Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

Status
Not open for further replies.
Justin39640 said:
how about 5 5 foot dowels and 25 lb weights

4 of which are set up in a square pattern (looking top down) spaced so the weight is very close to the dowels
then have a 5th dowel in the center
use the thumb tacks to support the weight (one on each dowel) every 6 inches so that you get 9 high (maybe use 2 tacks on the center dowel)

then drop a 10th weight from 10 feet

(NOT TO SCALE LOL)
[qimg]http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/6132/weights1.jpg[/qimg]

EDIT: better render
Click to expand...

Nice!

:D
 
3bodyproblem said:
In the last 50 posts: Cracker Jacks, saltines, pizza, take out Chinese, spahgetti, powdered sugar, mushrooms and of course pancakes.

I suggest this thread be moved to the FoodTV network.
Click to expand...

Instead of Strength of Materiels I should have taken Home Ec.
 
FineWine said:
If Heiwa was "taking care" of the engineering, no giant ape would dare to climb a tall building.
Click to expand...

This reminds me once again of a quote from an engineer when the new King Kong movie from 1976 came out, the one where the WTC was substituted for the Empire State Building.

He said that while the Empire State Building could realistically support a giant gorilla, the WTC could not and would likely collapse.

25 years before 9/11. Was he a govt shill?
 
FineWine said:
What's truly sad is that you have no idea how ridiculous you are. You are helpless to deal with a reasoning problem that wouldn't tax a bright child. You slavishly parrot your incompetent guru, although his idiocy has been torn to shreds by real engineers. He ran away from my question about how he will react to his inevitable dressing-down by the engineers at the ASCE journal. How about you? Is EVERY real engineer a shill?

You see, Bill, the concept of scale is incomprehensible to you. Yet, you want to discuss engineering.

Pssst. As the giant gorilla has height, depth, and width, try multiplying by 4x4x4.
Click to expand...
If I am satisfied with what Bazant and the ASCE have to say of course Iwill change my mind. But if whatI have seen here is a representton of what I wil see there then I don't hold out too much hope.

Scale is irelevent when discussing the top 10% of a building crushing the other identically constructed 90% of a buildng down to the ground by gravity alone. Or the top 10% of any identical structure crushing the lower 90%

Scale is only problematic in making a smaller model. In this case from Bazant's point of view the model is the full scale WTC1 and that is what he must explain.

As far as I can see a lot of interest in this is being generated in this . I expect Bazant is welcoming the attention.
 
Last edited:
R.Mackey said:
For the record, the graphics he uses are a bastardization of visual aids that I created for my discussion on Hardfire. The original is here and the associated discussion (Part III) can be viewed here.

As I clearly described, the model was one-dimensional, and not intended to be particularly accurate. Indeed, it was the absolute simplest model I could come up with that remained relevant (if you include the equations, that is; by itself, the diagram is not of much use). The intent of that model was to motivate scaling, not accurately predict behavior of the World Trade Center. I think the scaling laws in that model would be similar, at least with respect to the collapse.

Heiwa, and apparently the others participating in this Romper Room version of uneducated speculation, simply do not understand scaling. That's all there is to it.
Click to expand...

Of course he understands scaling. It's what you do to boilers every year on a ship.
 
bill smith said:
Scale is irelevent when discussing the top 10% of a building crushing the other identically constructed 90% of a buildng down to the ground by gravity alone. Or the top 10% of any identical structure crushing the lower 90%
Click to expand...

Wow.

You keep getting yourself confused Bill. Are you back to saying that the perimeter columns and core columns were crushed in the collapse? You are back to thinking that the 30' lengths of core columns and perimeter columns were "accordianed" down to 10' lengths again?

I mean 90% + 10% = 100% of the building you know. So you ARE including the columns being crushed?

What gives?
 
bill smith said:
If I am satisfied with what Bazant and the ASCE have to say of course Iwill change my mind. But if whatI have seen here is a representton of what I wil see there then I don't hold out too much hope.

Scale is irelevent when discussing the top 10% of a building crushing the other identically constructed 90% of a buildng down to the ground by gravity alone. Or the top 10% of any identical structure crushing the lower 90%

Scale is only problematic in making a smaller model. In this case from Bazant's point of view the model is the full scale WTC1 and that is what he must explain.

As far as I can see a lot of interest in this is being generated in this . I expect Bazant is welcoming the attention.
Click to expand...


The point is that you will certainly fail to understand what Bazant and the other engineers say. You have never understood a word written by the real engineers here. You can't begin to grasp what is obvious to everyone outside your insane and incredibly stupid movement. The top 10% becomes 100% rather quickly. Has a glimmer of light penetrated your brain regarding the staggering idiocy of Heiwa's pizza-box analogy? Do you begin to sense why real engineers have such contempt for an incompetent who ignores scale totally and attempts to draw conclusions from the behavior of soft cardboard boxes?
 
aggle-rithm said:
This reminds me once again of a quote from an engineer when the new King Kong movie from 1976 came out, the one where the WTC was substituted for the Empire State Building.

He said that while the Empire State Building could realistically support a giant gorilla, the WTC could not and would likely collapse.

25 years before 9/11. Was he a govt shill?
Click to expand...


No kidding? I never heard that quote, but I find it very interesting.
 
FineWine said:
The point is that you will certainly fail to understand what Bazant and the other engineers say. You have never understood a word written by the real engineers here. You can't begin to grasp what is obvious to everyone outside your insane and incredibly stupid movement. The top 10% becomes 100% rather quickly. Has a glimmer of light penetrated your brain regarding the staggering idiocy of Heiwa's pizza-box analogy? Do you begin to sense why real engineers have such contempt for an incompetent who ignores scale totally and attempts to draw conclusions from the behavior of soft cardboard boxes?
Click to expand...

Just think what a mess bazant is in. Even if he could come up with a reasonable explanation to counter Heiwa some bright spark is sure to ask 'how did the top block become seperated from the lower block ' '' The plane is only estimated to have cut about 40 perimeter columns on the impact side and maybe two or three of the 47 massive core columns'. The union between the two blocks was still more than 85% intact ''

Maybe Bazant thinks he will be able to walk away from that question ?


And it's worth remembering that if there IS no upper block then there was no dynamic force to start the crush down. Therefore the inside job is proven before Bazant ever begins his explanation.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
Or the top 10% of any identical structure crushing the lower 90%
Click to expand...

Crushed huh? 100% of the lower part of the tower was "crushed"?

Bill can you explain this photo using the word "crushed". Those still standing perimeter columns don't look "crushed to me.:
core-911.jpg


What about the falling section of perimeter columns shown in this photo. "Crushed"?
Image335.jpg


What about this photo of what's left of the core? "Crushed"?:
southcorestands-2.gif


These core columns. "Crushed"?:
wtc37spire.jpg


Care to explain?
 
bill smith said:
Just think what a mess bazant is in. Even if he could come up with a reasonable explanation to counter Heiwa some bright spark is sure to ask 'how did the top block become seperated from the lower block ' '' The plane is only estimated to have cut about 40 perimeter columns on the impact side and maybe two or three of the 47 massive core columns'. The union between the two blocks was still more thn 85% intact ''


Maybe Bazant thinks jhe will be able to walk away from that question ?
Click to expand...


Bazant is in no mess at all. This is what you just can't grasp. Heiwa is regarded by real engineers as a total fool, a laughingstock.

You are incapable of reading the NIST Report, but your obtuseness is not the concern of professional engineers. Our knowledge of the specific damage caused by the planes comes from the NIST Report. Bazant has read those reports and understands them. Your insane movement has produced nothing to challenge the real science. Lies and stupidity do not fare well when pitted against facts and reason.
 
Last edited:
FineWine said:
Bazant is in no mess at all. This is what you just can't grasp. Heiwa is regarded by real engineers as a total fool, a laughingstock.

You are incapable of reading the NIST Report, but your obtuseness is not the concern of professional engineers. Our knowledge of the specific damage caused by the planes comes from the NIST Report. Bazant has read those reports and understands them. Your insane movement has produced nothing to challenge the real science. Lies and stupidity do not fare well when pitted gainst facts and reason.
Click to expand...

' Our knowledge ' ?
 
Last edited:
Gamolon said:
Crushed huh? 100% of the lower part of the tower was "crushed"?

Bill can you explain this photo using the word "crushed". Those still standing perimeter columns don't look "crushed to me.:
[qimg]http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/core-911.jpg[/qimg]

What about the falling section of perimeter columns shown in this photo. "Crushed"?[qimg]http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/Image335.jpg[/qimg]

What about this photo of what's left of the core? "Crushed"?:
[qimg]http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/southcorestands-2.gif[/qimg]

These core columns. "Crushed"?:
[qimg]http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/wtc37spire.jpg[/qimg]

Care to explain?
Click to expand...

Sure....the perimeter column section appears to have been blown away from the building. The core was a mere remnant that lasted only seconds. So a crush down is an absolutely appropriate description..
 
bill smith said:
Sure....the perimeter column section appears to have been blown away from the building. The core was a mere remnant that lasted only seconds. So a crush down is an absolutely appropriate description..
Click to expand...

Ok. So where are the "crushed", "accordianed" core columns and perimeter columns?

How were they "crushed" when the core columns were set along the INSIDE of the concrete floors and the perimeter columns were aligned along the OUTSIDE edge of the floors?

I see Heiwa hasn't addressed his major contradiction about the "support elements" being between the floors and then being outside the floors.
 
Gamolon said:
Crushed huh? 100% of the lower part of the tower was "crushed"?

Bill can you explain this photo using the word "crushed". Those still standing perimeter columns don't look "crushed to me.:
[qimg]http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/core-911.jpg[/qimg]

What about the falling section of perimeter columns shown in this photo. "Crushed"?[qimg]http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/Image335.jpg[/qimg]

What about this photo of what's left of the core? "Crushed"?:
[qimg]http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/southcorestands-2.gif[/qimg]

These core columns. "Crushed"?:
[qimg]http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/wtc37spire.jpg[/qimg]

Care to explain?
Click to expand...


Gamolon, these photos depicting with great clarity what actually happened on 9/11 are extremely inconvenient to the lies of Heiwa and his mindless parrot. You are being unfair.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom