So your response is to point me to the same web page I was referencing?
That's all you've got?
(PS, Mackey's model is irrelevant because it was not trying to show that structures get stronger as they get closer to the ground and therefore cannot collapse.)
Come on guys ...grow up.!
The twin tower were designed in the early 60's, so please do not think that the technology that we have today was available with the designers of the towers.
1962 - First trans-Atlantic satellite broadcast via the Telstar satellite
1964 - The programming language BASIC was created
1964 - The compact Ford Mustang was launched
1967 - The first ATM is opened in Barclays Bank, London
1967 - The Beatles release,album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
1968 - First humans to leave Earth's gravity influence and orbit another celestial body: Apollo 8.
And you think that Skillings did a comprehensive fire and structures analysis with technology that would be invented 40 years later.
Any comment in the 1990s would surely be a bit of post-rationalisation at the best. The best they could have done is shown that the wind forces were much much larger than the forces caused by a plane impact.
As I mentioned earlier, there are issues that come up in the real world that all the careful design in the world can't take into account.
You can say, "If A happens, then B will be the result," but that will only take you so far. In real life there are side effects to side effects to side effects that feed back into the system and cause more side effects. The only way to anticipate that is with a computer model, and then it only works as well as the data that is fed into it.
Such computer models didn't exist back then. Only in the late sixties were mainframes even powerful enough to crunch numbers this way, and most design firms didn't have access to this type of resource.
As I mentioned earlier, there are issues that come up in the real world that all the careful design in the world can't take into account.
You can say, "If A happens, then B will be the result," but that will only take you so far. In real life there are side effects to side effects to side effects that feed back into the system and cause more side effects. The only way to anticipate that is with a computer model, and then it only works as well as the data that is fed into it.
Exactly right, but this is something Heiwa either doesn't care for or doesn't understand. A quick glance at the 6th edition of the steel designers manual where they talk about accidental loading condition also goes into this briefly. However, I would waste time trying explain this to him -- more than 2 years on this forum and not a dent in his "faith" means he's unlikely to ever be convinced, and moreover it'd be pointless to carry on with him. He genuinely thinks of himself as being correct regardless of whether in actuality he isn't.
I believe this is the one you're looking for: Balzac a Vitry in France, 1994. Method was by hydraulic removal of supports.
Note to loony marine engineers: this type of controlled demolition can't happen, it was an inside/inside job. Silent explosives (French military versions of hush-a-boom technology) were employed secretly so the collapse didn't stop, and special suction devices prevented the upper block from 'bouncing'.
Note that the French hush-a-boom devices were not developed until 2005, 10 years after this demolition. That means the French government had access to time-travel technology in order to pull this deception off!!
I also heard that the demolition company had several Jewish people connected with it. Say no more, say no more!
Show me a truther theorist who doesn't operate this way, and you can have the million dollars sitting in my back pocket (I think that's where Heiwa is keeping his million dollars)
Sorry, you got it wrong ... again. My case + axiom are stated in my papers on my web site since long. Then this Mackey pops up with a model on Hardfire and JREF and suggests it can one-way crush down.
So I copied/pasted Mackey's model on one of my web pages and showed that it was irrelevant nonsense ... according my axiom. Mackey didn't like it of course. Mackey's model proves me right ... as usual.
Now, back to topic! Can you show anything that one-way crushes down by a piece of anything being dropped on anything?
Or (off topic) are you like all these AIG sales persons selling insurance against any risk (with no capital to back it) and then just collecting the fees and running away. If you are an American you are now owner/shareholder of AIG. Congratulations! You are being ripped off ... again.
If, again, you are an American, you are now also a proud owner/shareholder of GM! Congratulations! Again, you are being ripped off. (end of off topic).
I believe this is the one you're looking for: Balzac a Vitry in France, 1994. Method was by hydraulic removal of supports.
Note to loony marine engineers: this type of controlled demolition can't happen, it was an inside/inside job. Silent explosives (French military versions of hush-a-boom technology) were employed secretly so the collapse didn't stop, and special suction devices prevented the upper block from 'bouncing'.
Note that the French hush-a-boom devices were not developed until 2005, 10 years after this demolition. That means the French government had access to time-travel technology in order to pull this deception off!!
I also heard that the demolition company had several Jewish people connected with it. Say no more, say no more!
Great video. It brings up an important point: If "Bjoerkman's Axiom" were true, then demolition companies would be out of business. The only way to bring down a building would be to demolish each and every floor independent of the others.
I imagine that would be prohibitively expensive. Fortunately, there's no evidence that this is necessary, and plenty of evidence that it isn't.
Great video. It brings up an important point: If "Bjoerkman's Axiom" were true, then demolition companies would be out of business. The only way to bring down a building would be to demolish each and every floor independent of the others.
I imagine that would be prohibitively expensive. Fortunately, there's no evidence that this is necessary, and plenty of evidence that it isn't.
Great video. It brings up an important point: If "Bjoerkman's Axiom" were true, then demolition companies would be out of business. The only way to bring down a building would be to demolish each and every floor independent of the others.
I imagine that would be prohibitively expensive. Fortunately, there's no evidence that this is necessary, and plenty of evidence that it isn't.
It seems you haven't understood the difference between controlled demolition, CD, and a one-way crush down of A by a piece C of A being dropped by gravity.
In CD you destroy plenty of supports in the building by various means in a controlled fashion - normally at the lower parts, e.g. WTC 7; in the WTC 1, 2 cases is was done from top down.
Reason for this is that you cannot crush down the building A by dropping a part C of A on it. NIST of course suggets otherwise. PE > SE = global collapse ensues (no CD required). NIST is like the AIG insurance sales people! Selling insurance with no capital to back up the risks and running away with the premium.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
