Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

[Grizzly Bear]

I think that Heiwa understood the analogy when he said:
Topic link. Heiwa: "It seems this thread Why a one-way Crush down is not possible of the WTC 1 or any structure (small top crushing big bottom) has developed into a discussion about what happened to same structure, if it were crushed by an object laterally, e.g. a plane full of fuel (and people) up top at impact speed about 200 m/s. The vertical crush down is only initiated at 8.5 m/s, but let's compare lateral/vertical impacts."

Um... wha!? Wow... just wow... is Heiwa seriously trying to differentiate events purely through acceleration and velocity?

I get this itchy feeling that you both are missing some issue dealing with mass... That might be kind of important...

Practically no resistance whatsoever! Galileo is reported to have dropped a ten-pound mass and a one-pound mass off the top of Leaning Tower of Pisa in Italy, and he showed that both fell at the same speed. Of course, a more general principle was being demonstrated that objects of any weight (mass) fall at the same speed (with the same acceleration).

Suppose he dropped a strong cubic 10lb magnet off the top that crashed down through 90 steel 1lb plates suspended on sheets of glass, spaced at 1ft intervals on the way down?


The weight of the accumulating mass of the falling magnetic object would end up as 100lb but the 1lb mass in free fall would beat it by a long time difference, and "stutter" would be very apparent early on at the start of the "collapse process".

Like the falling debris in this picture?

Now IMO you probably genuinely do believe, with absolute certainty and blind faith, that you are correct and that virtually resistance free kinetic energy explosiveness accounts for the phenomena that we witnessed on 9/11

You're certainly entitled to your opinions... however you're basing your opinion on a wrongful interpretation of facts.

and were virtually instantly told was the result of low-resistance-gravity-fed-kinetic-energy-explosiveness

I have no idea where explosiveness comes into play as far as the collapse progression is concerned... What do you think should have happened when the impact regions failed? I ask because Ct'ists often have varying answers; some argue that the top should have fallen off like a tree, and others argue that it should have arrested in place. Others still argue that it would "bounce" on the lower structure... and still others argue that the top would have been totally disintegrated leaving everything below the impact regions unharmed.

 

[Dave Rogers]

After the top of WTC2 started to tip over Eastwards (perhaps due to some mistimed North South oriented core demolition work with cutter charges) I would NOT have expected the top to explode in all directions at once, up, down, sideways, "because of gravity".

That's nice, because it didn't.

I might have expected it to continue to topple over rather than explode, had the event been caused and had developed by "natural causes".

That's nice, because it did.

Look, the idea is to try and start from what did happen on 9/11 and develop a conspiracy theory from it. If you start by making up stuff that didn't happen, it makes the game too easy.

Dave

 

[GlennB]

.... Now, if you genuinely perceive the same visual data "on offer" in a radically different manner from the way that I do (or "my camp" or "political party" in this Hegelian Dialectic does) then we do not need a "conspiracy theory". We need a theory of human psychology, perception and altered states of consciousness....

No. You need to be able to look at a photo or video and see that a cloud of dust was left hanging behind the collapse zone, rather than being blown out above the collapse zone. No complex mind-control psychological theory is required.

p.s. do you think "The Coup" had secret advance info on the 9/11 plot?

 

[leftysergeant]

Good, back on topic Why a one-way Crush down is not possible.

So momentum transfer suddenly makes one-way crush down possible of a small part C of a bigger part A of same structure? Simple physics and math?

The stupid just reeks here. Ten floors are bigger than one. End of that nonsense.

Now, before you go any further, tell me why the top of the Balzac-Vitry buildiong didn't bounce off or go into arrest.

 

[alienentity]

Heiwa: 'Say A = 10C

OK, C transfers with its velocity v (8.52 m/s) a certain momentum to A, but what is A doing in turn with this momentum? Transfers it to ground! Right.'

Facepalm followed by groan....

 

[KreeL]

The stupid just reeks here. Ten floors are bigger than one. End of that nonsense.

Now, before you go any further, tell me why the top of the Balzac-Vitry buildiong didn't bounce off or go into arrest.

Explosives were used. The lower supports were removed in sequence and the top half continued to the ground.

 

[six7s]

Explosives were used. The lower supports were removed in sequence and the top half continued to the ground.

Expletives were used. The basic facts were removed at random as the eleventyists buried their heads in the ground

 

[beachnut]

Explosives were used. The lower supports were removed in sequence and the top half continued to the ground.

That is your delusion supported with lies, hearsay, junk science, failed opinions and dirt dumb fantasy.

You can't do the math to prove your point. Good for you.

 

[KreeL]

If you can't keep up with this simple thread, why do you continue to post blather here, beachnut?

 

[beachnut]

If you can't keep up with this simple thread, why do you continue to post blather here, beachnut?

You can't prove your statement of woo? Why?

Explosives were used. The lower supports were removed in sequence and the top half continued to the ground.

Prove it.
You have had 7 years, 7 months, and 13 days to prove it and the best you can do is repeat a lie.

Prove you are more than blather and present your evidence to prove your opinion based on lies, hearsay, junk science and dirt dumb delusions. Prove it. You have evidence right?

I can answer that for you. No you have nothing.

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf

Here is a paper that Heiwa can't refute with all his hand waving and pizza box failed physics and lemon engineering. Can you do something to refute anything beside talk? Do you do math, physics, and engineering, or just regurgitate failed 911Truth ideas?

 

[KreeL]

Nano-thermite has been found and verified. Empirical scientific proof.

The only peeps without proof are the non-toofers because they simply believe the pseudo-scientists bought and paid for by the government.

I guess the real question is why has it taken you over 7 years to understand what happened?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Nano-thermite has been found and verified. Empirical scientific proof.

Uh-huh... right....... you keep having faith...

The only peeps without proof are the non-toofers because they simply believe the pseudo-scientists bought and paid for by the government.

I'm neither a scientist, nor affiliated with the government. I guess that means I don't fit in that category...

I guess the real question is why has it taken you over 7 years to understand what happened?

I guess the real question is why are people trying to compare the towers to a stack of deliciously cheesy pizza boxes or painfully sour stacks of lemons nearly 7 and a half years after the collapse. One would think after this length of time such individuals could have gone to college majoring in either architecture and engineering to understand specific details about why such analogies are so lost from reality... There's was an opportunity to learn over those years, some people clearly did not use the opportunity...

 

[beachnut]

Nano-thermite has been found and verified. Empirical scientific proof.

The only peeps without proof are the non-toofers because they simply believe the pseudo-scientists bought and paid for by the government.

I guess the real question is why has it taken you over 7 years to understand what happened?

There is no such thing as Nano-thermite. Please define this new substance? Jones called it super-thermite, it was not found on any steel and there is no thermite products found at the WTC. So your failed idea remain failed. Jones made up the thermite and his samples are not thermite; just dust found around NYC after 911.

peeps? What is peeps?

Please list the pseudo-scientists? This is pathetic to make up lies about people you can't prove. Sad.

I understood 911 as it happened. The passengers on Flight 93 beat everyone to understand 911 in minutes and take action and you spew lies with no evince and no clue 7 years, 7 months, and 13 days after 911; will you gain the knowledge to fix your anti-intellectual statements? Skeptical?

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf Your rebuttal?

If you insist prove Bazant paper wrong and please state the amount of your nano-thermite needed to do the job?
Plus how much more heat in joules was your super-nano-thermite than the simple office fires?
Plus how much more heat in joules was your nano-thermite than the jet fuel in the WTC? Joules? Got physics? Got math? Good luck

Failure to provide insight into these questions means you are simply regurgitating lies.

 

[KreeL]

As for Bazant's failed paper. The inconsistancies are numerous. He unjustly assumes that all the core columns reached a temperature that has by no means been proven. NIST says that the cores never reached temps hotter than your stove at home.

So who's lying?

 

[beachnut]

As for Bazant's failed paper. The inconsistancies are numerous. He unjustly assumes that all the core columns reached a temperature that has by no means been proven. NIST says that the cores never reached temps hotter than your stove at home.

So who's lying?

As expected, zero math, no physics, zero engineering; you just say Bazant paper is failed and can't prove your explosives!

Explosives were used. The lower supports were removed in sequence and the top half continued to the ground.

And you can't refute Bazant so you just say it is crap and you change to nano-thermite did it! What?!

Nano-thermite has been found and verified. Empirical scientific proof. ...?

Which is it? You can't refute Bazant with math, physics and engineering? Explosives did it? OR the super nano-thermite did it? Which is it; your talk is not going to hack as a rebuttal to work of NIST or Bazant or other independent work. Even the chief structural engineer of the WTC agrees with me that your thermite is nonsense.

Source for NIST saying the fires in the WTC were not hot? Please the temperature reached and source. Good luck.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Source for NIST saying the fires in the WTC were not hot? Please the temperature reached and source. Good luck.

"Columns did not reach temperatures higher than 250oC anywhere in the building" canard in 3...2....1....

 

[FineWine]

Explosives were used. The lower supports were removed in sequence and the top half continued to the ground.

Nope, there were no explosives. Game over.

 

[KreeL]

No explosives.

Are you counting Rodriguez's testimony of the huge explosion in the sublevel? Oh, of course not because....why that would mean....uhhhh....ummmm....

Join the cognitive dissonance club, FineWine.

 

[beachnut]

"Columns did not reach temperatures higher than 250oC anywhere in the building" canard in 3...2....1....

It is sad.

Now we will hear of explosions that never killed anyone; in real explosions people die, on 911 the explosions just made explosive like noises and left no blast evidence, no blast effects, no brains turned to mush (save 911Truth).

No evidence 911Truth; evidence free for 7 years, 7 months, and 14 days in less than 2 hours PST. 7 plus 7 is 14; is this part of the CT?

 

[six7s]

Are you counting Rodriguez's testimony of the huge explosion in the sublevel?

No

Oh, of course not because....why that would mean....uhhhh....ummmm....

Because I have never heard of them

Here's a challenge for you, KreeL:

I know next to nothing about 9/11; not because I am stupid (I'm not) - instead its simply because I live in a world where the need to know is, practically, zero

However, I am not averse to learning new stuff

So... teach me some stuff

Be concise, coherent and only use reality-consistent evidence to support your 'theory'

Reckon you can?

Then go ahead, please, teach me

Otherwise, please stop with what seems nothing more than a naive, self-deluding attempt to hijack teh interwebs with half truths (aka lies)

TYIA

--------
ETA

Please keep it simple - as I am not an engineer/physicist/etc nor am I much of a mathematician... although I can read and understand well-presented calculations