Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

[Gamolon]

his response then was this

You are wrong everywhere. My illustrations are 2-D to start with. Purpose is only to demonstrate how local structural failures are arrested, e.g. strong elements damage weak elements. Not the other way around. Do you belong to some religious sect believing something else? If yes, join The Heiwa Challenge thread! There you have your chance!

i responded with this and he never answered

Should that have read (bolding mine, added):

You are wrong everywhere. My illustrations are 2-D to start with. Purpose is only to demonstrate how I think the local structural failures should have been arrested in WTC1, e.g. strong elements damage weak elements. Not the other way around. Do you belong to some religious sect believing something else? If yes, join The Heiwa Challenge thread! There you have your chance!

 

[Justin39640]

Should that have read (bolding mine, added):

or a big fat IMO right before it lol

 

[Grizzly Bear]

My pleasure!

On your site, you show a diagram of what should have happened:
[qimg]http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/WTC1slicea.gif[/qimg]

Those 4 vertical black lines represent perimeter columns. Look at Figure D. I agree that the furthest right columns represents the row of perimeter columns along the side of the tower. I can agree that that row of column would indeed hit the concrete floor as show. What I have a problem with is the two middle verticle black lines.

The perimeter columns along that face are OUTSIDE the concrete concrete floors.

So how would those perimeter columns, represented by the two middle verticle black lines, spear the floor above when the said perimeter columns along that face ARE NOT BELOW THE FLOOR? They are OUTSIDE the floor on the edge.

Have at it my friend.

Not that it needs to be said but the real problem with the 2D model Heiwa pushes is it completely ignores the slenderness ratio of such long unsupported column lengths and the kind of bending and torsional strains put on the connections. Anyone with half a brain in either architecture or engineering would have figured that out a long time ago, Heiwa has made it quite clear that he's oblivious to this idiocy, and you shouldn't need to be wasting time trying to convince him otherwise. Look at how long he's been on this forum, and how long people have tried to correct him...

 

[Justin39640]

Not that it needs to be said but the real problem with the 2D model Heiwa pushes is it completely ignores the slenderness ratio of such long unsupported column lengths and the kind of bending and torsional strains put on the connections. Anyone with half a brain in either architecture or engineering would have figured that out a long time ago, Heiwa is apparently quite oblivious to this idiocy, and you shouldn't need to be wasting time trying to convince him otherwise.

im just kinda pointing and laughing lol

engineer indeed lol

 

[triforcharity]

................

Robertson making the fuel comment can be seen on 911 Mysteries. I think it was from an interview for the show How the Towers Fell.
.................QUOTE]

Yeah, because we all know that 911 Mysteries would NEVER quote mine, or take things out of context don't we Tony??

If it was such a great movie, why hasn't it won a SINGLE award of ANY KIND??? Right......

I believe the Naudet Brothers' documentary won quite a few awards.

Including:

2003-Nominated for a CAS Award for Outstanding Sound Mixing for Television - Non-Fiction, Variety or Music Series or Specials

2002 Won the following Emmys
-Outstanding Non-Fiction Special (Informational)
-Outstanding Sound Mixing for Non-Fiction Programming (Single or Multi-Camera)

And nominated for the following:
-Outstanding Cinematography for Non-Fiction Programming (Single or Multi-Camera)
-Outstanding Picture Editing for Non-Fiction Programming (Single or Multi-Camera)
-Outstanding Sound Editing for Non-Fiction Programming (Single or Multi-Camera)

German Awards

2002-Won German Television Award for Best International Program


2003-Won a Peabody Award

2003 Won Special Humanitarian DVD Award

2002-Nominated for TCA Award (Television Critics Award) for Outstanding Achievement in Movies, Mini-Series and Specials

2003-Won- WRG (Writers Guild of America) Award for Documentary - Current Events


Now, how many did that pile of garbage strung together win??


I can't find any that is reputable. I think it might have won the Clunkidy Clunk award for Biggest bunch of BS ever put on a DVD. They would win that hands down. LC coming in a very close second.

 

[Bluesky]

my models dont collapse square

altough ill admit theyre not very accurate scientifically
and theres a lot of limits i work with there

but they are operating in a game engine that uses basic laws of physics
unsquare shifting of weight always results in total or near total collapse

except the 1 i made for Heiwa where i did drop it square
then just the top few floors of the lower part collapsed
but that was again in a perfect virtual world

check out my YT page
http://www.youtube.com/user/justin39640

Yes that is the thing about Heiwa's nutty challenge. He forgets eccentricity, angle of impact, stack joints and the game software shows all of these issues. Your model wins the Heiwa Challenge and its easy to make a million other structures like it. You win a dollar.!

It is an impressive demonstration of progressive collapse, and although it does not demonstrate the issues of frame action, impact damage, fire weakening, air blasting out of the floors: it does demonstrate the principles of rapid failure, no jolt etc. Very nice

 

[Bluesky]

Suppose Robertson is eventually called before some kind of tribunal. What do you think would be the most awkward question they could ask him in that context ?

Can you please make a model out of cardboard boxes to show why the twin towers fell so quickly?

 

[Bluesky]

LOL! This link is about Why a one-way Crush down is not possible!

Breach of Rule 11: Posts must be on topic to the thread subject.

But you are right! 53 pages ... and nobody seems to be able to explain that a one-way crush down is possible. It makes me happy.

For each of your 2800 posts on the issue there have been at least 5 to 10 responses, that explain why your paper is neither relevant to the failures of the WTC towers or to structural collapse analysis. And I agree that nobody seems to be able to explain to you, "why a one-way crush is possible".

But I think you have helped many people understand why your theory about the WTC collapse is not possible. You have also demonstrated how the ae911truth movement would like to form the debate, and how they would interface with the engineers who design these buildings and the structural pathologists who analyzed the collapse.

God save us.!

 

[triforcharity]

Use some lemons, saltines, sugarcubes, lets see, OH YEAH, Spagetti, what else has he used..... Didn't he use marinara once too??? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[newton3376]

Use some lemons, saltines, sugarcubes, lets see, OH YEAH, Spagetti, what else has he used..... Didn't he use marinara once too??? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!

LOL

Cardboard and fruit as models....classic truther idiocy....

 

[tsig]

LOL

Cardboard and fruit as models....classic truther idiocy....

Tables.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Yeah, because we all know that 911 Mysteries would NEVER quote mine, or take things out of context don't we Tony??

Leslie Robertson is shown saying he didn't think they considered the fuel in the 1964 analysis and says no more about it, so I don't see how it could be labeled as quote mining or taken out of context.

Have you watched it? If so, do you have a different interpretation of what he said?

 

[Justin39640]

Yes that is the thing about Heiwa's nutty challenge. He forgets eccentricity, angle of impact, stack joints and the game software shows all of these issues. Your model wins the Heiwa Challenge and its easy to make a million other structures like it. You win a dollar.!

It is an impressive demonstration of progressive collapse, and although it does not demonstrate the issues of frame action, impact damage, fire weakening, air blasting out of the floors: it does demonstrate the principles of rapid failure, no jolt etc. Very nice

ty
i know it def has limitations but it does show some key points
then again ive only been using that program for about 2 weeks
give me 3 months i might give NIST a run for their money lol
but it might take that long to render it

as for the dollar make it 2


i think cusack plays a good heiwa in the 1st scene lol

 

[Heiwa]

My pleasure!

On your site, you show a diagram of what should have happened:
[qimg]http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/WTC1slicea.gif[/qimg]

Those 4 vertical black lines represent perimeter columns. Look at Figure D. I agree that the furthest right columns represents the row of perimeter columns along the side of the tower. I can agree that that row of column would indeed hit the concrete floor as show. What I have a problem with is the two middle verticle black lines.

The perimeter columns along that face are OUTSIDE the concrete concrete floors.

So how would those perimeter columns, represented by the two middle verticle black lines, spear the floor above when the said perimeter columns along that face ARE NOT BELOW THE FLOOR? They are OUTSIDE the floor on the edge.

Have at it my friend.

??? Evidently a vertical element displacing down outside the structure contacts nothing! A vertical or horizontal element displacing down inside the structure evidently contacts a horizontal or vertical element there.

That's why a one-way crush down is not possible.

 

[Heiwa]

... I agree that nobody seems to be able to explain to you, "why a one-way crush is possible".


God save us.!

Yes, it is impossible to explain a one-way crush of a structure by gravity as such a process cannot take place. But plenty of people still believe it is possible. Halleluja.

 

[funk de fino]

Leslie Robertson is shown saying he didn't think they considered the fuel in the 1964 analysis and says no more about it, so I don't see how it could be labeled as quote mining or taken out of context.

Have you watched it? If so, do you have a different interpretation of what he said?

Are you running away from my questions Tony?

Want to wagr on the steel temps like you claimed?

Is this another imaginary documentary? It was you was it not? I will retract and apologise if it was not.

ETA - Context on the bold above shows he could not have been lying.

 

[Ragnarok]

Can someone explain this for me:-

If the weight of the buildings and the loss of structural integrity due to intense heat, was enough to almost pulverise the cores, why would there be any core left standing at the base at all, seeing as this would seem to be the most vulnerable part, considering the immense weight coming down against it? It's as though the core wasn't able to support so much weight all at once...but then it was again!

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Are you running away from my questions Tony?

Want to wagr on the steel temps like you claimed?

Is this another imaginary documentary? It was you was it not? I will retract and apologise if it was not.

ETA - Context on the bold above shows he could not have been lying.

Your questions have already been answered.

The NIST essentially has no physical evidence of the steel reaching high enough temperatures to weaken it in any significant way.

Are you saying that Leslie Robertson is not shown in 911 Mysteries saying what I have mentioned here?

 

[aggle-rithm]

The NIST essentially has no physical evidence of the steel reaching high enough temperatures to weaken it in any significant way.

Even if that were true, it is the most plausible mechanism by which the steel would become weakened.

Do you have physical evidence that the steel failed by any other mechanism? Now would be the time to present that evidence.

(And please don't mention those ridiculous paint chips. We know all about those.)

 

[Gamolon]

Leslie Robertson is shown saying he didn't think they considered the fuel in the 1964 analysis and says no more about it, so I don't see how it could be labeled as quote mining or taken out of context.

Have you watched it? If so, do you have a different interpretation of what he said?

Where is the quote that you reference that Skilling says that DID do an analysis?!

The question is easy. You made the claim, now point to the information.