Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

Status
Not open for further replies.
tfk said:
.

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.
Click to expand...

Again your beliefs on what others would or would not do is totally irrelevant. No one has shown that "every demolition expert in the world" supports the Official Conspiracy Theory, and no one can. So you are left with trying to convince people that your beliefs that people would speak up if they didn't believe is actually true. IT'S NOT WORKING.

tfk said:
.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.
Click to expand...

That's a lie and you know it Tom. Check out www.ae911truth.org and www.patriotsquestion911.com

Both of those sites lists hundreds of relevant experts (not just engineers) that have found many flaws in the Official Conspiracy Theory and are speaking out and are bringing this information to the attention of others. And it is growing.

The fact you try to make this claim pins you quite firmly in the camp of people who know the truth but are purposely trying to hide the facts so others do not see it.

Thank you Tom.

tfk said:
.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
Click to expand...
 
tfk said:
.
So, let me see if I have this straight.

Your case is built upon the "rock solid" foundation that:

"Every expert in the field does not disagree with me. It's only ALMOST every expert in the field who disagrees with me."

Ever heard the expression "damned by faint praise"??

Perhaps you'd better get back to arguing the specifics and stop sifting thru haystacks looking for that "alternative experts" needle.

Tom
Click to expand...

What case Tom?

Is everyone still paying attention. I have made no case, I have made no argument. Finewine made a statement and has not been able to back it up. I have been asking him...repeatedly...to back up his claim, but he cannot do so.

So, like some of the other posts above, we have Tom here using a tactic of trying to turn things around and lay it all at my feet.

Again Tom, you will have to do much better than that to get finewine out of his mess.
 
tfk said:
Bill, please...


.
Close.


.
No.


.
Even after translating this into actual, you know, "English"... No.


.
No.


.
No.

If I wanted this sort of a technical conversation this morning, I would have engaged the Chihuahua. Even tho yappy, he is far less annoying than you are.

You see, the Chihuahua doesn't possess delusions of technical competence.

tom
Click to expand...

The relative lack of insults and the complete lack of any technical rebuttal makes your reply look weak T. As we all know you are a great believer in the power of perceptiion as are most propagandists. Perception is working against you here.
 
tfk said:
I have not heard a single competent engineering group that has come up with a serious hole in the NIST report. The closest is Dr. Quintierre, who believes that the trusses played a larger role than NIST attributes to them.
Click to expand...

Well, there's also Astaneh-Asl, and he's spoken up on what he sees are the issues surrounding the WTC's exemption from certain NYC building codes. I defer to experts about whether his complaint has merit or not, but to this layman, he at least seems to be making a professional argument based on facts. So even if he's wrong (and I'm not qualified to judge that) he's still in a way different ballpark than the truther heros.

And as an aside: I believe the gist of Dr. Quintierre's complaint was that he says NIST overestimates the ability of fireproofing to protect assemblies. I thought he also had a subcomplaint about NIST not properly estimating the fuel load on the fire engulfed floors, and therefore underestimated the severity of the fires. On this, too, I defer to experts in the relevant field, but that's how I understand it.

BTW Tom, don't mistake the above for being an attempt to correct. It's not. It's a clarification to what you said. Of course, the issue of fireproofing and fire fueling has an effect on how the floor trusses survive the fires.

tfk said:
And no competent engineers feel the need to invoke explosives to explain any of those buildings' collapses.
Click to expand...

Amen. Everyone else: It's worth highlighting my previous point, and that's that the professionals who accept the NIST findings don't demonstrate their support with petitions or silly talks to gullible audiences. They demonstrate it by putting the knowledge to practical use. Again, the Beijing Mandarin was built to standards developed with the knowledge of the 9/11 structural failures in mind, and the fact that it did not suffer the same failure modes helps to demonstrate the accuracy of that knowledge.
 
SteveAustin said:
What case Tom? I have made no case, I have made no argument.
Click to expand...

You've been derailing the thread with this crap, so since you finally did make an argument:

SteveAustin said:
That's a lie and you know it Tom. Check out www.ae911truth.org and www.patriotsquestion911.com

Both of those sites lists hundreds of relevant experts (not just engineers) that have found many flaws in the Official Conspiracy Theory and are speaking out and are bringing this information to the attention of others. And it is growing.
Click to expand...

Let me introduce you to one of their members; he's an active poster here -- I'm sure you know him by now. His forum username is Heiwa, creator of this model:

WTC1slicea.gif


Which he contends demonstrates that the collapse of the towers was impossible. Here's a quiz for you, what's wrong with this model? I could tell you now but I want to see what you're thoughts are first, afterall this wouldn't be much of a quiz if the answer were given on a silver platter. Also I'd like to know if you have any questions to any of the engineers participating in this thread on the areas I highlighted here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4899847&postcount=2397

being that your knowledge base seems to derive from the result of AE911's malpractice.
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
You've been derailing the thread with this crap, so since you finally did make an argument:



Let me introduce you to one of their members; he's an active poster here -- I'm sure you know him by now. His forum username is Heiwa, creator of this model:

[qimg]http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/WTC1slicea.gif[/qimg]

Which he contends demonstrates that the collapse of the towers was impossible. Here's a quiz for you, what's wrong with this model? I could tell you now but I want to see what you're thoughts are first, afterall this wouldn't be much of a quiz if the answer were given on a silver platter. Also I'd like to know if you have any questions to any of the engineers participating in this thread on the areas I highlighted here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4899847&postcount=2397

being that your knowledge base seems to derive from the result of AE911's malpractice.
Click to expand...

What I want to know, and Heiwa has not answered, is why he shows the perimeter columns spearing the red concrete floors and breaking them into nice slabs lengthwise. Either that or he is showing us that the "L" shaped floor truss connection brackets were strong enough to withstand the upper mass coming down onto the concrete floor and not shear or bend, but break the concrete floor.

Heiwa has yet to explain this diagram other than that fact that it is a diagram "of a structure", and not WTC1. Even WITH the antenna on top.
 
Gamolon said:
Another contradiction.

You say two walls of perimeter columns will contact the floor.

Can you please explain why you have this drawing of WTC1/WTC2 showing the perimeter columns SPEARING the concrete floors and breaking them into nice long slabs? Why do you not show what you have claimed above?

[qimg]http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/WTC1slicea.gif[/qimg]

Please. Explain why you show the perimeter columns spearing the concrete floor andn then say that two walls of perimeter columns would collide with the floor below creating LOCAL failures.
Click to expand...

its really like watching a lecture from the "Tom and Jerry School of Physics"

ETA:reading a paper
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
WTC1slicea.gif


... Here's a quiz for you, what's wrong with this model?
Click to expand...

For the benefit of casual non-participants: Look at D and E in the above image. Given that the vertical columns require horizontal support from the floor to stay standing, what's supposed to keep them vertical when the elements that are supposed to keep them standing are taken away?

That's just one flaw. Grizzly and other posters can highlight other problems for you. The point is that many conspiracy peddlers here wholesale many excuses and "explanations" for their beliefs, but all of them fail under the light of scrutiny. Some require more explanation than others - as a topic completely separate from the structural engineering issues we're discussing here in this thread, do a search in this forum sometime for "PNAC" or "New Pearl Harbor", or as a chemical issue, "microspheres"; you'll see that those requires some detail to truly understand - but in the end, they all have failed.

That's a terrible track record. It's also why you see so much appeal to authority brought by the conspiracy peddlers. Yes, we all fall prey to it, but beyond the authority lies what they say, and it's the analsysis of that where we see who's authority speaks correctly, and who's speaks out of their... well... you know. Their:
 
ElMondoHummus said:
For the benefit of casual non-participants: Look at D and E in the above image. Given that the vertical columns require horizontal support from the floor to stay standing, what's supposed to keep them vertical when the elements that are supposed to keep them standing are taken away?

That's just one flaw. Grizzly and other posters can highlight other problems for you. The point is that many conspiracy peddlers here wholesale many excuses and "explanations" for their beliefs, but all of them fail under the light of scrutiny. Some require more explanation than others - as a topic completely separate from the structural engineering issues we're discussing here in this thread, do a search in this forum sometime for "PNAC" or "New Pearl Harbor", or as a chemical issue, "microspheres"; you'll see that those requires some detail to truly understand - but in the end, they all have failed.

That's a terrible track record. It's also why you see so much appeal to authority brought by the conspiracy peddlers. Yes, we all fall prey to it, but beyond the authority lies what they say, and it's the analsysis of that where we see who's authority speaks correctly, and who's speaks out of their... well... you know. Their:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/1238649872cf356a46.png[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Gages cardboard box demonstration holds more water than this silly cartoon lol
 
and now H man is gonna come back with
"thats any building not the... blah"
even if it was a box type design
i read those have less redundancy than the towers did
so even for that this silliness is just wrong

any ETA on his paper?
i cant wait
 
I just noticed something. Hewia, trying to sidestep the errors shwon concerning his diagram, explained that the diagram below is "of a structure" and not of the WTC1 tower.
WTC1slicea.gif


If that is the case, then why does he say "TOWER" beneath figure A? Why is there an antenna on the "TOWER" like WTC1?

I also noticed the under figure C, Heiwa says that the "floors hinge down aroung the undamaged connection!". How is that possible?! Heiwa, are you claiming that 120 square tube columns, in two walls of 60 each, come down upon the edge of the concrete floors, and the "L" shaped truss connections were strong enough to resist that weight? Not only that, the "L" shape truss connections were strong enough to BREAK the concrete floor into nice slabs at each connection? How in the world did those truss connection on the perimeter columns do that?
 
Gamolon said:
What I want to know, and Heiwa has not answered, is why he shows the perimeter columns spearing the red concrete floors and breaking them into nice slabs lengthwise. Either that or he is showing us that the "L" shaped floor truss connection brackets were strong enough to withstand the upper mass coming down onto the concrete floor and not shear or bend, but break the concrete floor.

Heiwa has yet to explain this diagram other than that fact that it is a diagram "of a structure", and not WTC1. Even WITH the antenna on top.
Click to expand...
Last time I brought it up to him... months ago... his argument was that friction would cause everything to pack in and halt mid-collapse. Whatever that means... I'm not counting on a very substantial response to that question from him.


ElMondoHummus said:
For the benefit of casual non-participants: Look at D and E in the above image. Given that the vertical columns require horizontal support from the floor to stay standing, what's supposed to keep them vertical when the elements that are supposed to keep them standing are taken away?
Click to expand...
Silence!!!!

silence.png


No heeeents allowed in test!!!

On a more serious note... AE911's work contains more holes than the grains of sand on the planets' beaches. More than enough people have pointed out their inaccuracies, and I can name numerous ones without ever referencing the NIST report, or for that matter referencing to the WTC at all... If steve or deep were ever wondering why I said the minority numbers are "just a bonus" this would be why. Their errors don't just lie in their research of the WTC collapses, but also in their very procedure.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
Well, there's also Astaneh-Asl, and he's spoken up on what he sees are the issues surrounding the WTC's exemption from certain NYC building codes. I defer to experts about whether his complaint has merit or not, but to this layman, he at least seems to be making a professional argument based on facts. So even if he's wrong (and I'm not qualified to judge that) he's still in a way different ballpark than the truther heros.

And as an aside: I believe the gist of Dr. Quintierre's complaint was that he says NIST overestimates the ability of fireproofing to protect assemblies. I thought he also had a subcomplaint about NIST not properly estimating the fuel load on the fire engulfed floors, and therefore underestimated the severity of the fires. On this, too, I defer to experts in the relevant field, but that's how I understand it.

BTW Tom, don't mistake the above for being an attempt to correct. It's not. It's a clarification to what you said. Of course, the issue of fireproofing and fire fueling has an effect on how the floor trusses survive the fires.



Amen. Everyone else: It's worth highlighting my previous point, and that's that the professionals who accept the NIST findings don't demonstrate their support with petitions or silly talks to gullible audiences. They demonstrate it by putting the knowledge to practical use. Again, the Beijing Mandarin was built to standards developed with the knowledge of the 9/11 structural failures in mind, and the fact that it did not suffer the same failure modes helps to demonstrate the accuracy of that knowledge.
Click to expand...

Do you know which specific changes were made to conform to lessons learnt from 9/11 ? Or are you talking out of your other end ?
 
Last edited:
Gamolon said:
I just noticed something. Hewia, trying to sidestep the errors shwon concerning his diagram, explained that the diagram below is "of a structure" and not of the WTC1 tower.
[qimg]http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/WTC1slicea.gif[/qimg]

If that is the case, then why does he say "TOWER" beneath figure A? Why is there an antenna on the "TOWER" like WTC1?

I also noticed the under figure C, Heiwa says that the "floors hinge down aroung the undamaged connection!". How is that possible?! Heiwa, are you claiming that 120 square tube columns, in two walls of 60 each, come down upon the edge of the concrete floors, and the "L" shaped truss connections were strong enough to resist that weight? Not only that, the "L" shape truss connections were strong enough to BREAK the concrete floor into nice slabs at each connection? How in the world did those truss connection on the perimeter columns do that?
Click to expand...

Thanks for copy/paste my figure from section 1.3 of may paper at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm about Help understanding the Destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Debunking the Conspiracy Theory of Prof. Bazant. It is quite simple! A piece cannot crush a bigger part of itself.

All your questions are answered in the paper. Please read it first ... and then we can discuss.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
Again, the Beijing Mandarin was built to standards developed with the knowledge of the 9/11 structural failures in mind, and the fact that it did not suffer the same failure modes helps to demonstrate the accuracy of that knowledge.
Click to expand...


How did you determine that those new standards were the reason it did not suffer the same failure modes?

You're telling us that it helps to demonstrate the accuracy of that knowledge, but how did you arrive at that conclusion?
 
tfk said:
.

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
Click to expand...


You are, as usual, quite correct. My assertion that ALL demolition experts reject the conspiracy rubbish was intended--obviously--to be provocative. I indicated as much by acknowledging that lunatics could be produced who would gleefully deny that the North won the Civil War. Predictably, desperate "truthers" are clinging to the deliberate exaggeration, trying to make some sort of point. Let's see what survives their typically disingenuous effort.

IT REMAINS A FACT THAT NO DEMOLITION EXPERTS HAVE CHALLENGED THE POSITION ESTABLISHED BY PROMINENT REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DEMOLITION INDUSTRY. NO--ZERO--DEMOLITION EXPERTS HAVE LENT ANY CREDENCE TO THE MYTH THAT EXPLOSIVES BROUGHT DOWN THE TWIN TOWERS.

That's what is left. "Truthers" make baseless, implausible claims about a subject that demolition professionals know more about than anyone else. Not a single demolition professional has sided with the "truthers."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom