Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

[newton3376]

Bigal also forget to take in the human psychology aspect of it that we have repeadetly brought up but the "debunkers" refuse to acknowledge, and that is why someone would remain quiet. Like the fear of losing a job and not being able to support yourself or your family, heck even fear for your life.

Notice how they always gloss over that psychological aspect of it!

See what I mean Bill, Dave here completely ignores the human psychological aspect of why people would remain quiet, and he does so while trying to convince people that remaining quiet and doing your job means you accept the Official Conspiracy Theory.

How do you support such statements?

 

[Dave Rogers]

No Steve, he WAS supposed to investigate them, but he didn't read past the titles.

And didn't even understand them.

Dave

 

[alienentity]

<snip>

You see folks, "debunkers" and moreso disinfo agents are required to make it look like the Official Conspiracy Theory is solid with no holes and backed by every single thinking human on the planet. That's part of the psyop, that's how the psychology of it works. Always sound sure of yourself and always claim that everyone agrees with you and no one agrees with the loons (and you have to constantly use those terms like "looney" and "nuts"), and of course the sheep follow suit because they have heard the disinfo agent say they then repeat it as a mantra.

Whatever Steve. If it makes you feel better to say that, go ahead.

However, you still haven't answered my question.........which is

:
'Here's a simple question for you then - since you apparently believe that the WTC tower collapses were due to explosive demolition, can you provide at least one leading or significant demolitions expert who backs up this claim?'

Still waiting........

 

[Gamolon]

Well, one possibility is that the core columns (not seen) are demolished/cut by CD before and as a result the perimeter columns (seen) deform as seen on the photos from a video one second before the WTC 2 explodes around the initiation zone (and the deformed wall columns).

Oh I see now.

If the core columns lose their support capacity due to being CUT from CD, THEN you think it's possible that the perimeter columns would buckle as shown, but if the core columns lose their support capacity due to fire WEAKENING them, then it's NOT possible for the perimeter columns to buckle as shown.

Really?

I have a question then.

How many core columns would have needed to have been cut at the same time to cause total failure of the core itself and provide enough load on the perimeter columns to bend them?

If the above is done, is it possble to then come up with a calculation to show how many core columns would have needed to be weakened by fire to cause total failure of the core and provide enough load on the perimeter columns to buckle them? Is this information in the NIST papers?

As far as I am concerned no buckled columns from the initiation zone between parts C and A have been identified in the rubble, documented and analyzed by proper authorities. So no need to correct web page.

And no evidence of a controlled demolition has ever been found either yet you choose to believe that. Convenient huh?

One reason is that a one-way crush down of a structure is not possible under any circumstances = my point = topic of thread. It also applies to WTC 2 even if my papers concentrate on WTC 1.

Your site/explanation is laden with half truths and contradictions. So your end result isn't even vaild. Like I said, garbage in garbage out. Are you so conceited and arrogant that you believe that all the people and engineers who have argued with you and pointed out mistakes are ALL wrong and that you are the only correct person here?

 

[twinstead]

Are you so conceited and arrogant that you believe that all the people and engineers who have argued with you and pointed out mistakes are ALL wrong and that you are the only correct person here?

Dude. Is this a rhetorical question?

 

[aggle-rithm]

Bill, you were not supposed to actually investigate those.

Don't worry. It'll never happen.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Thanks, most OCTist posts are completely off topic - Why a one-way Crush down is not possible - but now and then somebody tries to find errors in my papers about it, so I reply. In all cases they have not studied the problem properly.

Worse, nobody seems to be in a position to show that one-way crush downs by gravity are in fact possible. That would really stop the lively and friendly discussion ... so let's await this magic moment.

You've been shown a VIDEO of one, for God's sake.

And you've never responded to my question: How does part "A" know whether or not part "C" is dropped on it by means of controlled demolition?

 

[bill smith]

There must ave been four Truth seekers here today. Careful boys or we'll overwhelm them completely and then we would have no fun.

 

[tfk]

Steve,

Deep,
I said lots of things. What you have excerpted here is a typical little quote mine of my comments.

Deep, how dare you. You know very well that quote mining (not that that's what you did) is the preserve of the JREF "debunkers". We see it all the time from them, but of course how dare I point that out!!!

.
I invited him to skip this juvenile trivia and move on to the substantive issues.
Now I invite you to do the same.
.

I said:
1. It is my OPINION that few people on the ae911 list have prerequisite backgrounds to competently critique the NIST report.

So, in your OPINION, who exactly over at ae911truth.org does not have the prerequisite backgrounds to competently critique the NIST report? Please list them and why!

.
Answer:
To critique the overall report: Structural Engineers with at least 20 years working experience in building skyscrapers.
To critique some subtopic: An acknowledged expert in the specific subtopic, with about 20 years experience in that field.
To ask questions and listen carefully to the Professionals' answers: Everybody else.

Why:
As I explained CLEARLY in my post (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4903917), expertise is "topic specific". (Somehow, this comment seems to have been excised from your reply denouncing my comment on "quote mining". How, uh, ironic.)

The NIST report was produced by well seasoned professionals in each of the 30 or so engineering subspecialties. In order to be competent to critique the work of professionals, you have to have a comparable level of expertise in the specific field.

.

I stated that it's a fact that:
2. A bunch of the related engineers are "baby engineers".

Only a dishonest "debunker" would even attempt to use that as a justification.
...
Hehe, they are only "baby engineers", not real engineers like we are. Do people actually fall for this stuff?

.
This answer shows that you don't understand what engineering is, Steve. You seem to think that a kid who graduates from college is prepared to move into the field and start making decisions. Or critiquing the work of people who have been working in the field for 20, 30, 40 years.

How ... amusing.
How ... wrong.

College doesn't make you an engineer, Steve. College earns you the right to START that process.
About 20 years of experience is just about right to mature the process.

Do you people see how the disinfo "debunkers" attempt to dismiss experts without having to argue the facts? Simply make up some odious claim that they are not qualified, doesn't matter how ludicrous the claim is because if you state it with enough force and authority most people will believe you.

.
You just have a very low criterion for "expert". My bar is much, much higher.
I am right.
.

3. Anyone who said immediately "that's fishy" was incompetent.

Why? Someone sees something that seems fishy right off the bat and that makes them incompetent? Your are really really pushing the bounds of disinfo here Tom

.
Please, Steve. At least QUOTE me accurately.

I did not say, "Anyone who SAW anything fishy..."
I said, "Anyone who SAYS immediately 'that's fishy'... "
[Note: my euphemism for "I knew it was a controlled demo the moment I saw it..."]

You don't recognize what is going on because you are an amateur.

When a plane crashes, NONE of the real experts says anything except "Let's wait for the NTSB report."
When a space shuttle blows up, none of the real experts says anything except, "Let's wait to see what the evidence shows."

It is the same in EVERY field. Amateurs galore offer their uninformed opinions immediately. Experts know better.
.

4. The folks at ae911t have produce NO (as in zero, not one) paper in a peer reviewed journal (read to the end of the sentence, deep) that has stood up to subsequent critique and independent verification.
5. I said that "productivity is a component of competence", and by this measure, they are incompetent.

Ah yes, the moved goal posts. There were constant screams from "debunkers" that said we had to publish something, then when we do they arbitrarily move the goal posts.

.
I didn't move any goal posts, because this is the first time that I've set them on this topic.
.

BTW Tom those peer reviewed articles have stood up to critique and independent verification, after all there have been no peer reviewed rebuttals of those papers. A non-peer reviewed comment on JREF is not valid, it has ZERO credibility, regardless of what you say. If you want to critique those papers then do it in a peer reviewed journal. All JREF "debunkers" have said how easy it is to have even a non-valid paper published, so you should have no problems publishing a rebuttal!

.
Wrong.

Sorry, Steve. YOU don't understand how the scientific & engineering publication process works.

"Peer reviewed"does NOT mean "right". It means "lacking glaring errors". (Even a competent one, to which none of those papers appears to have been subjected.)

Until a finding has been independently verified, it is NOT accepted as true. It is not even accepted as probable. Professionals look at the authors, the methodology and the results and attach their own (variable) probability to the results.

So, there is zero need for anyone to publish a refuting article to "disprove" any of Jones, Harrit's or anyone else's work. The traditional, accepted way for the scientific & engineering community to reject a flawed piece of work is to simply ignore it.

At that point, it is up to the authors to push, cajole, encourage independent verification in order to get their work accepted. Otherwise, it remains stillborn.
.

I know that "quote mining" is what you do. It's truly annoying.

Why don't you try switching to adult conversation. You know, asking people what they think, instead of telling them what they think. Trying to understand concepts with some depth, instead of playing "gotcha" with phraseology.

...
Seems Tom (and many others here) like to claim that anyone who does not agree with the Official Conspiracy Theory is an immature kid!! ROFL

.
How convenient for you to portray it like that. Absolutely false, of course.

I did not say "you're immature because you don't agree with me".

I said that "you're immature because you keep employing juvenile arguments and tactics.

Arguments like 'huge swathes of American adults are terrified of speaking their mind for fear of losing their jobs".

And tactics like ignoring 3000 words of substance to whine about one sentence of trivia.
.

How many times are you going to try and use that one Tom? Has anyone taken the bait yet? Has anyone fallen for it?

Yeah. You just did.
Or are you gonna hold your breath until you turn blue if I don't take that back...?


Tom

 

[tfk]

Heiwa,

Would you please reply to this.

Tom

Since you seem to suffer from a raging case of ADD, let's take one thing at a time.

You seem to be getting a glimmer of the real picture with this statement. Do you agree with the damage assessment to the columns, floors and cross trusses of the 97th & 96th, as I have described it, when the THREE STORY HIGH 98th floor column assemblies buckle or pop free (i.e., connections fail)?

I agree with you that similar (virtually symmetrical) damage will get done to 99th & 100th floors of the upper Part C.

Answer this please, and then I will address the rest of your question.

Tom

 

[Gamolon]

Dude. Is this a rhetorical question?

Yes.

 

[tfk]

A lot of it is in the interpretation of results by Sunder and his gang Al. But even if they obviously deviated from an individual scientists resuts it would be no special problem to put the arm on him and keep him quiet. Everybody has a price Al, or at least a family.

.
Remarkable...

You type in simple, declarative sentences.

Just as if you have the slightest clue what you were talking about.

Remarkable...

Tom

 

[SteveAustin]

Whatever Steve. If it makes you feel better to say that, go ahead.

However, you still haven't answered my question.........which is

Well be the first brave JREF'er and come on over to the BBC blog and we can discuss anything related to 9/11 you want.

No!!

 

[Heiwa]

Oh I see now.

If the core columns lose their support capacity due to being CUT from CD, THEN you think it's possible that the perimeter columns would buckle as shown, but if the core columns lose their support capacity due to fire WEAKENING them, then it's NOT possible for the perimeter columns to buckle as shown.

Really?

I have a question then.

AA. How many core columns would have needed to have been cut at the same time to cause total failure of the core itself and provide enough load on the perimeter columns to bend them?

If the above is done, is it possble to then come up with a calculation to show how many core columns would have needed to be weakened by fire to cause total failure of the core and provide enough load on the perimeter columns to buckle them? Is this information in the NIST papers?



BB. And no evidence of a controlled demolition has ever been found either yet you choose to believe that. Convenient huh?



CC. Your site/explanation is laden with half truths and contradictions. So your end result isn't even vaild. Like I said, garbage in garbage out. Are you so conceited and arrogant that you believe that all the people and engineers who have argued with you and pointed out mistakes are ALL wrong and that you are the only correct person here?

AA. It has been discussed before. The outer core columns carry plenty load and the outer core corner columns the most. They are all easily accessible! I assume the conspirators concentrated on those vital structural elements to bring the buildings down.

BB. ??? People in charge never looked. The rubble was just disposed of. Sloppy work!

CC. Pls copy/paste with note of origin (page/section/line) any half truths and contradictions you have spotted in my papers/web site = explanation. I will correct, if necessary. I have no hidden agenda. I work for better safety at sea ... and on land. Same thing! Try to focus on the technical aspects and forget my charming personality. And try to focus on TOPIC. You really think a One-way crush down is possible. Show it.

 

[Gamolon]

You really think a One-way crush down is possible. Show it.

You think Bazant is wrong. Here is his paper.
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf

Please explain what calculations he gets wrong. I am no engineer, but I am sure people here can check your work. Let's discuss where you think he is wrong.

 

[Heiwa]

Since you seem to suffer from a raging case of ADD, let's take one thing at a time.

You seem to be getting a glimmer of the real picture with this statement. Do you agree with the damage assessment to the columns, floors and cross trusses of the 97th & 96th, as I have described it, when the THREE STORY HIGH 98th floor column assemblies buckle or pop free (i.e., connections fail)?

I agree with you that similar (virtually symmetrical) damage will get done to 99th & 100th floors of the upper Part C.

Answer this please, and then I will address the rest of your question.

Tom

I doubt very much that local office fires on a 4000 m² floor can affect the supporting steel structure at the perimeter and the core.

At the perimeter the outside air cools the structure so nothing will happen there.

And in the core there is nothing that really can burn; elevator shafts, toilets, open spaces in front of elevators, etc.

No, I don't believe that fires of any kind up top in a steel structure can affect local elements so that they fail. Impossible. But if they, the elements/columns fail, they would just fail locally and be arrested by intact structure. You see, it is impossible that a one-way crush down of a structure A can take place by a little part C of A displacing/dropping on A (topic).

Look forward to your further replies to questions.

 

[Heiwa]

You think Bazant is wrong. Here is his paper.
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf

Please explain what calculations he gets wrong. I am no engineer, but I am sure people here can check your work. Let's discuss where you think he is wrong.

Yes, all wrong. In may papers I concentrate on Bazant's 2001 and 2008 papers as described at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm . Upper part C cannot be regarded as rigid. So lower part A will then arrest part C.

FYI, ASCE, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, JEM, have advised that they will publish a paper by me about the errors in the Bazant, BLGB, 2008 paper in same journal. Let's discuss when ASCE/JEM publishes my paper. JREF is just inspiration for me to get published in peer reveiwed journals.

But, if you find anything wrong in my papers on my web site, pls advice. I'll fix it

 

[Gamolon]

Yes, all wrong. In may papers I concentrate on Bazant's 2001 and 2008 papers as described at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm . Upper part C cannot be regarded as rigid. So lower part A will then arrest part C.

Can you give me an example in this paper of what he got worng and why? Let's start witjh just one example.
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf

 

[tfk]

Well, one possibility is that the core columns (not seen) are demolished/cut by CD before and as a result the perimeter columns (seen) deform as seen on the photos from a video one second before the WTC 2 explodes around the initiation zone (and the deformed wall columns).

As far as I am concerned no buckled columns from the initiation zone between parts C and A have been identified in the rubble, documented and analyzed by proper authorities. So no need to correct web page.

One reason is that a one-way crush down of a structure is not possible under any circumstances = my point = topic of thread. It also applies to WTC 2 even if my papers concentrate on WTC 1.

In the WTC 2 case the CD of upper part C is even more obvious than for WTC 1. The WTC 2 upper part was three times bigger than WTC 1 ... and it disappears before hitting ground. So how could it - WTC 2 part C - one-way crush down WTC 2 part A?

.
Care to explain the bowing of the columns that NIST detailed in their report that SLOWLY, PROGRESSIVELY increased for EACH column over the course of about 15 minutes?

REALLY slow explosive wave propagation...?

Tom

 

[beachnut]

Yes, all wrong. In may papers I concentrate on Bazant's 2001 and 2008 papers as described at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm . Upper part C cannot be regarded as rigid. So lower part A will then arrest part C.

You are exposing your lack of knowledge of models and engineering all in one failed post in your failed thread proved wrong on 911. Over 7 years and 10 months of failure and moronic conclusions on 911 with zero evidence.

You just keep repeating yourself and exposing your lack of knowledge in structural engineering. You will not show your work, you have no calculations to show anyone is wrong. Why do you not understand models?