You did very well there. Bravo! We'll make a scientist of you yet!
The point you missed was whether the jolt(s) would be detectable by the apparatus available at the time, as claimed by Szamboti.
Why a one-way Crush down is not possible
- Thread starter Heiwa
- Start date
- Status
You did very well there. Bravo! We'll make a scientist of you yet!
The point you missed was whether the jolt(s) would be detectable by the apparatus available at the time, as claimed by Szamboti.
Gamolon
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2006
- Messages
- 2,702
So you're telling me that the floor truss connections were strong enough to slow the upper mass (Part C) enough that we should see a jolt?
Have you done the calculations to prove this?
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
Where is the Jolt?
(sorry, video encoding seems a little off)
Since you can't see one, it proves the other boats were sunk by silent nanothermite explosions.
Why didn't the Canadian government test for explosives? Why was the evidence removed?
This conspiracy knows no bounds!!!
(sorry, video encoding seems a little off)
Since you can't see one, it proves the other boats were sunk by silent nanothermite explosions.
Why didn't the Canadian government test for explosives? Why was the evidence removed?
This conspiracy knows no bounds!!!
Last edited:
Of course! Haven't you read my paper? http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm and scroll down.
Actually it is not breaking 700 floor truss connections/floor that arrests upper part C. It is the elastic deformations of parts C and A and local failures of any kind, e.g. punching holes in floors and finally friction between damaged and intact parts ... in both parts C and A.
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
He's not only made the calculations, but they've been peer reviewed by Dr. Sunder of NIST. Heiwa said so, it must be true.
And Heiwa's got 1 million dollars waiting for you as well if you meet his challenge. The winner of the challenge must win a majority vote by the judging panel - that would be Heiwa, of course.
Wow. Will wonders never cease...
The rude, arrogant naval architect actually deigns to reply to a couple of points.
I never said anything of the sort. I laid out clearly & correctly how the forces from the weight of floors 99 thru 110 are transmitted to floor 98: THRU THE COLUMNS to which all those floors are tied.
Nice to calibrate your reading comprehension.
WRONG. Is this an example of your high-falutin' "damage analysis"?
It is NOT "an assembly of floors" that contacts another "assembly of floors".
Individual pieces of the upper assembly contact individual pieces of the lower assembly.
WRONG.
You have been told AT LEAST 20 times that "rigid body" does NOT mean "indestructible". And yet you obliviously yammer on.
As I said before - and you have once again demonstrated - you couldn't pour piss out of a boot if I wrote the instructions for you on the heel.
And you certainly cannot accurately interpret anything that I have laid out in simple, concise terms that any freshman engineering student could understand.
So, please listen carefully. I INSIST that you not attempt to interpret for anyone else ANYTHING that I've said. Because you cannot get the simplest statement right.
With reference to me, you have my permission to say that there is another experienced mechanical engineer that thinks that you are wrong at just about every single assertion you've made. And if anyone would like to read for themselves what I believe, they should ask me directly.
Of course, if you'd like to be completely accurate, you should say that ALL competent engineers think that you are full of baloney. But I'm sure that you'll take comfort that bill smith thinks you're a genius...
Yes, your opinion is quite clear.
Your opinion is that:
"There is no difference between static & dynamic loading."
"Buildings are just ships without all that moisture around."
"ALL the structural engineers in the world are about to be eclipsed in their knowledge of collapse dynamics by some arrogant amateur who happens to be a naval architect."
"You have anything whatsoever to tell Zdenek Bazant about structural mechanics."
ALL of the above are laughable.
Let the skipping record begin in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...
ahhhhhh, THERE it is.
SOMEBODY KICK THE JUKEBOX, PLEASE...!!
Because you say this again, and again, and again?? With ZERO engineering analysis to support your nonsense.
Why don't you threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue. Perhaps that will get someone to notice you.
SURE THING, Anders.
Let's expand the conversation to this pathetic accusation.
Your idiocy has now come full circle and constitutes a complete whole of stoopid.
You are incompetent. You can not understand the simplest of engineering arguments. You refuse to discuss the ones that you KNOW you have misstated.
Real engineers, real scientists, and real non-techies who can simply read (& watch you run from real discussions) KNOW that you are simply, utterly, laughably wrong.
And now, you offer this little pile - that anyone who disagrees with your blatantly wrong crappola is "complicit to mass murder".
Anders, what you have offered here is PRECISELY the same nonsense as "anyone who suggests the earth moves is a heretic." Or "Anyone who suggests that man descended from other animals offends God."
Wrong, Anders.
Anyone who says that a one-way crush down is possible simply has the good sense to listen to the WORLD's foremost experts on the matter.
And to ignore one looney-toons naval claims adjuster who won't even bother to attempt to defend - honestly - his own nonsense.
Sounds to me like the are guilty of "complicity to use their brains, common sense & good judgment".
Tom
The rude, arrogant naval architect actually deigns to reply to a couple of points.
.
I never said anything of the sort. I laid out clearly & correctly how the forces from the weight of floors 99 thru 110 are transmitted to floor 98: THRU THE COLUMNS to which all those floors are tied.
Nice to calibrate your reading comprehension.
.
WRONG. Is this an example of your high-falutin' "damage analysis"?
It is NOT "an assembly of floors" that contacts another "assembly of floors".
Individual pieces of the upper assembly contact individual pieces of the lower assembly.
.
WRONG.
You have been told AT LEAST 20 times that "rigid body" does NOT mean "indestructible". And yet you obliviously yammer on.
.
As I said before - and you have once again demonstrated - you couldn't pour piss out of a boot if I wrote the instructions for you on the heel.
And you certainly cannot accurately interpret anything that I have laid out in simple, concise terms that any freshman engineering student could understand.
So, please listen carefully. I INSIST that you not attempt to interpret for anyone else ANYTHING that I've said. Because you cannot get the simplest statement right.
With reference to me, you have my permission to say that there is another experienced mechanical engineer that thinks that you are wrong at just about every single assertion you've made. And if anyone would like to read for themselves what I believe, they should ask me directly.
Of course, if you'd like to be completely accurate, you should say that ALL competent engineers think that you are full of baloney. But I'm sure that you'll take comfort that bill smith thinks you're a genius...
.
Yes, your opinion is quite clear.
Your opinion is that:
"There is no difference between static & dynamic loading."
"Buildings are just ships without all that moisture around."
"ALL the structural engineers in the world are about to be eclipsed in their knowledge of collapse dynamics by some arrogant amateur who happens to be a naval architect."
"You have anything whatsoever to tell Zdenek Bazant about structural mechanics."
ALL of the above are laughable.
.
Let the skipping record begin in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...
.
ahhhhhh, THERE it is.
SOMEBODY KICK THE JUKEBOX, PLEASE...!!
.
Because you say this again, and again, and again?? With ZERO engineering analysis to support your nonsense.
Why don't you threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue. Perhaps that will get someone to notice you.
.
SURE THING, Anders.
Let's expand the conversation to this pathetic accusation.
Your idiocy has now come full circle and constitutes a complete whole of stoopid.
You are incompetent. You can not understand the simplest of engineering arguments. You refuse to discuss the ones that you KNOW you have misstated.
Real engineers, real scientists, and real non-techies who can simply read (& watch you run from real discussions) KNOW that you are simply, utterly, laughably wrong.
And now, you offer this little pile - that anyone who disagrees with your blatantly wrong crappola is "complicit to mass murder".
Anders, what you have offered here is PRECISELY the same nonsense as "anyone who suggests the earth moves is a heretic." Or "Anyone who suggests that man descended from other animals offends God."
Wrong, Anders.
Anyone who says that a one-way crush down is possible simply has the good sense to listen to the WORLD's foremost experts on the matter.
And to ignore one looney-toons naval claims adjuster who won't even bother to attempt to defend - honestly - his own nonsense.
Sounds to me like the are guilty of "complicity to use their brains, common sense & good judgment".
Tom
triforcharity
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 13,961
So, wait a minute, if you demonstrate a one way crush down, and it in fact works, it has to be voted upon if it happened or not??? Somehow this boggles my mind!!
So, If I were to demonstrate that fire weakens steel, some panel of judges has to tell me if its true or not???????
So, If I were to demonstrate that fire weakens steel, some panel of judges has to tell me if its true or not???????
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
And why didn't they dust for Leprechaun footprints? Those little guys have their grubby little hands into everything!
Justin39640
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 22, 2009
- Messages
- 4,202
ok through the 100s of pages of part a and c i have 1 question
wheres part b? lol
no but seriously
heiwa says basically
that when the top of WTC1 leans and breaks its outer columns
the upper columns contact the floor on F97?
and that floor should arrest the collapse
hmm
maybe you forgot about a simple thing called PSI
the floor was designed to hold up desks people machinery cabinets etc etc
but that was spread out over the entire surface of the floor
when you have the entire weight of the upper part come down on just a few square feet the floor will NEVER stop it
this same idea is why i yell at people for lifting their cars with forklifts
the forks are designed by weight class
a 5000 capacity pair of forks can lift 5000 lbs
but thats spreading the weight over the entire face of the fork
picking up 5000 lbs on a few square inches can bend or shatter the fork and cause 1 hell of an accident
this is so simple its stupid
yet you clearly dont comprehend it
ive also had forklifts go through floors in retail space (some settle when the frame hits the floor, guess why H man, some get a free trip to the basement)
cause they were too heavy for that design
but the floor holds up the racks and all the merchandise just fine
cause that weight is spread out and the machines weight is compact
(your average 5000 cap FL fully loaded weighs in at about 15000 lbs)
in HS a student attacked his father in the lobby with a ball point pen to the neck (ouch)
my physics teacher a few months later while talking about PSI took a troublesome student to the front of the class and held a wooden dowel to his neck and said "this wont go through, itll hurt, but theres too much area"
then he said "on the other hand" he then just held up a ball point pen and gave us groucho marx eyebrows
lol
wheres part b? lol
no but seriously
heiwa says basically
that when the top of WTC1 leans and breaks its outer columns
the upper columns contact the floor on F97?
and that floor should arrest the collapse
hmm
maybe you forgot about a simple thing called PSI
the floor was designed to hold up desks people machinery cabinets etc etc
but that was spread out over the entire surface of the floor
when you have the entire weight of the upper part come down on just a few square feet the floor will NEVER stop it
this same idea is why i yell at people for lifting their cars with forklifts
the forks are designed by weight class
a 5000 capacity pair of forks can lift 5000 lbs
but thats spreading the weight over the entire face of the fork
picking up 5000 lbs on a few square inches can bend or shatter the fork and cause 1 hell of an accident
this is so simple its stupid
yet you clearly dont comprehend it
ive also had forklifts go through floors in retail space (some settle when the frame hits the floor, guess why H man, some get a free trip to the basement)
cause they were too heavy for that design
but the floor holds up the racks and all the merchandise just fine
cause that weight is spread out and the machines weight is compact
(your average 5000 cap FL fully loaded weighs in at about 15000 lbs)
in HS a student attacked his father in the lobby with a ball point pen to the neck (ouch)
my physics teacher a few months later while talking about PSI took a troublesome student to the front of the class and held a wooden dowel to his neck and said "this wont go through, itll hurt, but theres too much area"
then he said "on the other hand" he then just held up a ball point pen and gave us groucho marx eyebrows
lol
Last edited:
triforcharity
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 13,961
Not you heiwa.
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
.
Well, one of the world's premier experts is Zdenek Bazant.
You would do well to attempt to emulate this paper:
"Stability of Elastic, Anelastic, and Disintegrating Structures, and Finite
Strain Ejects: an Overview"
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/S49.pdf
Next would be Leslie Robertson, who has stated clearly that, once the collapse began, collapse to the street was inevitable.
Next would be about 100 structural engineers who produced NIST report.
According to you, there is no such thing as progressive collapse in a building due just to gravity. For you, the beginning & end of "Engineering Principles of Progressive Collapse" is "keep explosives away from buildings".
So, you should consider the approximately 10,000 authors of the following 4500 papers, books regarding "progressive collapse" to believe that there is just a tad more to it than you believe.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="progressive+collapse"&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search
Just a sampling.
Others here have also posted the names of hundreds of experts.
You were saying, as to why we should believe you...??
Tom
bill smith
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 8,408
When all his spills out onto main street T as it certainly will in due course, a lot of people are going to have to come up with a lot of tortured excuses. It's a fascinating situation in a lot of ways. Pschologists and behavioural experts will have years of work to unravel the psychology involved.
Last edited:
Very nicely put!
.
Why do you do this, bill?
I am truly at a loss as to which metaphor to employ.
"... big, fat, slow pitch down the middle of the plate ..."
"... sticking your chin out to Mike Tyson & daring him to take a swing ..."
"... tug on Superman's cape. Pull the mask off that ole Lone Ranger. Mess around with Jim ..."
It already has spilled out onto Main street. It did so in 2001. Perhaps you've failed to attend a Memorial day ceremony. Or July 4th ceremony. Or a "welcome home, soldiers" ceremony since 2001. I can assure you that there is STILL a huge residual effect on "Main Street USA".
Those murderers took two of our skyscrapers, damaged a 3rd building and killed 3000 innocent countrymen (& some guests). Immediately thereafter, we booted them, and the government that sheltered them, out of Afghanistan. And are presently in the process of giving back that country to a more responsible Afghani government.
Not a perfect solution. But the best option after the fact.
Do you think that other nations that have bands of terrorists inside their borders have NOT noticed that recent history?
Do you think that the leaders of those governments are so dumb as to think that the US will respond LESS aggressively the NEXT time some crazed bunch get an inclination to attack the US like that?
I seriously doubt it, bill.
So, in that context I would argue that it has spilled out far, far beyond Main Street USA. All the way to Main Street Pakistan, Main Street N. Korea, Main Street Iran, Main Street Libya, Main Street Chechnya, etc, etc, etc.
Tom
Last edited:
triforcharity
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 13,961
The first paragraph, I have already found a mistake.
Calling the NIST report on the WTC collapses "vague" is the biggest lie I have ever heard.
10,000 +/- pages of document does not egual vague. Vague would be telling someone "A building fell. Lots of deaths. Big pile of rubble." THAT would be vague.
ETA: And you took what, 27 pages to prove that 10,000 pages were wrong?? Something tells me you have missed some things in your mission.
Calling the NIST report on the WTC collapses "vague" is the biggest lie I have ever heard.
10,000 +/- pages of document does not egual vague. Vague would be telling someone "A building fell. Lots of deaths. Big pile of rubble." THAT would be vague.
ETA: And you took what, 27 pages to prove that 10,000 pages were wrong?? Something tells me you have missed some things in your mission.
Last edited:
TruthersLie
This space for rent.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2009
- Messages
- 3,715
except tri that is exactly what twoofs need to hear.
2 jets moving fast hit building. BOOM!! Building on FIRE. Fire burn. Steel WEaken. Buildings fall down go BOOM!! Both buildings destroy 10 other buildings with massive damage. ONe building is hit. FIRES burn for 8 hours. NO WATER. Building fall down go BOOM.
We are very sad.
2 jets moving fast hit building. BOOM!! Building on FIRE. Fire burn. Steel WEaken. Buildings fall down go BOOM!! Both buildings destroy 10 other buildings with massive damage. ONe building is hit. FIRES burn for 8 hours. NO WATER. Building fall down go BOOM.
We are very sad.
triforcharity
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 13,961
Isn't it sad though?? You cannot put anything technical out there for them, because they will claim to understand it, and butcher it to pieces, or not understand it and refuse to learn. Perfect example-Christopher7
- Status