Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

[FineWine]

No, it doesn't. The absence of voiced disagreement (or voiced agreement) means that we don't know what they think.

As for the burden of proof - you're the one making the claim, so the burden of proof is on you. When I start telling you what every (expert on something) in the world believes, I'll be delighted to provide you with my source.

You are wrong. (You are a "truther"--you are ALWAYS wrong.) When claims are being made by a representative member of a group, as the Loizeaux family is unquestionably representative of the demolition industry, the claims stand unless challenged. Nobody who works in demolition swallows the snake oil your insane movement peddles. There isn't demolition expert alive who thinks it would have feasible to smuggle tons of charges into the towers and then place them without anyone noticing. That you can't see your claims for the idiocy they are says something about you, not about sane people who don't share your problem.

 

[beachnut]

ROFL, so because I posted a phone interview of Jowenko that shows that he did not retract his initial statement that it was a controlled demolition I have to automatically agree with every single thing he says?

Lurkers take note of that tactic, as it is often used on these forums. Every single post you make, and every single word you type is misinterpreted and turned around any which way they can in order to try and discredit the arguer instead of sticking to the arguments.

Also note the "beachnut mantra", which is the repeated use of insults, repeated so often it makes his sentences seem really disjointed.

Does this mean there will be no engineering support from you for Jowenko or Heiwa? Jowenko has no clue how WTC7 was unique and neither do you.

Without engineering to go with the failed moronic conclusions you support your post are what exactly what you say about me. It would help if you knew some engineering to save your failed ideas on 911; but you have avoided posting substantive reasons Heiwa and Jowenko are correct. If you support Jowenko on WTC7 then you must support him on WTC 1 and 2 since he is using his same CD expertise to make his conclusion. Please explain why you can use an expert who gets 2/3 of your delusion correct; can you do that?

Jowenko is impeached by his own ideas and fails to be consistent as an expert and worse he never studied the collapses past a visual inspection. Total failure and the kind of stuff you like to use; claptrap. Heiwa is proved wrong on 911. Too bad you only have 0.0087 percent of all engineers supporting versions of your delusions on 911.

 

[FineWine]

I would love to, so how about you come over to a neutral discussion forum (or blog in this case) over at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/10/caught_up_in_a_conspiracy_theo.html?page=1#comments and join the debate there, you should of course read all 3200+ posts before posting there so that no one needs to repeat themselves. I have asked all of you to step outside of JREF before but have yet to have anyone brave enough to do so.

Or if you don't like the BBC blog page then how about coming over to http://truthaction.org/forum/index.php and discussing this there. Granted it's not a neutral place but the mods will allow any civil discussion in the proper forums.

Discussing anything on JREF leads nowhere because all you get is hate, vitriol and insults thrown at you 9 posts out of 10. So come on over to a pleasant forum where a real discussion can take place without all the interference from irrelevant nonsense.

Give us an example of ONE claim made by your insane movement that can stand scrutiny.

 

[FineWine]

Here's one who doesn't reject the controlled demolition certainty and coincidentally hhe also explains why demolitions experts especially in America do not speak out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QajDxF9uEf4

See the old thread "Is Danny Jowenko Echt Woo-Woo?" Jeff Hill is out of his mind. He is a no-planer who ambushes aeronautical engineers and twists himself into knots to get them to say that a Boeing 767 could not travel as fast as the ones that hit the towers. A very sick nut, and an extremely dishonest one.
Jowenko believes that the collapses of the towers do not resemble controlled demolitions. But, he has never demolished a large building, so who cares what he thinks.

 

[FineWine]

I'd be happy if he could show "many" have come forward to support the Official Conspiracy Theory, but nice try at discrediting me by your little rant there, nice try to make me look like what exactly?

Exactly how many have come forward to endorse the Official Conspiracy Theory twinstead?

finewine's use of the words "every demolition expert in the world" was not a mistake of semantics, it was intentional, and it's a simple disinfo trick that if you repeat something like this often enough people will end up believing it.

Regardless, he backtracked from his "every" to "many" but still has not bothered to back up his claim of "many" with any evidence.

Can you supply that evidence for him?

You've been caught lying again. I most certainly did not "backtrack" on anything. I slammed my claim across your face like a dead flounder and you had nothing in reply.
We're still waiting for you frauds to produce a single demolition expert who thinks the towers were demolished. You can't, "truther"--there are none.

 

[newton3376]

So then you can post right here every demolition expert that endorses the OCT? Please post them all or link to a list of every demolition expert that endorses the OCT and let's see how many is "every demolition expert in the world" actually is.

...

 

[MIKILLINI]

Because it's not his responsibility to provide evidence for other people's arguments.

Even though Austin provides nothing of significance to refute what is already out there.

 

[twinstead]

Because it's not his responsibility to provide evidence for other people's arguments.

It's his argument that the collapses were CD. It is his responsibility to find evidence to support it. That would include finding some CD experts who agree with him, no?

Personally, I'm not making a claim. I'm not saying that the majority of CD experts agree with the 'official story'. The ones who have come out, implosionworld for example, are enough for me. Let's imagine for a moment that NO cd expert has come out one way or the other. What would YOU do to gather evidence for CD?

 

[deep]

It's his argument that the collapses were CD. It is his responsibility to find evidence to support it. That would include finding some CD experts who agree with him, no?

His beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with FineWine's claim about what every demolition expert in the world believes.

This really shouldn't be all that difficult to understand.

 

[aggle-rithm]

His beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with FineWine's claim about what every demolition expert in the world believes.

This really shouldn't be all that difficult to understand.

It isn't. It's clear that you're trying to avoid the issue by focusing on semantics.

 

[tfk]

That chess analogy is a good one. I play reasonable club level chess. I've even won a couple of prizes in local competitions. But a Grandmaster could thrash me with his eyes closed and I wouldn't even know what happened. We're not even playing the same game. I played in a simultaneous display against an International Master (a level below a GM) and he crushed me. I hadn't got a clue my position was so bad until it suddenly collapsed, rather like....The World Trade centre.

It's the same for all incompetents. We're full of ourselves, like Heiwa and co, and think we're holding our own, maybe even impressing a few people, all the while unaware of what total arses we're making of ourselves.

Howdy Oscar,

I would respectfully take exception to this analogy.

In chess, if you make a lousy move, you may be able recover and beat your opponent.. Because a lot of your effectiveness comes from parallel stength (multiple pieces). And because your opponent might make a mistake.

Mother Nature is an International Grand Master. (Or maybe, "Deep Blue".) She NEVER makes a mistake. And she's a cast iron witch.

Engineering analysis (and their conclusions) are absolutely intolerant of out-and-out blunders. They are much more like a linear chains, limited by their weakest links.

Heiwa's nonsense is a classic example.

A bunch of the individual things that he says are right. But each has multiple errors buried in the details. This sloppiness results in a bunch of useless chains.

Here's a perfect example:

The World According to Heiwa:

The part A columns, undamaged, between floors 96-97 ...

.

Just one little phrase that you might gloss over as a "reasonable approximation". Nothing could be further from the truth.

I've pointed this out to him a dozen times. Dozens of others have as well.

With his oft-repeated statement "part A columns, undamged" and in his silly graphics on his home page, this is what he portrays the interface between the floors above & below floor 98 immediately after the initiation of global failure:

[imgw=211]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=176&pictureid=1314[/imgw]

Fig 1. Heiwa's Fantasy Portrayal of the Interface between Floor 99 & Floor 97

The above erroneous presentation applies to anyone who models the columns as one story high. I've seen Tony Szamboti express it in the same terms.

.
Below is what the external columns of the lower block looks like in reality, IF just ONE column assembly "popped". It's a Snaggletooth. In this 3D graphic, I've shown the outer columns, and the damaged floors of Floors 97 and below.


[imgw=211]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=176&pictureid=1313[/imgw]
Fig. 2: Real configuration of lower columns after failure initiation

On the 97th floor, ONLY ONE out of every 18 cross trusses will remain intact and supported at both the peripheral and core columns, simply as a result of popping ONE column assembly all the way around the building.

I've removed the floors where the a peripheral or core columns have been popped. In reality, the open spaces would be spanned by the rebar embedded in the concrete. But the floors (especially on Floor 97) would have virtually zero ability to support any load.

Note that this is the state of the 97th & 96th floors BEFORE the upper block strikes the floor.
____

In order to show what the impact of this stagger has on the stability of the top end of the remaining columns, I've tallied the constraints that the columns had before & after the collapse.

In the graphic below, I've shown the missing columns above and below the 98th floor with black dots.

[imgw=213]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=176&pictureid=1315[/imgw]

Fig. 3. Missing connections

In the graphic below, I've shown the constraints that are remaining for the top most columns. In this graphic, all the linear connections are shown. In a fully constrained point, there would be a total of 6 connections (2 each in x, y & z axes).

In addition, I've tallied the moment constraints. In a completely constrained point, there would be 3 moment constraints, one around each axis.


[imgw=493]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=176&pictureid=1316[/imgw]

Fig. 4. Column constraints


Prior to collapse, all the column-to-truss connections had 5 linear and 3 moment constraints. The top & bottom splice had 2 linear and 3 moment constraints.

After the start of collapse, the top of the column has lost all constraints. The other locations have variable constraints remaining, as listed.

Note that this constraints table tallies all the constraints for 9 side-by-side columns. All the missing columns have lost all constraints, of course.

The end result of losing all of these constraints is that the columns are far, far less capable of supporting loads than they were prior to the collapse initiation.

In other words, Heiwa's reference to "Part A columns, undamaged, between Floors 97 and 99" is utter, unmitigated nonsense.
___

Probability of a "One Column Failure Mode".

Finally, note that the "one popped assembly" is not the most probable failure. A 3 point kink, with each knuckle at a column splice joint is. A perfect example of this failure mode can be seen in this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGAofwkAOlo

Watch the left 1/3rd of the building at 2:11 seconds as the collapse begins. There is a "slab" of 6 assemblies wide by 2 assemblies high group (36 total columns that span 8 full stories) that all lets go at once. The left 9 columns in this group seems to buckle inward in the middle, while the right 9 columns buckles outward in the middle.

___

Again, in engineering, the devil IS in the details. All of the above comes out of just one of Heiwa's sloppy phrases. Conclusions that follow from such sloppy assumptions are junk.

Tom

 

[Humanzee]

...nice. A lurker thanks you, tfk.

 

[tfk]

...nice. A lurker thanks you, tfk.

Human-Z,

You're welcome.


Tom

 

[tfk]

Is that a dodge I smell?

Come on post all the demolition experts that endorse the Official Conspiracy Theory!

Or was that the other disinfo tactic of trying to label me as uneducated when it comes to this topic so no one pay attention.

Are you also trying to claim that anyone who has not come out against the Official Conspiracy Theory is by default for it?

.
Steve,

What is your profession?

There are perhaps 30 different professions that have a role in the events of 9/11. Structural engineering, computer modeling, corrosion, aviation, etc.

Mine is mechanical engineering.

Even tho I post here and one other 9/11 thread, I haven't come out to anyone and said "NIST is right". Even tho I believe that to be the case. (To the 98th percentile.) Because the things that I think that they got wrong are trivial and inconsequential to their conclusions.

But if I found something that violated some mechanical engineering principle (say they said the steel lost strength at 150°C), you can bet your ass that I'd point it out. Loudly. And there would be no ignoring it on the part of NIST. Because every mechanical engineer in the country would be demading an explanation just as vocally.

So, in that respect, I believe that it IS valid to say that, in a case that is SO momentous, silence does indicate assent.

It certainly does in my case.

Tom

 

[deep]

.So, in that respect, I believe that it IS valid to say that, in a case that is SO momentous, silence does indicate assent.

As long as you don't confuse beliefs with established facts, there's nothing wrong with that.

 

[Justin39640]

As long as you don't confuse beliefs with established facts, there's nothing wrong with that.

dont confuse yourself with TFK

 

[tfk]

As long as you don't confuse beliefs with established facts, there's nothing wrong with that.

.

Tell ya what. I believe that at least 90% of all engineers, if they found something grossly wrong in their field, would scream bloody murder.

I'm stretching to come up with 10% that might not.

There are many hundreds to low thousands of engineers pouring thru the analysis. If even a few of them found something flawed, they would bring others' attention to that particular issue. And an growing mass would recognize the flaw, and an uproar would gather.

That hasn't happened.

And it is impossible for me to believe that over 500 (very conservatively) engineers who know that there is something fishy going on, but have remained silent.

My opinion. But I think a very defensible one.

Tom

 

[alienentity]

I was merely lurking on the thread, having no interest in getting sucked into yet another pointless debate with recalcitrant truthers, but I want to comment on the terribly ironic post by Steve Austin.
(For the record, the phrase 'every demolition expert' is an obvious exaggeration of the truth, and not particularly helpful, IMHO)
It has to do with the reference to Mr. Jowenko, who is the sole demolition expert quoted by the 'truth' movement.
But while some conspiracy theories are internally consistent, the use of Mr. Jowenko's opinion is obviously not, since he specifically opined that WTC 1 and 2 were not CD's, while he believed (on apparently fairly cursory examination of video evidence only) that WTC 7 was a CD.

The irony is of course that Steve Austin used Mr. Jowenko on the endless Heiwa 'one-way Crush down' thread, which is focused on... WTC 1 and 2 being controlled demolitions.

So Steve is actually, inadvertently undermining Heiwa's pet theories.

Blissfully ignorant of this predicament, the ever-indignant Steve probably still thinks he's fighting the evil NWO debunkers and helping the 'truth' movement.

It's now time for a Steve-Austinesque LOL! and ROFLMAO! to cap off this post.

Truthers and their expressions....LOL.

 

[alienentity]

What truthers don't want to hear from top American demolition experts:

Isn't this obvious? They don't want to hear that these top experts think the WTC collapses were not controlled demolitions. But unfortunately, that's what they think. No exceptions that I'm aware of.

Let's just recap and reference the executive of one of the world's leading demolition firms, Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition. He goes into considerable detail as to why they weren't CD's.

Here's one reference for you truthers and others, if you haven't already seen it:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=3C7JSfnMsbIC&pg=PA47-IA14&lpg=PA47-IA14&dq=mark+loizeaux+interview+wtc&source=bl&ots=udTpo2bu__&sig=dHaJrw2hzXesjaAU-uymMOdWSAA&hl=en&ei=Xf5bStLDOYOOsgP_h9WeCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9

Yeah yeah, of course Mr. Loizeaux has to be discredited for various reasons by the 'truth' movement, since his opinion is clearly unacceptable and antithetical to truther dogma.

Oh well. If you can't handle the truth, just ignore it (truther maxim).

And yet another major expert in American demolitions, Brent Blanchard, has even written a paper outlining why the WTC collapses weren't controlled demolitions.

Now, what are Mr. Blanchard's credentials? Well, he unfortunately isn't a PhD in Theology, like David Ray Griffin, and he's not an associate professor of Chemistry like Niels Harrit, nor is he a High-school physics teacher like truther hero David Chandler.

Sadly, his only qualifications related to controlled demolitions are that he edits 'ImplosionWorld.com, a demolition industry website.' And he also is director of field operations for Protec Documentation Services, Inc., a company specializing in monitoring construction-related demolitions.

Too bad for him, he actually knows what he's talking about, and he doesn't agree with the truther mantra 'controlled demolition' and 'inside job'. Damn! He's gotta go! Must be a shill for the NWO and Bush, right?

So much for the 'truth' in 9/11 'truth'........ it's Missing In Action, AWOL, running scared...

Here's his report
http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf

Now, even comparing Mr. Jowenko's opinion with those of Messrs. Blanchard and Loizeaux, one must (if one is honest about it) realize that out of the three, Mr. Jowenko never set foot at GZ on 9/11 or shortly thereafter to see for himself.

His knowledge of the collapses is not as thorough, in all fairness. What's wrong with the American experts? Err....nothing except that truthers don't like them. That's what. At a time when you'd think Americans would support their own homegrown experts, nope - not the 9/11 'truth' guys - not good enough, even if they're world-renowned experts, and especially not if they were actually there to view the collapse wreckage in person.
Definitely gotta go with the less-informed European guy.
Nice.

 

[alienentity]

And more strange truth from 9/11 'truth'.....the reverse-world universe of truthers:

David Chandler, the unstoppable high school teacher, in his WTC tower video, opines about things such as 'squibs' he claims to see shooting out, 'proving' that the collapses were actually controlled demolitions.

The problem? Chandler has no qualifications at all in this area. Zero. He has never worked in the demolitions industry, he isn't an explosives expert, he's not even a structural engineer. And to cap it off, he didn't bother to consult the top American experts in those fields before producing his latest video masterpiece...Too bad, because he's out to lunch when it comes to the important things...like squbs, and controlled demolition.

Devil's in the details, they say. Chandler's a good case study on how to get it very, very wrong every time. With such lack of expertise, you'd expect him to be.....yup, a leader of the 9/11 'truth' movement.