Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

Status
Not open for further replies.
Finewine, I hate to break this to you, being as polite and respectful poster as I myself am, but you'r underestimating of the capacity of truthers eyes not to cross when faced with simple step by step facts.

Right now I should think Bill's eyes are at a quarter to three and Heiwa's round the back of his head.

It's sad, but true.

But that doesn't matter because Hiewa can once again post a link to his steaming pile of offal, otherwise rather amusingly called his paper, and Bill can run round Heiwa's smelly offerings like a terrier on a fox-hunt with a dead rat in his jaws.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
I'd love to watch a 110-level demonstration with the top 13 crushing the other 97 by gravity.Just to see how convincing it looks. Can you do that ?
Click to expand...

what the top half of this one wasnt enough?
i think this looks more like the south tower (remember 2 collapsed that day. to argue one and ignore the other kinda defeats arguments doesnt it?)

also notice that the bottom doesnt just explode
the force of the top half crushes the bottom
below the collapse zone the model stays in tact
just like les said they predicted the towers collapse mechanism should be

the models all collapse this way regardless of how i remove support
and the models will stay standing until i remove enough support

this one was 2305 pieces i removed about 15 to 20 pieces = global collapse
3 to 5 pieces itll stay up

i could make a 110 or so story one but its gonna take a while
just rendering that clip took 5 hours

i wouldnt love to do that (as you would sicko)
i really dont want to make a dead on model and collapse it for personal feelings of my own and others
 
Last edited:
Heiwa said:
You are supposed to drop a real upper part C on a real lower part A! Also some details of the various, real elements would help.
Click to expand...

it did drop
right after it spit out the initial collapse zone

i guess you didnt notice as there wasnt a jolt
huh
 
tfk said:
I know that "quote mining" is what you do. It's truly annoying.
Click to expand...


Perhaps you should be a bit more careful about what you say, then. I'm not going to spend any meaningful amount of time responding to someone who has not demonstrated the ability (or willingness) to properly differentiate between a fact and an opinion.
 
deep44 said:
Perhaps you should be a bit more careful about what you say, then. I'm not going to spend any meaningful amount of time responding to someone who has not demonstrated the ability (or willingness) to properly differentiate between a fact and an opinion.
Click to expand...
Most ironic as all you have is failed moronic opinions on 911 and are off-topic for extra credit woo.

Where are your engineering calculations on Heiwa's failed OP thesis.
 
tfk said:
There have been about 200 papers that I know of that have been published in peer reviewed journals that do support NIST's findings.
Click to expand...

200?

I had no idea there were that many....

Does anyone have a link or a list of these?

Maybe Gravy?
 
newton3376 said:
200?

I had no idea there were that many....

Does anyone have a link or a list of these?

Maybe Gravy?
Click to expand...

Here's my peer-reviewed list of WTC papers. As said in the post, it is not comprehensive and I think I intentionally left out articles on the NIST report because most truther seems to think that only NIST investigated the collapses.
 
Last edited:
Deep,

tomk said:
I know that "quote mining" is what you do. It's truly annoying.
Click to expand...

deep44 said:
Perhaps you should be a bit more careful about what you say, then. I'm not going to spend any meaningful amount of time responding to someone who has not demonstrated the ability (or willingness) to properly differentiate between a fact and an opinion.
Click to expand...
.
You know, Deep, I looked at my comment that "quote mining is what you do", and thought "yeah, I probably pulled the trigger on that a little too quick. And I didn't phrase that very well. I didn't mean "you, personally". But rather "you truthers, collectively".

Looking back, I made about 8 separate, significant points in my first post. And you pulled out just that one tiny, and (out of context) misleading snippet. In other words, you really did quote mine my first post.

And I replied with my second quote, clarifying and expanding on my first points.

And then, I realized that, with this response, you did it again...!!

Out of all the points that I made, you separated the wheat from the chaff ... and then tossed the wheat.

Puzzling...

Any comments at all on any of the other points?


tom
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
Then I'll probably say to myself 'lust imagine- those top 13 floors are the lightest of the whole building and just see how they go crush crush crush''
Click to expand...

Comprehension still isn't your strong suit, is it Bill?

I'll say to myself; Just look at how those 13 floors are so much heavier than the 1 floor directly below, and then continuing on to each single, successive floor thereafter.
 
bill smith said:
Many of those neither reject tnor suppost the governement theory or the demolition hypothesis. They are simply papers on aspects, codes and so forth. It sure does look like ol' T was heavily exaggerating as usual. Another tool of the propagandist.
Click to expand...

It always helps to read the papers rather than "getting the last word in."
 
UNLoVedRebel said:
Here's my peer-reviewed list of WTC papers. As said in the post, it is not comprehensive and I think I intentionally left out articles on the NIST report because most truther seems to think that only NIST investigated the collapses.
Click to expand...

Damn....that's a lot of papers....

Thanks for the list
 
bill smith said:
Many of those neither reject tnor suppost the governement theory or the demolition hypothesis. They are simply papers on aspects, codes and so forth. It sure does look like ol' T was heavily exaggerating as usual. Another tool of the propagandist.
Click to expand...

Wow....you read all of those papers in record time Bill...:oldroll:
 
bill smith said:
Many of those neither reject tnor suppost the governement theory or the demolition hypothesis. They are simply papers on aspects, codes and so forth. It sure does look like ol' T was heavily exaggerating as usual. Another tool of the propagandist.
Click to expand...

Most of us would take his word over your uninformed opinion any day of the week and twice on Sunday...
 
UNLoVedRebel said:
It always helps to read the papers rather than "getting the last word in."
Click to expand...

Sometimes the titles can give an strong indication as this small selection shows.

World Trade Center building disaster: Stimulus for innovations
Kodur, V.K.R. 2008 Indian Concrete Journal 82 (1), pp. 23-31

A collective undergraduate class project reconstructing the September 11, 2001 world trade center fire
Marshall, A., Quintiere, J. 2007 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings

Building code changes reflect world trade center investigation
Hansen, B. 2007 Civil Engineering 77 (9), pp. 22+24-25

Gabrielson, T.B., Poese, M.E., & Atchley, A.A.
"Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center"
The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
Sometimes the titles can give an strong indication as this small selection shows.
Click to expand...

Especially to someone like yourself with an education in engineering combined with years of practical real world experience....:oldroll:

......oh wait............
 
Justin39640 said:
what the top half of this one wasnt enough?


i could make a 110 or so story one but its gonna take a while
just rendering that clip took 5 hours

i wouldnt love to do that (as you would sicko)
i really dont want to make a dead on model and collapse it for personal feelings of my own and others
Click to expand...

It doesn't really matter if it's 50 stories or 100 stories. But it would be worth initiating the collapse from the top 16 floors or so, to make it more obviously comparable to the WTC towers.

If you have the time, that is. Great work.
 
tfk said:
Looking back, I made about 8 separate, significant points in my first post. And you pulled out just that one tiny, and (out of context) misleading snippet. In other words, you really did quote mine my first post.
Click to expand...


tfk, I quoted your entire "c" bullet point in the message you're referring to, as opposed to only picking out a portion of it. In that particular bullet point, you were referring to the entire organization - so it included the smaller groups you referenced in "a" and "b". There was no reason to respond to them.

As for your other points - I just felt it was more of the same. From the first part, where you're talking about how you personally would react:

"It is my strong & constantly supported experience that the same rules of behavior that I see in myself & in the world around me apply to the world at large."​

That's not an established fact - it's an opinion. There's no evidence to support it, but you treat it as a fact and use it to support the rest of your argument (in that section).

Also - if you're disappointed that people aren't responding to all the points you make in a single message - try dividing them into multiple, smaller messages. Just a suggestion - it makes responding more manageable (in my opinion).

EDIT: just to clarify, this is the post I'm referencing: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4903221&postcount=2475
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom