Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

Status
Not open for further replies.
R.Mackey said:
The simple facts are these: The impact was a dynamic load, not just a static load, and he merely believes otherwise because he doesn't understand that the fact it hit at an angle confounds his measuring technique. And that the static load carrying capacity of the lower structure only applies while it's intact, and if that load lands on the weaker floors instead of the columns, it punches through, and the whole structure becomes unstable as a result.
Click to expand...

i cant understand why they simplify the collapses like that
nothing in real life falls apart square and uniform

things dont have to get too far out of whack before they come down "like a rule10ing hammer" (industry phrase)
 
sylvan8798 said:
The topic is one way crush down. WTC 6 was destroyed by falling debris from WTC 1. I'm sure it must be hard for you to imagine how ridiculous you sound.
Click to expand...

Nobody disagrees that 1000's of tons of ejected WTC 1 perimeter steel wall solid panels fell on the thin roof of WTC 6 and caused local damages there. The ejection of WTC 1 perimeter steel wall panels is clear evidence of the controlled demolition from top down of WTC 1.

Another problem is that WTC 6 was reported to be damaged before WTC 1 was destroyed. That's why I suggest this matter is discussed in another thread.
 
R.Mackey said:
The simple facts are these: The impact was a dynamic load, not just a static load, and he merely believes otherwise because he doesn't understand that the fact it hit at an angle confounds his measuring technique. And that the static load carrying capacity of the lower structure only applies while it's intact, and if that load lands on the weaker floors instead of the columns, it punches through, and the whole structure becomes unstable as a result.
Click to expand...

So what happens when the weak floors of the upper part C contacts the columns of the lower part A? Aren't the upper part C floors punched through and damaged as you describe for the lower part A floors? I know that you suggest that part C should be regarded as one rigid mass M but is it? A simple reply suffices!

Furthermore, neither the upper part C nor the lower part A becomes unstable as a result of these local failures. One result is that plenty of applied energy is transformed into structural failures (heat) and that the local destruction should be slowed down ... followed by arrest, when sufficient parts C and A floors are punched through.

Anyway, I am glad that you have abandoned the NIST LOL proposal that 6 or 11 part C floors suddenly dropped down on the top part A floor.
 
Last edited:
R.Mackey said:
If you're going to retread well-traveled ground with Tony, it may help you to review this thread. In it you'll see what his core issue is, as well as why it's nonsense.

The simple facts are these: The impact was a dynamic load, not just a static load, and he merely believes otherwise because he doesn't understand that the fact it hit at an angle confounds his measuring technique. And that the static load carrying capacity of the lower structure only applies while it's intact, and if that load lands on the weaker floors instead of the columns, it punches through, and the whole structure becomes unstable as a result.

Furthermore, he's been explained this repeatedly, not just here but at other forums. Yet it makes no dent. I have a theory on why this is so and how to proceed, if you are interested. Best of luck.
Click to expand...

The upper block was not at an angle for the entire 114 feet we measured it's fall. You have not explained away the lack of a jolt and you have no proof of impact and dynamic loading. You are hand waving here.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
The upper block was not at an angle for the entire 114 feet we measured it's fall. You have not explained away the lack of a jolt and you have no proof of impact and dynamic loading. You are hand waving here.
Click to expand...

Another fail Tony?

Like your inability to read the NIST report and then your curious ability to comment on what they mention and dont mention?

Your credibility is shot.
 
One quick question for Heiwa....

In one of your online articles found here:
http :/ /heiwaco.tripod.com/mac5.htm (I cant post links yet so I added spaces).

You wrote the following:
You cannot crush an isotropic or composite 3-D structure A by a part C of itself (C = 1/10 A) by dropping part C on A using gravity. Part C either bounces on A or gets damaged in contact with A and is stopped by A that is also damaged a little. It is quite basic and all due to forces. Materials, size and particulars of the elements of the structure A doesn't matter the least. Part C of A cannot destroy A.
Click to expand...

How in the world can you seriously think that "Materials, size and particulars of the elements of the structure A doesn't matter the least."?

How could they "not matter" when analyzing a collapse? Please explain.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
The upper block was not at an angle for the entire 114 feet we measured it's fall. You have not explained away the lack of a jolt and you have no proof of impact and dynamic loading.
Click to expand...
Not that saying this will do much of anything to change your opinion... but once that mass was in motion it wasn't static anymore. Having to "prove" it was a dynamic load as it impacted everything below is not only a bizarre requirement on your part - but unnecessary.
 
Last edited:
Heiwa said:
Nobody disagrees that 1000's of tons of ejected WTC 1 perimeter steel wall solid panels fell on the thin roof of WTC 6 and caused local damages there. The ejection of WTC 1 perimeter steel wall panels is clear evidence of the controlled demolition from top down of WTC 1.
Click to expand...

No, it's not evidence of controlled demolition. Avoiding ejection of material is one of the main goals of CD.

Another problem is that WTC 6 was reported to be damaged before WTC 1 was destroyed. That's why I suggest this matter is discussed in another thread.
Click to expand...

It may have been set on fire by airplane debris, but there was no major structural damage until the towers fell.
 
R.Mackey said:
If you're going to retread well-traveled ground with Tony, it may help you to review this thread. In it you'll see what his core issue is, as well as why it's nonsense.

The simple facts are these: The impact was a dynamic load, not just a static load, and he merely believes otherwise because he doesn't understand that the fact it hit at an angle confounds his measuring technique. And that the static load carrying capacity of the lower structure only applies while it's intact, and if that load lands on the weaker floors instead of the columns, it punches through, and the whole structure becomes unstable as a result.

Furthermore, he's been explained this repeatedly, not just here but at other forums. Yet it makes no dent. I have a theory on why this is so and how to proceed, if you are interested. Best of luck.
Click to expand...

Thanks, RM. I'm quite aware of the intractability of truther beliefs. It's always interesting to see how far they will contort themselves in order to cling to their case.

For Heiwa - WTC 6 looks pretty good in this photo. Notice that WTC 2 is gone.

http://img390.imageshack.us/img390/9797/18wtc1heli.jpg
 
newton3376 said:
One quick question for Heiwa....

In one of your online articles found here:
http :/ /heiwaco.tripod.com/mac5.htm (I cant post links yet so I added spaces).

You wrote the following:


How in the world can you seriously think that "Materials, size and particulars of the elements of the structure A doesn't matter the least."?

How could they "not matter" when analyzing a collapse? Please explain.
Click to expand...

Didn't he make it clear? It's all due to forces! ;)
 
Heiwa said:
Another problem is that WTC 6 was reported to be damaged before WTC 1 was destroyed.
Click to expand...

That is a problem. We should pass a law stating that when a plane crashes it should damage only the building that it actually crashes into.

It's too confusing the other way.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Not that saying this will do much of anything to change your opinion... but once that mass was in motion it wasn't static anymore. Having to "prove" it was a dynamic load as it impacted everything below is not only a bizarre requirement on your part - but unnecessary.
Click to expand...

The dynamic load doesn't happen just because the mass is in motion. It occurs if the moving mass transfers it's kinetic energy and decelerates at a rate greater than gravity.

Your hand waving denial of this fact doesn't change the reality that a deceleration would have been required for a natural collapse continuation.

The lack of deceleration of the upper block of WTC 1 is devastating to the present official story on the collapses. It is time for a new investigation.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
The upper block was not at an angle for the entire 114 feet we measured it's fall. You have not explained away the lack of a jolt and you have no proof of impact and dynamic loading. You are hand waving here.
Click to expand...
Emphasis added.

Figure 5-8, NCSTAR1-6D, clearly shows a tilt in WTC 1 before the collapse even began.

NIST estimates this tilt at 8o as the southern wall buckled and initiated the collapse (NCSTAR1-6D, pg. 312 and elsewhere).

WTC 2 tilted much more, obviously, so I won't even bother to cite it for you...

As I explained in this post, it takes a mere 2.9o of tilt before the upper block-lower block interface is basically a continuous phenomenon, and no "jolt" of any kind is measurable.

Bottom line, you're a liar. An easily exposed, bald-faced, pathetic liar. Do you even realize it? Can you comprehend how little effort it takes to demonstrate that you're just making things up?

Go on, tell me I'm "hand-waving" again. Seems to be the best you can do.

Tony Szamboti said:
The lack of deceleration of the upper block of WTC 1 is devastating to the present official story on the collapses. It is time for a new investigation.
Click to expand...

Nobody is paying any attention to your ridiculous whitepaper. Nobody cares but you. And that "new investigation" has already happened, at places like Purdue, U Edinburgh, and U Maryland. And, guess what -- they all disagree with you. Every researcher and every paper.

Any time you want to give up your delusions, go right ahead. It's years overdue.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
The dynamic load doesn't happen just because the mass is in motion. It occurs if the moving mass transfers it's kinetic energy and decelerates at a rate greater than gravity.
Click to expand...

Tony... I get the point... the point I am making is that some objects or structural systems don't have the capacity to decelerate the entire mass to ZERO before they fail. Something you seem to have a problem understanding for god knows what reason... (I'm pretty sure is the same thing Mackey phrased more bluntly than I'm inclined to do)... I've asked you about this before and you gave me a correct answer, but the moment you attempt to translate it to a demolition argument it falls completely apart.
 
Last edited:
R.Mackey said:
Emphasis added.

Figure 5-8, NCSTAR1-6D, clearly shows a tilt in WTC 1 before the collapse even began.

NIST estimates this tilt at 8o as the southern wall buckled and initiated the collapse (NCSTAR1-6D, pg. 312 and elsewhere).

WTC 2 tilted much more, obviously, so I won't even bother to cite it for you...

As I explained in this post, it takes a mere 2.9o of tilt before the upper block-lower block interface is basically a continuous phenomenon, and no "jolt" of any kind is measurable.

Bottom line, you're a liar. An easily exposed, bald-faced, pathetic liar. Do you even realize it? Can you comprehend how little effort it takes to demonstrate that you're just making things up?

Go on, tell me I'm "hand-waving" again. Seems to be the best you can do.



Nobody is paying any attention to your ridiculous whitepaper. Nobody cares but you. And that "new investigation" has already happened, at places like Purdue, U Edinburgh, and U Maryland. And, guess what -- they all disagree with you. Every researcher and every paper.

Any time you want to give up your delusions, go right ahead. It's years overdue.
Click to expand...

You can't show in a test or any analysis that the initial tilt would be a continuous phenomena which could cause a natural collapse continuation and preclude a jolt from occurring or making it unnecessary. What a bunch of malarky you are trying to pass off on others with this contortion.

Additionally, your earlier comment that the tilt would obscure the measurement is unsupported nonsense also.

You have a lot of nerve calling me a liar.

On the contrary, it is you who is proving himself to be the sophist here as none of these people you site have written anything in an attempt to rebut what I have said about no impulsive load occurring in the fall of the upper block of WTC 1, yet you portray it as though they have.

The real bottom line is that the lack of deceleration is devastating to the present official explanation for the collapses. Much to the chagrin of it's supporters like you, as it proves that there is no mechanism for a natural collapse continuation. This has stumped people like you and forced you into sophistry and hand waving without a basis, to continue to maintain support for your implausible claims. It is you sir who are either delusional or worse a witting component of a cover-up.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
The real bottom line is that the lack of deceleration is devastating to the present official explanation for the collapses. Much to the chagrin of it's supporters like you, as it proves that there is no mechanism for a natural collapse continuation. This has stumped people like you and forced you into sophistry and hand waving without a basis to support your delusions.
Click to expand...

I've said this before TONY, although I know I'm wasting my time with you. The mechanism is progressive collapse induced by structural failure. And for you to suggest that there's no deceleration because some mystery cataclysmic jolt didn't happen is a rather bald assertion considering much to the contrary of that claim of yours.

You apparently understand the materials relating to your field, there's obviously a road block somewhere preventing you from applying it competently, so I think Mackey's statements are justified, no offense. Sorry... I won't be wasting further time with you.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom