The Heiwa Challenge

[Heiwa]

If you'll look at the context, I clearly wasn't talking about 'floor' in the sense of an area where one walks around, but floor in the sense of 'storey'. We were discussing the support of the rest of the building above each 'floor' (storey)

OK, a storey consist of 95% air, a thin concrete floor with a false ceiling below, 280+ columns as vertical supports to which a floor is bolted and various objects (windows, partitions, furniture, etc). So what objects/elements are supposed to one-way crush down other elements? The air?

 

[MIKILLINI]

OK, a storey consist of 95% air, a thin concrete floor with a false ceiling below, 280+ columns as vertical supports to which a floor is bolted and various objects (windows, partitions, furniture, etc). So what objects/elements are supposed to one-way crush down other elements? The air?

Considering the air: Can't see it, but you know it's there. There's something else mixed within the air one can't see except the effect it has on anything of weight: Gravity.

 

[bill smith]

The 13 acres of concrete floors in the top collection of floors in WTC1 contained most of the weight of that section. Let's look at the video evidence for a minute.

In the following video you see a massive amount of gravel and dust being ejected along with steel girders and so forth. Look at the right side of the building and then see in your mind's eye that the same volumes are falling on all four sides. It seems to be all coming more or less from the top 13 or so floors. How much material would there be left to crush 97 intact floors down level with the ground ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtx_GcFCs6c&feature=channel_page

 

[bill smith]

The 13 acres of concrete floors in the top collection of floors in WTC1 contained most of the weight of that section. Let's look at the video evidence for a minute.

In the following video you see a massive amount of gravel and dust being ejected along with steel girders and so forth. Look at the right side of the building and then see in your mind's eye that the same volumes are falling on all four sides. It seems to be all coming more or less from the top 13 or so floors. How much material would there be left to crush 97 intact floors down level with the ground ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtx_GcFCs6c&feature=channel_page

PS.Watch this fullscreen for best effect then press F11 to toggle complete fullscreen on/off. Sometimes it's best to let the whole video fully load before doing this. Otherwise you can get a jerky playback because of constant buffering.

 

[KreeL]

Stop the madness. The entire collapsing mass falls on the next floor in line.

Not really. You even realized it when you contradicted yourself in an earlier instance:

"(a bit less as debris has fallen over the side)."

Now to examine 'how much less', one needs only look at the videos of the collapses. The north tower expands to nearly 4 times it's circumference from the very top. Freeze frames show hundreds of steel beams leaving the scene of the accident. They appear to be blown out, yet you say they simply fall over the side. Either way, there goes your mass. Hundreds of steel beams weigh quite a bit. This would require a huge minus sign in your calculations.

 

[bill smith]

Not really. You even realized it when you contradicted yourself in an earlier instance:

"(a bit less as debris has fallen over the side)."

Now to examine 'how much less', one needs only look at the videos of the collapses. The north tower expands to nearly 4 times it's circumference from the very top. Freeze frames show hundreds of steel beams leaving the scene of the accident. They appear to be blown out, yet you say they simply fall over the side. Either way, there goes your mass. Hundreds of steel beams weigh quite a bit. This would require a huge minus sign in your calculations.

This is a bit off topic Kreel but did you see this yet ?
http://truthactionottawa.com/main/?page_id=492

 

[FineWine]

Not really. You even realized it when you contradicted yourself in an earlier instance:

"(a bit less as debris has fallen over the side)."

Now to examine 'how much less', one needs only look at the videos of the collapses. The north tower expands to nearly 4 times it's circumference from the very top. Freeze frames show hundreds of steel beams leaving the scene of the accident. They appear to be blown out, yet you say they simply fall over the side. Either way, there goes your mass. Hundreds of steel beams weigh quite a bit. This would require a huge minus sign in your calculations.

Why don't you stop babbling about nonexistent calculations I've made and focus on real calculations made by real engineers? Your gaga guru can't do ANY calculations and you can't understand a word the real engineers write. Qualified people have wrestled with this problem and they determined that the kinetic energy generated by the collapse greatly exceeded the energy required to continue, indeed accelerate, the process.

 

[CORed]

One of the problems with your view is that the upper block is always seen as a 'block' while the lower 90% of the building is seen as a collection of individual stacked floors.

Of course the truth is that they are either both blocks (the lower one being 9 times larger than the upper) or they are both collections of floors ( the upper collection being about 10% the size of the lower)

If they are both collections of floors then for each destroyed lower floor there will be one destroyed upper floor (equal and opposite reaction). Obviously as the upper collection diminishes collapse arrest wil soon ensue.

If they are both blocks then the most likely scenarios are that the upper block either will bounce or it will crunch into the lower block with the energy being taken away by the local damages both blocks will equally receive. Again there will be collapse arrest.

Nowhere here is there a mechanism for removing or significantly weakening the massive support structure of the lower part. In addition Bazant only put the distance of fall at something like 20 inches.

Bill Smith demonstrates for the 597th time that he doesn't understand gravity.

 

[Heiwa]

Bill Smith demonstrates for the 597th time that he doesn't understand gravity.

Gravity is very simple! Two masses are always attracted by one another. If one is left and the other right - horizontally - they impose a horisontal pulling force on each other. They want to get together. Same vertically - up/down. Same in 3-D universe. Bill Smith understands this very well. Only fundamentalist religious sectarians believe otherwise. The latter believe that only one mass is attracted and destroys anything it is attracted by.

What sect do you belong to? Libertarians?

 

[FineWine]

Gravity is very simple! Two masses are always attracted by one another. If one is left and the other right - horizontally - they impose a horisontal pulling force on each other. They want to get together. Same vertically - up/down. Same in 3-D universe. Bill Smith understands this very well. Only fundamentalist religious sectarians believe otherwise. The latter believe that only one mass is attracted and destroys anything it is attracted by.

What sect do you belong to? Libertarians?

You can't be real. Tell us about gravity's horizontal "pulling" force.

 

[bill smith]

No, your clueless guru is hopelessly wrong. As I say repeatedly, the entire collapsing mass falls on the next floor. Which weighs more, a ton of solid ice or a ton of ball bearings?

I think a ton of feathers would give either of them a good run for their money. lol

 

[FineWine]

I think a ton of feathers would give either of them a good run for their money. lol

Yes, a ton of feathers would weigh exactly as much as each. Now, to return to the question you keep running from, if you're on A97, are you lucky if C1 contains lightwieght lawn furniture and unlucky if it contains printers' plates? Is your cuckoo guru right in claiming that you have nothing to worry about in any case? Or is the world engineering community right in insisting that your luck has run out--period.

 

[FineWine]

I think a ton of feathers would give either of them a good run for their money. lol

Now that your error about "coherent mass" has been cleared up, perhaps you'd care to flesh-out your guru's epochal discovery of a horizontal pulling force of gravity. Benighted fools have thought for centuries that gravity accounts for the acceleration of falling objects. Tell us how a single incompetent, laughed at by all real engineers, has managed to produce a scientific revolution of the first magnitude.

 

[bill smith]

Yes, a ton of feathers would weigh exactly as much as each. Now, to return to the question you keep running from, if you're on A97, are you lucky if C1 contains lightwieght lawn furniture and unlucky if it contains printers' plates? Is your cuckoo guru right in claiming that you have nothing to worry about in any case? Or is the world engineering community right in insisting that your luck has run out--period.

You'd have to ask Heiwa or Myriad to explain that one I'm afraid. On the gravity thing though- as Heiwa says, all masses attract each other. So just as Newton's apple was attracted by the Earth's gravity so too was the Earth attracted in a miniscule way by the apple's gravity.

 

[FineWine]

You'd have to ask Heiwa or Myriad to explain that one I'm afraid. On the gravity thing though- as Heiwa says, all masses attract each other. So just as Newton's apple was attractd by the Earth's gravity so too was the Earth attracted in a miniscule way by he apple's gravity.

Heiwa appears to be a complete fool and Myriad would regard the question as beneath the interest of an adolescent taking his or her first physics course. The attractions you refer to are, of course, vertical forces.

Tell if it matters to you, sitting on A97, if the first floor about to fall on you contains light objects or heavy ones. You seem to find this obvious question as inconvenient as the one about your mad movement's failed predictions.

 

[GlennB]

Now that your error about "coherent mass" has been cleared up, perhaps you'd care to flesh-out your guru's epochal discovery of a horizontal pulling force of gravity.

In your understandable frustration at these guys' stupidity, I believe they've managed to put one past you. The dolt Heiwa mentioned that ships or something attract each other - horizontally - through gravity. This is, of course, technically true. Though I haven't looked up gravimeters or similar for a while, I believe that the mass of large mountains can be measured through horizontal deflection of very fine measuring devices. Ships, nah, of course. Much too light. But be prepared to be pounded by idiots who think they have scored a (useless) point.

 

[FineWine]

In your understandable frustration at these guys' stupidity, I believe they've managed to put one past you. The dolt Heiwa mentioned that ships or something attract each other - horizontally - through gravity. This is, of course, technically true. Though I haven't looked up gravimeters or similar for a while, I believe that the mass of large mountains can be measured through horizontal deflection of very fine measuring devices. Ships, nah, of course. Much too light. But be prepared to be pounded by idiots who think they have scored a (useless) point.

Very astute, sir! I figured that there must be some pointless trick involved, so I Googled "horizontal pulling effect of gravity." I didn't get enlightened. After Heiwa babbles for a few more pages, we'll all realize that nothing he's saying has any relevance to the collapse of the towers, but then nothing he ever says has any relevance to THAT!

It's funny that I can ask a simple question that follows directly from the nonsense they spout, and they are conspicuous in their refusal to address it. Does it matter if the heavy stuff is on the first floor that contacts A97? Why does this leave the frauds tongue-tied?

 

[Heiwa]

You can't be real. Tell us about gravity's horizontal "pulling" force.

Simple - what balances the centrifugal force acting on the Moon!

 

[GlennB]

Simple - what balances the centrifugal force acting on the Moon!

In which Heiwa demonstrates that he visualises the moon orbiting the Earth in the "horizontal" plane.

 

[bill smith]

In which Heiwa demonstrates that he visualises the moon orbiting the Earth in the "horizontal" plane.

Have they worked out which way is 'up' in space ?