C guff.

It shows several storeys buckling from the impacts and fires before giving way.

Have a problem with that?

Bananaman.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for posting this. To me this is much ado bout nothing. The term 'jolt' is just a way of describing the overwhelming impact of the upper block on the lower floor. And after pages and pages of material, the term is used only once....

I see no implication that resistance to this impact should be great enough to be visible as a sharp deceleration.
1) It certainly wasn't symetrical, making this effect less pronounced.
2)Without special hi-speed film you'd probably have no chance at getting the necessary resolution to see this anyway. You could map data points all day long, but that wouldn't help you.
3) There was weakened structure for several floors around the impact zone, which would tend to absorb energy in a more linear fashion.

There are a number of perfectly reasonable, plausible arguments that can be made why you wouldn't see this artifact. And worse, because the Bazant model is not the only one possible, finding fault with it proves absolutely nothing in terms of controlled demolition.

I found it amazingly ironic that Tony discounted the slower-than-freefall collapse as irrelevant to whether there was controlled demolition. How convenient, when he had earlier pointed to the 2.25s near freefall of WTC7 as some kind of proof of CD. That's just ridiculous. You can't have it both ways.
And STeven Jones goes on and on about freefall speed, or the phrase 'very rapidly' to support his crazy thermite hypothesis.
I mean, freefall speed is THE slogan of the 9/11 truth crowd. But it didn't happen with the WTC towers....oh well, it's still proof of controlled demolition anyway.... (groan)

On page 3 of Tony's paper they ask 'Why
not simply check for this deceleration?'
Perhaps the answer is that it is not expected. Tony seems to have confirmed that hypothesis while trying to prove his own.

The 1.0g acceleration of WTC 7's upper block initial movement and the 0.7g acceleration of the North Tower's upper block are not contradictory in any sense. An 8 story freefall of a steel framed structure the size of WTC 7 is almost by definition only possible through controlled demolition. It has never happened any other way and never will. On the other hand a 0.7g acceleration is not too slow for a controlled demolition to occur. It just means some insignificant minor resistance to the fall was left which was not nearly enough to stop the fall. A controlled demolition does not need to take out every column to be successful and that would be especially true when a high momentum doesn't need to be developed since columns on lower floors are being removed also, which is what was done in the twin towers. The collapse of the North Tower was done via continuous column removal. WTC 7 was a classic controlled demolition where the momentum gained by the upper block, through causing it to freefall for 100 feet, was used to then crush the lower block and itself.

I would be interesting to hear how you think a jolt(s), of the size and magnitude necessary, could take place without being visible. If you have now read that Addendum to Bazant and Zhou, they admit that smaller jolts would not be fatal. They also say these smaller jolts could only occur if the upper block were flexible, which it could only be if it was a small number of stories in height. However, it is highly likely that even these smaller jolts would be visible.

The Balzac-Vitry building's upper block was six stories and measurement of it's fall shows a very significant jolt at it's roof when it collides with the lower block. Yes, it decelerates only after it has an actual impact. There were no impacts of these magnitudes in the North tower and that could only be due to it's columns being removed artificially all the way through at least the first nine stories of the measureable fall.
 
Last edited:
Andrew, in 10,000 words or more, can you give Heiwa your view on crush down?

Not required. One way crush down not possible and did not happen anyway because the buildings blew up and the top load was explosively disassembled early on so was never a coherent contiguous falling hammer load in the first place. (40 words)
 


Not required. One way crush down not possible and did not happen anyway because the buildings blew up and the top load was explosively disassembled early on so was never a coherent contiguous falling hammer load in the first place. (40 words)

If that is your 40 word explanation, then might I suggest you go for the 10,000 word version, as this one makes no sense, and has not a shred of proof to back it up.

TAM:)
 
No Evidence? LOL

Tony:
You've had the reason explained to you in simple one syllable words in other threads. Apparently that was too complicated for you.
You have NO evidence. Now you're grasping at a 'jolt'! Don't you see how desperately hopeless that makes you loook.
I hate watching people skate in small circles on thin ice until they've cut out a hole to drown in, so do yourself a favour and don't do it.
Otherwise you'll just get demolished again and again and again, and you'll have learned nothing.
Bananaman

Bananaman, please explain to Tony and the rest of us for that matter, what produced this piece of evidence?
A section of an A36 wide flange beam retrieved from the collapsed World Trade Center Building 7 was examined to determine changes in the steel microstructure as a result of the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. This building was not one of the original buildings attacked but it indirectly suffered severe damage and eventually collapsed. While the exact location of this beam could not be determined, the unexpected erosion of the steel found in this beam warranted a study of microstructural changes that occurred in this steel. Examination of other sections in this beam is underway.
ANALYSIS

Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1,000ºC, forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge.Temperatures in this region of the steel were likely to be in the range of 700–800 °C (1,290–1,470 °F).
WTC_apndxC_img_1.jpg
WTC_apndxC_img_2.jpg



The evidence is there. FEMA has/had it. NIST ignored it. I emailed them and the email was posted in the public comments section about this steel. If they tested it or what their conclusions were regarding this evidence. They ignored my email like they ignored the evidence, just like you are ignoring the evidence!
Of course for the official collapse theory to stand, a lot of things have to be ignored. After all its the debunker's favorite tactic: Fallacy of Omission. And by omitting the evidence that has presented by Hewia, Tony, Dr. Jones, and many others, you allow yourself to believe the official theory: a pseudo-politico-faith based science more akin to religion than true science.
 
Szamboti, someone who looks at the sharp declines in acceleration in WTC1, who measures movement of a huge structure from the rear of the descent rather than the leading edge, who looks at the Balzac-Vitry and doesn't understand that deceleration is only happening during the crush-up phase, who then puts all of his idiocy into a whitepaper and publishes it in a online 9/11 science journal and calls it peer reviewed...

This person should be careful throwing the adjective "pathetic" around.
 
If you accept- as you must that the top block was of an identical sconstruction with the bottom block you will realse that you cannot say that the top was an 'almost rigid blody' witout accepting that the lower 90% was an even more rigid body being rooted in the ground.

ae911toppic.gif
 
bill:

that has been linked here many times, and is FAR FROM NEW. The date of the film is September 11th, 2006!!!

TAM:)
 
Last edited:
so let me guess this straight:

a complete top down crush is impossible....therefore it was done by explosives by the NWO. why did they do this? to minimize damage to neighboring structures?

so the evil NWO, who wanted to make as big a tragedy as possible, let 35,000 people escape the WTC, and then made sure the collapse would leave as many neghboring structures intact as possible?

is the NWO evil...or not? are you guys now arguing that they have a conscionse? they wanted a tragedy..but not such a big one??
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom