Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

[KreeL]

your thinking of electricity. The force of gravity only pulls downward. If it were to take the easiest path, that would mean things would have to move laterally to find the easiest path. How does gravity do that?

Your own everyday life experience should tell you this. If you drop a bowling ball on the top of a table, the path of least resistance would be around the table, not through it...but is this what the bowling ball does? No. It falls directly on the table, which is not the path of least resistance, but the direct path downward.

rofl

 

[FineWine]

Garbage in, garbage out. Your premise is entirely absurd and irrelevant.

The top part did nbot "gain" mass in the strictest sense, nor did it need to, but parts of the mass from the parts of the building it destroyed on the way down joined it in its rampage through the succeding floors. If you drop 5X onto 1X and break 1X loose, you now have 6X moving along the same course. If the next floor can only withstand 2X, where is the arresting mechanism?

This is a wonderfully simple and clear explanation of what happened on 9/11. It is amazing that Heiwa cannot grasp it.

 

[FineWine]

rofl

Laughing is easy. Thinking requires effort. One of Heiwa's absurdities was just blown out of the water. You didn't notice.

 

[Typicallucas]

If you had half a brain you would know that ships are not buildings and propellers are not gravity.

This is rhetorical right?

I'm not 100% sure which definition of rhetorical you are using... but Heiwa really does compare ships+propellers to WTC+gravity. He doesn't just compare, he says they are the same.

I didn't just make that up.

ETA: Not everything here is rhetorical. Some of it is right, some of it is wrong. Most of what Heiwa writes is nonsense, a complete fabrication, or plain old wrong.

 

[Typicallucas]

Your thinking of electricity. The force of gravity only pulls downward. If it were to take the easiest path, that would mean things would have to move laterally to find the easiest path. How does gravity do that?

Your own everyday life experience should tell you this. If you drop a bowling ball on the top of a table, the path of least resistance would be around the table, not through it...but is this what the bowling ball does? No. It falls directly on the table, which is not the path of least resistance, but the direct path downward.

Nice job. You're right gravity "taking the path of least resistance" is utter nonsense

Garbage in, garbage out. Your premise is entirely absurd and irrelevant.

Good one, although now that I think about it even good info comes out garbage through Heiwa's filter. Baby Jesus knows we've fed him enough rational arguments, but all we get back is complete mush.

There is just the of chance that someone will stumble across his nattering and take it for sound science, unless someone points out the woo oozing out around the edges.

For this reason I think we owe it to the good name of the JREF to combat his every inane rant so that his unfounded pseudo-science doesn't remain on Randi's forums uncontested.

 

[Furcifer]

I'm not 100% sure which definition of rhetorical you are using... but Heiwa really does compare ships+propellers to WTC+gravity. He doesn't just compare, he says they are the same.

I didn't just make that up.

ETA: Not everything here is rhetorical. Some of it is right, some of it is wrong. Most of what Heiwa writes is nonsense, a complete fabrication, or plain old wrong.

I meant it in the sense that all the questions being asked already have an answer, and we know it.

Cynnically of course.

 

[Heiwa]

I'm not 100% sure which definition of rhetorical you are using... but Heiwa really does compare ships+propellers to WTC+gravity. He doesn't just compare, he says they are the same.

I didn't just make that up.

ETA: Not everything here is rhetorical. Some of it is right, some of it is wrong. Most of what Heiwa writes is nonsense, a complete fabrication, or plain old wrong.

Yes, when a big ship collides with something more kinetic energy and momentum may be involved than when WTC 1 top part drops on the lower part. So it is quite helpful to compare what happens. And the first thing you observe is that weaker structural elements adjacent to the collision interface fail first.

Weaker structural elements are definitely not crushing down stronger structural elements as suggested in WTC 1 (thin floors crushing strong columns).

So you have to work from there, e.g. http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm .

If you find any nonsense there, something completely fabricated or plain wrong, just copy paste it and tell what has to be corrected.

 

[Typicallucas]

Yes, when a big ship collides with something more kinetic energy and momentum may be involved than when WTC 1 top part drops on the lower part. So it is quite helpful to compare what happens. And the first thing you observe is that weaker structural elements adjacent to the collision interface fail first.

Weaker structural elements are definitely not crushing down stronger structural elements as suggested in WTC 1 (thin floors crushing strong columns).

So you have to work from there, e.g. http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm .

If you find any nonsense there, something completely fabricated or plain wrong, just copy paste it and tell what has to be corrected.

I've stopped reading your replies, sorry. It is as futile as trying to understand reason with a random jumble of letters.

 

[KreeL]

The faithbased consensus is that they don't understand The Heiwa Challenge{tm}. In fact mackey is probably the only one that DOES understand it, and he won't attempt to make a model because his credibility can't take too many more hits.

For you others, like the one directly above this post. If you don't understand it, you don't have to read it. If you don't read it, you can still copy and paste the post? JREF 101.

 

[twinstead]

The faithbased consensus is that they don't understand The Heiwa Challenge{tm}. In fact mackey is probably the only one that DOES understand it, and he won't attempt to make a model because his credibility can't take too many more hits.

For you others, like the one directly above this post. If you don't understand it, you don't have to read it. If you don't read it, you can still copy and paste the post? JREF 101.

Yea. Ignorant arguments from incredulity still ROCK.

You are claiming victory on a relatively obscure internet forum. Good job. You think you got mojo? As long as when I turn off my fireFox browser and you disappear, you LOSE.

Do you have a problem with that?

 

[KreeL]

Yea. Ignorant arguments from incredulity still ROCK.

You are claiming victory on a relatively obscure internet forum. Good job. You think you got mojo? As long as when I turn off my fireFox browser and you disappear, you LOSE.

Do you have a problem with that?

I've stopped reading your replies, sorry. It is as futile as trying to understand a random jumble of letters.

JREF 101. See? I'm learning.

 

[Typicallucas]

The faithbased consensus is that they don't understand The Heiwa Challenge{tm}. In fact mackey is probably the only one that DOES understand it, and he won't attempt to make a model because his credibility can't take too many more hits.

For you others, like the one directly above this post. If you don't understand it, you don't have to read it. If you don't read it, you can still copy and paste the post? JREF 101.

I don't base my beliefs on faith. I base them on reality.

I have read Heiwa's claims, posts, and two couple of his web pages. I understand his English(mostly), but his hypothesis is wrong, his physics is garbage, and he is unwilling to listen or learn. I refuse to read any more of his writing. So sue me if I quoted him in my response.

ETA: If you have a problem with people not reading the posts of others why don't you take your beloved Heiwa to task? He's the king of not reading posts (or at least pretending not to.)

 

[KreeL]

Take The Heiwa Challenge{tm} then. Should be easy enough for you to do. You claim his hypothesis is wrong, his physics are garbage, and he won't listen.

Prove it... and get rich!

 

[Typicallucas]

I can think of better things to do with my time than take part in a poorly structured challenge to make a analogue of the World Trade Center to test Heiwa's absurd theory based on his "intuition" for an imaginary prize.

If Heiwa wants to claim the building was demolished as part of a government conspiracy then he should start there instead of trying to "prove" that a "one-way crush down is impossible."

Have you noticed that Heiwa hasn't built any scale models himself? If he is just going to rave like a lunatic not many people are going to line up to participate in his challenge. Sorry, but what a thoroughly stupid challenge it is too. Unbelievable. Dwop pawt C on pawt A durrrr fwum a hite of H, see it if bounces! wheeeee!

By the way, I'm pretty sure it's illegal to use trademark notices on unregistered goods and services.

 

[KreeL]

A million dollars isn't worth your time? Or maybe you are intelligent enough to know that it can't be done and don't want to waste your time. Either way, you fail to prove "his hypothesis is wrong, his physics are garbage, and he won't listen".

"Dwop pawt C on pawt A durrrr fwum a hite of H, see it if bounces! wheeeee!" - This must be some more of the faithbased babytalk. You even fail at being annoying because it's kinda cute.

Not surprising in the slightest. JREF 101.

 

[Typicallucas]

A fake million dollars isn't worth your time?

You forgot a word. The answer is yes.

Or maybe you are intelligent enough to know that it can't be done and don't want to waste your time.

Yawn.

Either way, you fail to prove "his hypothesis is wrong, his physics are garbage, and he won't listen".

I don't make it a practice to disprove fiction. Besides, Heiwa proves this all without my help.

You sure are a big fan of Heiwa.

 

[Heiwa]

If Heiwa wants to claim the building was demolished as part of a government conspiracy then he should start there instead of trying to "prove" that a "one-way crush down is impossible."

Have you noticed that Heiwa hasn't built any scale models himself? If he is just going to rave like a lunatic not many people are going to line up to participate in his challenge. Sorry, but what a thoroughly stupid challenge it is too. Unbelievable. Dwop pawt C on pawt A durrrr fwum a hite of H, see it if bounces! wheeeee!

Government conspiracy? I would say that NIST is incompetent to explain the WTC 1 structural destruction. Energy applied exceeded the strain energy that the structure could absorb and global collapse ensued! Nonsense. Embarassing. 100's of NIST engineers making fools of themselves! Kaiser, Sunder, Gross, etc. And nobody really reacts! ASCE is silent like a mouse.

I have presented several structures and dropped a part C of it on remainder part A (C<10A) from various heights. No collapse as the energy applied was too small or the strain energy absorbed too big. Just bounces! Increasing the drop height (energy input to become BIG) C is always destroyed first as it can absorb too little strain energy and A is not really one-way crushed down.

And that's Why a one-way Crush down is not possible for any structure of any size and scale. I think it is time to close this thread now. More than 1000 posts ... and all sensibile posts agree with topic.

It seem only religious fundamentalist integrists are still believing that a one way Crush down is possible ... and why not? They really have funny beliefs.

 

[TheRedWorm]

Hey KreeL, if you are so confident in "heiwa," how do you explain his non-response to the following:

That doesn't address the issue of scale. Think about it this way: If I throw a bullet at a watermelon, what happens? Now what happens when I fire a bullet at the same melon? Remember, the only difference in my example is scale.

Is scale important in the way physical reality operates, "heiwa," yes or no?

And, just for kicks, can you answer those questions?

 

[WildCat]

I still want Heiwa to explain how a sabot projectile weighing less than 11 pounds can destroy a 40-ton tank...

 

[Typicallucas]

How does it feel to be ignored?