Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

Status
Not open for further replies.
Heiwa, you also say that there is no evidence of buckling columns yet I find this picture (one of many):
ST1-full.jpg
 
Gamolon said:
Heiwa, From your site:


This is your diagram of WTC1 (notice the antenna on top):
[qimg]http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/WTC1slicea.gif[/qimg]

The diagram does not show telescoping nor does it show the upper part shortening itself in any of the figures.
Click to expand...

i love how he never explains HOW the entire top of the building shoves over 5 or 10 feet to line up the way he shows it lol

o boy any one got an ETA on the complete decimation of his paper

if (and when) it fails peer review
will only he be notified or will the comments still be public?
 
Tony,

Having a little problem finding the actual quote from Skilling saying that they he and his people did fire analysis on the stell structure of the towers?

*crickets*

Either you have it or you don't.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Are you talking about Leslie Robertson discussing the fact that he didn't think the fuel was considered in the analysis done for aircraft impact on the Twin Towers? If you are there is a clip of him saying it in 911 Mysteries.
Click to expand...

No, I am talking about an earlier claim about demolition. I believe you said you saw someone admit it had been a demolition in a documentary but you could not name it or ever find it. Is this correct?

Tony Szamboti said:
As for the steel temperatures you want to say that the NIST has physical evidence of steel reaching 800 to 1000 degrees C and I say they don't if you exclude the couple of pieces that Jonathan Barnett analyzed for the FEMA report in Appendix C. One of those pieces was also from WTC 7. Which would have been the only piece of steel saved from WTC 7.
Click to expand...

How can you exclude anything Tony? Your claim was that they had none. It was a false claim. You have just admitted it. You are also leaving out the fact that there was much more steel that was found with temps higher than 600 but this was not tested or analyzed by NIST. It was irrelevant as they could not identify where it came from. Why would you miss out all that other steel Tony? If there was no steel that experienced hese high temps then I guess you are not a thermite man eh? If there was no evidence of high temps then it could othave been thermite, right?

Tony Szamboti said:
I am saying that out of the 236 pieces that the NIST got from the Towers only a few pieces had experienced temperatures above 250 degrees C and none above 600 degrees C.
Click to expand...

Well you are wrong.
 
Heiwa said:
If you look carefully on the diagram, you see how the strong elements of lower part A damages weak elements, the green floors in upper part C! Hopefully you agree that this is a realistic result! That is the main purpose of the figure!

However, Bazant, the world famous expert of the subject, suggests that the bottom horizontal element of part C (green floor #97 in WTC 1) is not damaged (sic!) at impact and that this thin, weak element destroys the strong A columns below, then compress the A columns into rubble (part B) that protects part C. Parts B and C then continue to destroy A. All nonsense of course.

You see, a composite structure consists of strong and weak elements + plenty of open space in between. When a part C of this structure collides due to gravity with part A of same structure, the strong elements damage the weak elements. Everything in the real world is damaged like that.
Therefore a one-way crush down of A by C and gravity is not possible. Bazant is thus wrong.
Click to expand...

Tell you what Heiwa. Please draw me a diagram of WTC1 showing how you think the positioning/location of all the elements of part C (you can show just the bottom floor area), compared to the positioning/location of all the elements of part A (you can show just the top floor) as they impacted together? Because the videos I see do not match your simple diagram of WTC1. You use words like telescoping, but show something completely different in your simple WTC1 diagram.
 
Gamolon said:
Tony,

Having a little problem finding the actual quote from Skilling saying that they he and his people did fire analysis on the stell structure of the towers?

*crickets*

Either you have it or you don't.
Click to expand...

I hear the crickets also......
 

Attachments

  • 1999534203.jpg
    1999534203.jpg
    6.2 KB · Views: 0
Tony Szamboti said:
Blah blah blah...BS removed.

As for the steel temperatures you want to say that the NIST has physical evidence of steel reaching 800 to 1000 degrees C and I say they don't if you exclude the couple of pieces that Jonathan Barnett analyzed for the FEMA report in Appendix C. One of those pieces was also from WTC 7. Which would have been the only piece of steel saved from WTC 7.

I am saying that out of the 236 pieces that the NIST got from the Towers only a few pieces had experienced temperatures above 250 degrees C and none above 600 degrees C.
Click to expand...


So, if they had 236 pieces, and, just for arguments sake, they had 20, thats 11.8% of the total. Even if they had 10, that is still 5.9% of the total metal has temeratures above 600 Deg. C. So, how many beams caame from the area of the crash?? I would say not many. How many beams did WTC 1&2 have TOTAL??? A S****TON more than 236. I would say that even if the floors that were impacted had 10,000 pieces total, that 236 is a VERY SMALL representation. Come on Bill. Lets use logic here.
 
Wait wait wait....I JUST saw this!! Holy sweet fluffy baby jesus, how could I miss that.

Ok, so Leslie Robertson did not account for fuel in an airplane crash?? How could you POSSIBLY do an analysis of an AIRPLANE crashing into a building while its in FLIGHT, if you can't FLY A PLANE WITHOUT GAS?!?!?!?!

Must be a nano-therm*te powered plane.

Because we ALL KNOW that 9/11 mysteries would NEVER take someone's words and twist them around, or quote mine, or take them out of context.

1-2-3 FIGHTS OVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
triforcharity said:
Wait wait wait....I JUST saw this!! Holy sweet fluffy baby jesus, how could I miss that.

Ok, so Leslie Robertson did not account for fuel in an airplane crash?? How could you POSSIBLY do an analysis of an AIRPLANE crashing into a building while its in FLIGHT, if you can't FLY A PLANE WITHOUT GAS?!?!?!?!

Must be a nano-therm*te powered plane.

Because we ALL KNOW that 9/11 mysteries would NEVER take someone's words and twist them around, or quote mine, or take them out of context.

1-2-3 FIGHTS OVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

I think it is being taken out of context. One of the people involved in the design (maybe Robertson himself) said that their operating assumption was a jet low on fuel after a long trip, flying low and lost in the fog or the dark. They figured that would be the most likely impact scenario: A jet whose pilots were trying to find the runway, were configured for landing, and just happened to be off course. No one at all envisioned the scenario that actually happened.

So did they account for "the fuel"? Well, I'd need to know the context of the truther claim, because to the best of my knowledge, when fuel from a jet impacting was considered, it was presumed to be a small amount.

Furthermore, as others have pointed out, computing nowadays has made modeling a completely different ballgame. Hypothetically, someone back in the 60s when the tower was being designed could have been ordered to model a scenario like what actually happened, fuel and all, and still not have gotten it right through no fault of their own because such an event would be difficult to model on paper.

Anyway, if we're talking 9/11 Mysteries here, presume everything outside of the date is either misrepresented, divorced from context, or inaccurate to some degree. You won't be too far off with that presumption.

ETA: Ah, I see the context above. Mr. Szamboti is citing 9/11 Mysteries. Ok. Yes, I'm on topic then. The explanation is as I said above. This has been mentioned several times before.
 
Last edited:
ElMondoHummus said:
ETA: Ah, I see the context above. Mr. Szamboti is citing 9/11 Mysteries. Ok. Yes, I'm on topic then. The explanation is as I said above.
Click to expand...

Yes....Mr. Szamboti is full of crap...I tried to show him the context of what he is claiming in post #2139 but I never got an answer from Tony...

The most amazing thing (to me) about these truthers isn't the way they misread, misinterpret, or misunderstand the engineering side of the debate, but how they take people comments out of context and assume that someone is lying instead of allowing the possibility that maybe the person was simply mistaken.

It's disgusting and it disrespects everyone involved with 9-11...
 
Gamolon said:
Heiwa, From your site:


This is your diagram of WTC1 (notice the antenna on top):
[qimg]http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/WTC1slicea.gif[/qimg]

The diagram does not show telescoping nor does it show the upper part shortening itself in any of the figures.
Click to expand...

You are right. My diagram shows the worst case when upper part C drops (it cannot drop but that's the assumption) and is sliced apart by lower part A (that is also locally damaged). I should add that, when lower part A starts to slice upper part C apart, there should be a visible jolt of part C.

On all videos of WTC 1 - I have described plenty in my papers - we clearly see part C telescoping into itself! Or the lower section of part C is blown apart and the roof drops. And lower part A remains intact. Thus something else than my diagram (two parts colliding).

If you read on my paper you find clear evidence that WTC 1 was not one-way crushed down (C crushing A) as suggested by Bazant, Seffen and NIST. That's my contribution to 911! I also add that controlled demolition is a very likely cause of destruction of both C and A. Thus it should be properly investigated.
 
Last edited:
Gamolon said:
Tell you what Heiwa. Please draw me a diagram of WTC1 showing how you think the positioning/location of all the elements of part C (you can show just the bottom floor area), compared to the positioning/location of all the elements of part A (you can show just the top floor) as they impacted together? Because the videos I see do not match your simple diagram of WTC1. You use words like telescoping, but show something completely different in your simple WTC1 diagram.
Click to expand...

Good idea! Read first http://heiwaco.tripod.com/funnym.htm to get a feel for the WTC 1 structure. Then we can discuss further.
 
Heiwa said:
If you read on my paper you find clear evidence that WTC 1 was not one-way crushed down (C crushing A) as suggested by Bazant, Seffen and NIST. That's my contribution to 911! I also add that controlled demolition is a very likely cause of destruction of both C and A. Thus it should be properly investigated.
Click to expand...

Heiwa, your analysis is too weak to warrant another investigation, even though your persistence is noted.

I think you're out of your depth in this pursuit - you simply do not have the analytical skills to make a convincing engineering argument, so will not succeed.

Please note that a recent analysis of Tony Szamboti's 'missing jolt' paper showed that, when you remove the sampling method errors and other artifacts, there is good evidence of sharp changes in velocity.
Thanks to Moorea34
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4880046#post4880046

Add to this the simple fact that David Chandler's own acceleration analysis showed that the upper block of WTC1 started to fall at approx 64% of freefall!
This is clear proof that structure was being destroyed/accelerated, according to conservation of momentum.

Mr. Bjorkman, perhaps you are indeed a well qualified marine engineer, but you are letting your infatuation with conspiracy theories override your better judgment, IMHO. That's a shame.

Maybe stick to your area of expertise?
 
ElMondoHummus said:
I think it is being taken out of context. One of the people involved in the design (maybe Robertson himself) said that their operating assumption was a jet low on fuel after a long trip, flying low and lost in the fog or the dark. They figured that would be the most likely impact scenario: A jet whose pilots were trying to find the runway, were configured for landing, and just happened to be off course. No one at all envisioned the scenario that actually happened.

So did they account for "the fuel"? Well, I'd need to know the context of the truther claim, because to the best of my knowledge, when fuel from a jet impacting was considered, it was presumed to be a small amount.

Furthermore, as others have pointed out, computing nowadays has made modeling a completely different ballgame. Hypothetically, someone back in the 60s when the tower was being designed could have been ordered to model a scenario like what actually happened, fuel and all, and still not have gotten it right through no fault of their own because such an event would be difficult to model on paper.

Anyway, if we're talking 9/11 Mysteries here, presume everything outside of the date is either misrepresented, divorced from context, or inaccurate to some degree. You won't be too far off with that presumption.

ETA: Ah, I see the context above. Mr. Szamboti is citing 9/11 Mysteries. Ok. Yes, I'm on topic then. The explanation is as I said above. This has been mentioned several times before.
Click to expand...

When I looked into that subject a while ago, I discovered (from original news reports in the 1960's) that there was quite a lot of consternation about the height of the proposed WTC towers, and the possibility that a jet approaching the airport might hit them.
Quite understandable since the Empire State Building had suffered exactly such a collision..

It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if some proponent of the WTC project were to exaggerate the engineering safety margins built into them, esp when talking to the press.
I believe this may be where the 600mph figure originated.

I'll try to find the links when I have time.
 
Heiwa said:
Good idea! Read first http://heiwaco.tripod.com/funnym.htm to get a feel for the WTC 1 structure. Then we can discuss further.
Click to expand...


Take the advice of Mike Newman of NIST and read an elementary physics text. To get a feel for engineering, take a few basic courses. To understand something about the twin towers, try looking at the NIST reports.

Who am I kidding? You'd never get past the elementary physics text.
 
alienentity said:
Heiwa, your analysis is too weak to warrant another investigation, even though your persistence is noted.


Mr. Bjorkman, perhaps you are indeed a well qualified marine engineer, but you are letting your infatuation with conspiracy theories override your better judgment, IMHO. That's a shame.

Maybe stick to your area of expertise?
Click to expand...

Read first http://heiwaco.tripod.com/funnym.htm to get a feel for the WTC 1 structure. Then we can discuss further.
 
HyJinX said:
Stop the madness!
Click to expand...

more like people need to stop responding to Heiwa... he's made so many wrong assertions it makes my head spin... I know it's generally repetitive with all of these CT's but Heiwa hasn't changed his basic argument since I joined last year... and he's been here twice as long as me...


bill smith said:
This is a goood video if you want to see the top block of WTC1 explode into dust. Also the behaviour of th core remnants is interesting.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6005900343263850613&hl=en
Click to expand...
You're trying to inject extravagance into something that just doesn't need it... perhaps if you had a qualified background in discussing this material it'd be more interesting but it gets boring repeating the same (right) explanations to you over and over when you've demonstrated past & present your unwillingness or inability to accept those explanations. These are personal issues that you're responsible for resolving...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom