Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

[SteveAustin]

deleted tons of hot air Tom wrote in an effort to justify his differentiating between "expert" and "amateur".

I'm sure some people take your word for it Tom, but then others know better...

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

My, my, my. Who was it that came out with a fairly detailed explanation of what happened to the towers on September 13, 2001? So by your definition he is an amateur and should not be listened to.

Great, glad we cleared that up.

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

How convenient for you that your fellow "debunkers" set the initial goal posts so you did not have to come out and say it yourself. Now thanks to that lucky break you can come back here and make this comment...why?

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.

Well now you are moving your goal posts ahead of any possible argument I might have made so as to not appear to have moved those goal posts afterwards.

But let's take what you say at face value. GREAT, who has independently verified the official NIST report? And I don't mean simply implementing safety protocals based on their findings, I mean a true independent verification of NIST's final report?

What's that you say? No one? OH... MY...GOD!

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.

Hey here are some nice papers that refute most of the Official Conspiracy Theory...

http://journalof911studies.com/

Now since 9/11 truth has so many good articles and papers out there we can simply ignore the flawed work of NIST and the 9/11 commision

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.

dude, i'm not the one calling others names here like "juvenile" and "kid" etc..

or are you trying to say that calling people names is a mature thing to do? and showing your flawed debating tactics is childish?

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

Now it seems that Tom has suddenly become a trained psychologist as well. Well good for you Tom.

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


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


Tom

LOL and again you try and label me as "juvenile" and a "child" yet who is using the childish tactics here? ROFL Tom I think you need to step back and let one of your superiors take over because you are doing a lousy job.

 

[tfk]

OMG that had me dying....classic...

Newt,

Bill's "brainstorms du jour" are good for a chuckle...

Tom

 

[beachnut]

...

LOL and again you try and label me as "juvenile" and a "child" yet who is using the childish tactics here? ROFL Tom I think you need to step back and let one of your superiors take over because you are doing a lousy job.

This is your work to support the failed ideas of Heiwa? Zero engineering just talk? You need some calculations if you are to support the massive delusion of Heiwa proved wrong on 911. Please stop whining about junk and post your support of Heiwa.

 

[Heiwa]

.
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

Yes, I can explain. But NIST cannot explain the one-way crush down that followed except that PE>SE=global collapse ensues, i.e. the real topic. Evidently SE>PE=one-way crush down is not possible. Let's discuss that interesting topic.

 

[beachnut]

Yes, I can explain. But NIST cannot explain the one-way crush down that followed except that PE>SE=global collapse ensues, i.e. the real topic. Evidently SE>PE=one-way crush down is not possible. Let's discuss that interesting topic.

You just post talk and no calculation! Why? Can't you do the engineering work? You have failed to produce any credible work to support your delusions. Present your calculations not delusions.

 

[twinstead]

Yes, I can explain. But NIST cannot explain the one-way crush down that followed except that PE>SE=global collapse ensues, i.e. the real topic. Evidently SE>PE=one-way crush down is not possible. Let's discuss that interesting topic.

I don't know, the obvious bowing of the building very slowly prior to the collapse, with the collapse initiating at that exact spot with no visual or audio evidence of explosives is pretty interesting too, especially in a thread where somebody is claiming that the commonly-held reason why the WTC collapsed is impossible and that any engineer either on this forum or any other in the real world who disagree don't know what they are talking about, don't you think?

 

[tfk]

Heiwa,

I'd like to hear your opinion about something. Please don't refer me back to your paper. It answers nothing.

You have stated that "bigger & stronger" destroys "smaller & weaker".

Do you claim that the collapse of WTC7 was impossible?

Just to be clear, is "bigger" by weight?

Does this mean that you believe that, if the failure in the WTC7 tower occurred on the 24th (out of 47) floor, then the failure would have arrested. But that if it occurred on the 23rd, the failure progresses to the ground?

And similarly, for the 56th vs. 54th floor of the Towers?

Just curious.

Tom

 

[tfk]

Yes, I can explain. But NIST cannot explain the one-way crush down that followed except that PE>SE=global collapse ensues, i.e. the real topic. Evidently SE>PE=one-way crush down is not possible. Let's discuss that interesting topic.

.

Oh, I see.

You CAN explain it. But you just choose NOT to.

My BS meter is pegged...


tom

 

[FineWine]

Nah...I just want to see how convincing it would look. You never know- it might even persuade me. I just want to see the top 13 floors crushing the other 97 floors down to the ground- to see how it looks. 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''

'\Do you think Justin will make the model ? lol

What does this idiocy have to do with reality? Are you now pretending that the original thirteen collapsing floors remained discrete? Are you trying to claim that thirteen didn't quickly become, fourteen, fifteen, eighteen, thirty, fifty-five, eighty...?

Seriously, what is the purpose of repeating Heiwa's mindless mantra about thirteen floors crushing ninety-seven? Absolutely no one thinks that happened. Before yielding to your compulsion to humiliate yourself--stop. Just stop. Remind yourself that nobody believes that thirteen floors crushed the rest of the building. Thirteen floors collapsed and added each succssive floor to the total mass until the whole building was gone.

 

[tfk]

Don't tell me- these are the scientists who worked under contract to NIST ? The ones who individually investigated small discrete areas of investigation and had no say in what way Shyam Sunder and his gang pulled all the seperate threads of information together ?
Not enough I'm afraid.

.
As Borat would say," Your opinion, my ay-noose. These have much in common."

Tom

 

[FineWine]

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.

You've been caught lying again (this is getting tiresome). There is no "government" theory--your "theory" does not exist. Save this crapola for the schoolyard.

The "demolition hypothesis" is--what, exactly? Super-powered Jews planted tons of soundless explosives without anyone noticing to cause the buildings to collapse from the precise floors impacted by the planes?

Sorry, my hopelessly uncritical amigo, that ain't a "hypothesis."

 

[bill smith]

.
As Borat would say," Your opinion, my ay-noose. These have much in common."

Tom

T....I am genuinely curious why you do not seem to be able to debunk what I say in the following post.

Part C fell directly down on part A. The only force on the upstanding giant core columns was therefore compressive. After a small amount of elastic absorbence of the downward force these columns would have punctured any floor and stripped off any floor to column connection that they encountered in part C. This would have ocurred before any plastic deformation of the upstanding columns was spossible seeing that the PE of the seperately descending components could never have overcome the general and constant SE of the individual upstanding giant columns.

Furthermore as the upstanding columns buried themselves deeper in the descending body of part C that body would have provided lateral support for the upstanding columns.

Now don't you go tunning off y'hear.

 

[FineWine]

Wow....you read all of those papers in record time Bill...

The beauty of not being able to read is that you get your reading done very quickly.

 

[FineWine]

Do it for the truth T. These reports are mostly written by people working blindly off the NIST reports. How were they to know in those days that the NIST reports are not to be trusted. You don't see a lot of new reports these days do you ?

Why are the NIST reports not trustworthy? The total absence of dissent from countries unfriendly to the U.S. destroys your falsehood. What serious researcher rejects the science in the NIST reports? No, the agenda-driven buffoon Heiwa does not count.

 

[FineWine]

Let's face it- when the debunkers say that most of the world's scientists stand behind the NIST reports that is a very dishonest way of lookng at it. The true case is that most scientists have not spoken out one way or the other. Given that we know that for a scientist to speak out againt the official position is not at all helpful to his career prospects we can imagine why they do not speak out. See the link at the bottom to hear one demolition expert confirming this.

Many scientists have not even looked into the controlled demolition hypothesis at all having taken the government and their media at face value. I strongly suspect that that situation is now changing at an increasing rate what with the Truth mMovement's views getting much more exposure and credibility despite the mainstream media. Even www.ae911truth.org now has above 700 degreed and licensed Architects and Engineers fully signed up and demanding an independent investigation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QajDxF9uEf4 Jeff Hill/Danny Jowenko

As an extremely dishonest person yourself, you should know more about the concept of dishonesty. The total absence of voiced dissent indicates the absence of unvoiced dissent. Your comical cowardice in fleeing from every inconvenient question exposes you as a fraud, but it does more than that. It reveals the fatal weaknesses of your insane movement. If no Iranian or North Korean or Russian or Chinese engineers ever dispute anything in the NIST reports, we can safely assume that they haven't found anything to dispute. All the lies churned out by your desperate, dying movement can't paper over that stark reality.

 

[tfk]

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.

.
You did not answer the question in the slightest.

I didn't ask you the cause of anything.

I laid out in this post: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4900623 the direct consequences of one row of columns (on floor 98) failing.

The method of getting these columns to fail are immaterial for the purpose of this discussion. It could be by buckling or by explosives.

The important point is that, as a direct result to the 3 story columns, plus the 1 story stagger of adjacent column assemblies, the damage to the floors above & below the 98th floor are considerable.

That is, the columns on the 97th and 99th floors are NOT, as you claim, "undamaged".

You have acceded that, "perhaps it's only the the colums below the 96th floor that are undamaged."

This is too far to go with you. I want to hear your comment my damage assessment for the columns, floors & cross trusses IMMEDIATELY AFTER the columns fail, but BEFORE the upper block impacts onto Floor 97.

Tom

 

[Heiwa]

Heiwa,

I'd like to hear your opinion about something. Please don't refer me back to your paper. It answers nothing.

You have stated that "bigger & stronger" destroys "smaller & weaker".

AA. Do you claim that the collapse of WTC7 was impossible?

Just to be clear, is "bigger" by weight?

Does this mean that you believe that, if the failure in the WTC7 tower occurred on the 24th (out of 47) floor, then the failure would have arrested. But that if it occurred on the 23rd, the failure progresses to the ground?

And similarly, for the 56th vs. 54th floor of the Towers?

Just curious.

Tom

AA. Yes. It seems the WTC 7 CD was concentrated at floors 6 and 13. Thus upper part floors 16 - 47 of WTC 7 free fell for 2.25 seconds. NIst agrees. Happens every time when CD is at work.

 

[SteveAustin]

You've been caught lying again (this is getting tiresome). There is no "government" theory--your "theory" does not exist. Save this crapola for the schoolyard.

Who does NIST work for? and who put together the 9/11 commission?

The answer to both of those is the government of course. So are you saying that the 2 agencies/groups that the government tasked to find the answers to 9/11 cannot be considered "the government" when talking about their theories? If not them then who?

And if not them then does the government even have a Conspiracy Theory on 9/11? If not how can they justify invading Afghanistan? (Iraq was of course invaded for other spurious reasons)

But of course this is you playing semantics so you could call Bill a liar, when in truth you are lying about Bill lying and the reasons for it.

The "demolition hypothesis" is--what, exactly? Super-powered Jews planted tons of soundless explosives without anyone noticing to cause the buildings to collapse from the precise floors impacted by the planes?

Sorry, my hopelessly uncritical amigo, that ain't a "hypothesis."

There's the smear and ridicule all rolled into one tactic. This is probably the favorite tactic here on JREF, but to any critical thinker it just makes you look silly.

 

[SteveAustin]

Why are the NIST reports not trustworthy? The total absence of dissent from countries unfriendly to the U.S. destroys your falsehood. What serious researcher rejects the science in the NIST reports? No, the agenda-driven buffoon Heiwa does not count.

Wasn't it only a page or two ago where we had a mod come in and request that the personal attacks stop?

I guess the personal attack and insult tactic is just to appealing to the "debunker"

Will I have a need to report those posts that continue to break the house rules?

 

[Gamolon]

Who does NIST work for?

Couldn't help but think of Austin Powers saying this...