Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oscar said:
Heiwa, how many times can you be ripped apart without noticing? Your arguments are flawed in infantile ways that have been pointed out to you time and time again. Yet you come back with:



It's a joke.

It doesn't please me to say this, but you've been a joke for 99.9% of casual observers ever since you started posting.

Give your embarrassment meter a rest and stop plugging your ridiculous excuses for papers.
Click to expand...


The interesting question, one that Heiwa runs away from, is what does he do when the real engineers at the ASCE journal tell him what the real engineers on this forum keep telling him? Is there the remotest possibility that he will attempt to rethink his bizarre views, or will he reflexively lash out in a spasm of name-calling?
 
Oscar said:
Heiwa, how many times can you be ripped apart without noticing? Your arguments are flawed in infantile ways that have been pointed out to you time and time again.
Click to expand...

Hallo Oscar! Welcome to JREF! I must have missed (my arguments) being ripped apart. Please remind me!
 
Tony Szamboti said:
I don't see any reason it would have been in good condition. However, you have to admit that about 3/4 of a square mile is one heckuva lot of wire mesh and from the photos I have seen it isn't ubiquitous at all.
Click to expand...

Which is a strange kind of "have your cake and eat it" argument.

The idea that rebar might really be 'missing' is patently absurd - laughable, in fact - yet your point above seems to allow for that possibility. It smacks of willingness to entertain even the most extreme woo.
 
GlennB said:
Which is a strange kind of "have your cake and eat it" argument.

The idea that rebar might really be 'missing' is patently absurd - laughable, in fact - yet your point above seems to allow for that possibility. It smacks of willingness to entertain even the most extreme woo.
Click to expand...

It is only giving a consideration as to why we don't seem to see more of the rebar, since there was so much of it. I am not drawing conclusions here and said I don't know what to make of this issue presently. Detective work requires an open mind to possibilities.

On the contrary, you don't seem to want to consider any possibilities other than damage and fire, and you haven't shown why the notion of missing rebar is patently absurd, here at least.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
It is only giving a consideration as to why we don't seem to see more of the rebar, since there was so much of it.
Click to expand...

"So much of it" is a relative term.

If you took all that rebar and mixed it in with a standard Erector Set, then the rebar would be difficult to miss. In fact, you would probably say, "What happened to the Erector Set?!? Who made it disappear?!? I only see rebar!"

If, however, you take the same amount and mix it with the wreckage of a 110-story building, then it would easily disappear in the tangle of debris, as it would probably make up less than 1% of the total mass and would be heavily distorted by the collapse.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
It is only giving a consideration as to why we don't seem to see more of the rebar, since there was so much of it. I am not drawing conclusions here and said I don't know what to make of this issue presently. Detective work requires an open mind to possibilities.

On the contrary, you don't seem to want to consider any possibilities other than damage and fire, and you haven't shown why the notion of missing rebar is patently absurd, here at least.
Click to expand...

Although I have given it in this sub-forum several times, it's fair to say that it would be hard to find. So -

For rebar - in the macro, identifiable state - to be physically missing in significant amounts would require it to be :

1. vapourised
or
2. ground to fine particles

There is no known mechanism whereby either could occur.

And the fact that somebody might make a judgement on the seeming absence of rebar based on clearup photos or videos reflects more on their willingness to embrace CT than any plausible scientific scenario.

I'm not saying you positively believe rebar did disappear, but your post above allowed for that possibility. It shouldn't have. It's generalised, unrigorous, wishy-washy flakiness. Woo for short.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
The core columns were made up of three stories tall sections which were butt welded together. I believe that some type of explosive charge was used every third floor to break the welds of the outer core columns, after the collapse was underway for a few floors. As they were inside the tower, any blast from the charges would not be visible, and the debris falling outside would mask any escaping ejections and the collapse itself would mask the noise. I don't think much would have to be done to the perimeter columns except to separate the orthogonal walls at the corners every 10 to 20 floors. This could have been done by attacking the spandrel splices at the corners, allowing the perimeter walls to petal outward.

The breaking of the welded joints of the outer core columns every third floor would very effectively bring down those towers. The remaining spires were comprised of only the interior core columns. All of the much more robust and heavier outer core columns collapsed to the ground with the collapse wave.

I do think artificial heat weakening was used to initiate the collapses. This heat weakening could have been used to weaken the joints of the structure. It would not have to mean cutting the columns with thermite. I am inclined to believe that the temperatures from this heat weakening were much higher than what fire could produce and that is why little to no steel evidence was saved from the fire affected areas for analysis.

In essence, I think the demolition was achieved by attacking joints with heat generating mechanisms and explosive charges rather than cutting columns.
Click to expand...

wtf is "artificial heat weakening" - heat is heat no matter how you produce it

how can you attack a 1 inch bead of weld (or smaller) without damaging the 2 ends butted together?
you cant

furthermore the welds were in addition to the rivets that they used to actually fasten the columns together
you actually think that the core columns were held together by welds alone??

the wind loads would have busted the welds if thats all there was long before 911 (and would have had no chance once the building started to fall)

remember a weld fills in a seam but its not the same strength as casting a piece
example:
i went to a job in brooklyn at a recycling sort facility
they had a large payloader (articulating body for steering, 2 solid axles)
they had cracked the bell housing for the differential on the front axle
the axle was a single cast piece (including the bell housing)
their plan was for me to remove the axle and they wanted to send it to their weld shop to try to repair it
i told them it wouldnt work cause the weld fills a seam
the cast part had no seam originally and that they needed a new housing
i told them before i picked up my first wrench that i give it 24 hours before it WILL break again after the repair
so i take it out, they send it to Ct. for repair (V the crack and fill it in)
it comes back i put it in
and 3 hours later the crack opened back up

broken welds are a big part of my job
i see it a lot, a weld isnt as strong as you seem to think it is
 
Last edited:
Justin39640 said:
wtf is "artificial heat weakening" - heat is heat no matter how you produce it

how can you attack a 1 inch bead of weld (or smaller) without damaging the 2 ends butted together?
you cant

furthermore the welds were in addition to the rivets that they used to actually fasten the columns together
you actually think that the core columns were held together by welds alone??

the wind loads would have busted the welds if thats all there was long before 911 (and would have had no chance once the building started to fall)

remember a weld fills in a seam but its not the same strength as casting a piece
example:
i went to a job in brooklyn at a recycling sort facility
they had a large payloader (articulating body for steering, 2 solid axles)
they had cracked the bell housing for the differential on the front axle
the axle was a single cast piece (including the bell housing)
their plan was for me to remove the axle and they wanted to send it to their weld shop to try to repair it
i told them it wouldnt work cause the weld fills a seam
the cast part had no seam originally and that they needed a new housing
i told them before i picked up my first wrench that i give it 24 hours before it WILL break again after the repair
so i take it out, they send it to Ct. for repair (V the crack and fill it in)
it comes back i put it in
and 3 hours later the crack opened back up

broken welds are a big part of my job
i see it a lot, a weld isnt as strong as you seem to think it is
Click to expand...

We are speaking of the core columns here. While they could take some bending, they weren't intended to take wind loads. Most of the core columns did not have splice plates.

Are you saying that the core columns used rivets in addition to butt welds to fasten them together vertically?

I am a mechanical engineer and design weldments quite often and am aware of the strength of a weld using E70 weld material on A36 steel. I don't know what material the bell housing you speak of was made from, or the quality of the weld that was applied, or the stresses on the housing in that area, so your example isn't necessarily relavent.

Do you know what the strength of E70 weld material is vs. that of ASTM A36 steel?

Who said the welds were attacked thermally?

You can't just attack the weld. An explosive charge could have been placed on the column below the weld plane and caused it to be sheared. There are plenty of columns in the rubble with torn or concave side plates at their ends.
 
Last edited:
GlennB said:
Although I have given it in this sub-forum several times, it's fair to say that it would be hard to find. So -

For rebar - in the macro, identifiable state - to be physically missing in significant amounts would require it to be :

1. vapourised
or
2. ground to fine particles

There is no known mechanism whereby either could occur.

And the fact that somebody might make a judgement on the seeming absence of rebar based on clearup photos or videos reflects more on their willingness to embrace CT than any plausible scientific scenario.

I'm not saying you positively believe rebar did disappear, but your post above allowed for that possibility. It shouldn't have. It's generalised, unrigorous, wishy-washy flakiness. Woo for short.
Click to expand...

All we were doing was looking at the possibilities. If you noticed I also made a comment that a 30 foot tall x one acre volume of broken up concrete could have fit in the sub-levels. Implying the rebar would not necessarily be seen. Bill then showed photos of clear area in the sub-levels and was then corrected that those areas were not directly under the buildings.

If you don't want to join in in a friendly way then you know what you can do.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
There has been analysis done by Muhammad Columbo showing that the spires were comprised of the 23 internal core columns only. None of the outer core columns were part of the remaining spires.

Gordon Ross shows Muhammad's analysis on his site here about halfway down the page

http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id2.html
Click to expand...

Very good site Tony. I think I go with most of this.

+ Phase one weakened the structure by attacking the central core structure, disassociating the entire structure at a level below that of the impact [Plane 1]

+ Phase two initiated the collapse of the perimeter structure by attacking the four corners of the towers on two storeys. [ Plane 2 and Plane 3 ]

+ Phase three progressed the collapse by disassociating the floor to perimeter column connections and two vertical lines of spandrel plates at each tower corner, and by continued attacks upon the corners as in phase 2.

+ Phase four completed the collapse by attacking the remaining central core structure at lower levels and disassociating the horizontal bracing.
 
All of which are achievable through -- wait for it -- structural failure... Why an extravagant story for their failures has to be made is beyond me....
 
Tony Szamboti said:
All we were doing was looking at the possibilities. If you noticed I also made a comment that a 30 foot tall x one acre volume of broken up concrete could have fit in the sub-levels. Implying the rebar would not necessarily be seen. Bill then showed photos of clear area in the sub-levels and was then corrected that those areas were not directly under the buildings.

If you don't want to join in in a friendly way then you know what you can do.
Click to expand...

That should be a one acre 30-foot tall homogenous block of concrete. If it was broken into the small pieces we have seen it would occupy far more space than that.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
All of which are achievable through -- wait for it -- structural failure... Why an extravagant story for their failures has to be made is beyond me....
Click to expand...
Maybe you'd like to make a start by explaining phase one ?

+ Phase one weakened the structure by attacking the central core structure, disassociating the entire structure at a level below that of the impact [Plane 1]

Tip: Think about the antenna dropping into the building before any other visible movement takes place,
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
There has been analysis done by Muhammad Columbo showing that the spires were comprised of the 23 internal core columns only. None of the outer core columns were part of the remaining spires.

Gordon Ross shows Muhammad's analysis on his site here about halfway down the page

http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id2.html
Click to expand...

Ah. So Mumbling Dumbo has caught some-one else in his vapid claims. :-(
 
Tony Szamboti said:
There has been analysis done by Muhammad Columbo showing that the spires were comprised of the 23 internal core columns only. None of the outer core columns were part of the remaining spires.

Gordon Ross shows Muhammad's analysis on his site here about halfway down the page

http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id2.html
Click to expand...

Thanks for reminding us of Gordon Ross' excellent analysis of the controlled demolitions, CD, of the WTCs. A one-way crush down of a structure (topic) is not possible without assistance like CD. That US authorities under various administrations suggest the opposite is a concern to us in Europe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom