Moderated Continuation - Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

It seems rasonable to surmise that a one way crush down of Part A by part C in WTC1 is impossible in that the core columns of part C were unfixed both top and bottom. We know the top end was unfixed because the antenna fell into the building prior to collapse onset meaning that the hat truss that held that end together and supported the 360-foot antenna was no longer intact or even in place so those column ends were loose. The bottom ends wre unfixed by virtue of being completely seperated frpm the lower block.

So I can see what T. means when he says that the upper block was not a rigid body. Anything but in fact. As the upstanding core columns destroyed the floors and horizontal bracing beams in part C as they were sequentially offered up C could only quickly fall to pieces with it's core columns splaying at every angle. Meantime the rock solid upstanding columns of part A would be doing yeoman's work of systematically wrecking part C.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
It seems rasonable to surmise that a one way crush down of Part A by part C in WTC1 is impossible in that the core columns of part C were unfixed both top and bottom. We know the top end was unfixed because the antenna fell into the building prior to collapse onset meaning that the hat truss that held that end together and supported the 360-foot antenna was no longer intact or even in place so those column ends were loose. The bottom ends wre unfixed by virtue of being completely seperated frpm the lower block.

So I can see what T. means when he says that the upper block was not a rigid body. Anything but in fact. As the upstanding core columns destroyed the floors and horizontal bracing beams in part C as they were sequentially offered up C could only quickly fall to pieces with it's core columns splaying at every angle. Meantime the rock solid upstanding columns of part A would be doing yeoman's work of systematically wrecking part C.
Click to expand...

Or something like it. Interestingly enough, after WTC 1 went on fire at the initiation zone, floors 94-98, between upper part C and lower part A, it seems many other fires started up in upper part C as recorded on videos! There were no fires down in lower part A. Looking at part C, smoke is getting out at many levels far above floor 98! No smoke without fire. But is the smoke from down below or new fires up in part C?
Anyway, part C was the weak top on part A and apparently subject to damages causing the mast on the roof to drop. To suggest that this weak and damaged part C can one-way crush down undamaged part A is preposterous. Thanks Bill for your support in this little effort to enlighten the JREF forum.
 
Heiwa said:
Or something like it. Interestingly enough, after WTC 1 went on fire at the initiation zone, floors 94-98, between upper part C and lower part A, it seems many other fires started up in upper part C as recorded on videos! There were no fires down in lower part A. Looking at part C, smoke is getting out at many levels far above floor 98! No smoke without fire. But is the smoke from down below or new fires up in part C?
Anyway, part C was the weak top on part A and apparently subject to damages causing the mast on the roof to drop. To suggest that this weak and damaged part C can one-way crush down undamaged part A is preposterous. Thanks Bill for your support in this little effort to enlighten the JREF forum.
Click to expand...

Ok, hold on just a sec. You think that wherever the fire was, that is where it would stay, and it would just fizzle out?? Are you bloody SERIOUS?!?!?!

Smoke travels up. If its blocked, ie: from a ceiling, it will travel anywhere it can go. This will include:
Elevator shafts
HVAC ducting
stairwells
Etc. etc. etc.

Same thing with FIRE. Fire WILL travel if it is not extinguished. Fire very well CAN go up floors. It WILL travel. Again, I think that you don't have the FIRST clue about fire and its actions. It has been described as a living, breathing thing. This is ABSOLUTELY true.

So, to rebut your idiotic conclusions and ideas. You're wrong. On both accounts. Fire will travel as will smoke.
 
triforcharity said:
Ok, hold on just a sec. You think that wherever the fire was, that is where it would stay, and it would just fizzle out?? Are you bloody SERIOUS?!?!?!

Smoke travels up. If its blocked, ie: from a ceiling, it will travel anywhere it can go. This will include:
Elevator shafts
HVAC ducting
stairwells
Etc. etc. etc.

Same thing with FIRE. Fire WILL travel if it is not extinguished. Fire very well CAN go up floors. It WILL travel. Again, I think that you don't have the FIRST clue about fire and its actions. It has been described as a living, breathing thing. This is ABSOLUTELY true.

So, to rebut your idiotic conclusions and ideas. You're wrong. On both accounts. Fire will travel as will smoke.
Click to expand...

the FACT that heat and smoke rises seems to be too complicated of a idea for some "engineers" around here lol

fires do tend to seem alive i agree 100%
 
Heiwa said:
My pleasure, Tom. Actually a fan of mine provided the link. But do not call an axiom silly and dumb.
Click to expand...

He didn't, because what YOU call an axiom is not an axiom.

There is no theory behind an axiom. Either you accept it or not. But then you have to consider the consequences, e.g. that a one-way crush down is possible, normal and natural and associated destruction of property and killing of people is just an unfortunate result. On the other hand - my axiom applies - you have to act.
Click to expand...

Argument from negative consequences.

If it's true that you're an engineer (and I'm doubting that more and more as time goes on), then at some point you had to ability to learn.

When did you lose your ability to learn? Did you suffer a stroke or a head injury?
 
bill smith said:
It seems rasonable to surmise that a one way crush down of Part A by part C in WTC1 is impossible in that the core columns of part C were unfixed both top and bottom.
Click to expand...

And that is where you fail. The nature of physical forces is not determined by what seems reasonable. (or rasonable.)

Think about it. The universe was around for billions of years before there were any people for it to "seem reasonable" to. And yet, all evidence shows that it functioned very much the same way it does now.

And on this note...I'm dying to hear your explanation for this .
 
Heiwa said:
My pleasure, Tom. Actually a fan of mine provided the link. But do not call an axiom silly and dumb. Try to demonstrate that it is not true! It's like parallell lines never cross. You say they cross but cannot pinpoint where.
There is no theory behind an axiom. Either you accept it or not. But then you have to consider the consequences, e.g. that a one-way crush down is possible, normal and natural and associated destruction of property and killing of people is just an unfortunate result. On the other hand - my axiom applies - you have to act.
Click to expand...

I'll tell ya what, Heiwa.

Are you a betting man?

I bet you a six pack of what ever beverage you want that I can use that video to PROVE you axiom incorrect.

We will let the voters here decide.

The people deciding will NOT require a knowledge of mechanics, kinematics, differential equations, etc.

They will simply require:

1. Your axiom, verbatim
2. That video
3. This video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAyy...0508D1EC&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=28

C'mon, Anders. You stand behind your assertions, don't ya?

Tom
 
Heiwa said:
Or something like it. Interestingly enough, after WTC 1 went on fire at the initiation zone, floors 94-98, between upper part C and lower part A, it seems many other fires started up in upper part C as recorded on videos! There were no fires down in lower part A. Looking at part C, smoke is getting out at many levels far above floor 98! No smoke without fire. But is the smoke from down below or new fires up in part C?
Anyway, part C was the weak top on part A and apparently subject to damages causing the mast on the roof to drop. To suggest that this weak and damaged part C can one-way crush down undamaged part A is preposterous. Thanks Bill for your support in this little effort to enlighten the JREF forum.
Click to expand...

I am happy to be helping towards a resolution of this world scandal Heiwa.

If you let the antena video fully load you can make it fullscreen. Then you can take the slider and draw it back and forth. Then you can clearly see the falling hat truss (repesented by the falling antenna) acting as a 'plunger' inside part C first causing the lateral line of smoke to burst from the windows of say floor 105-106 and then moving down to squirt the flames from the impact zone just prior to collapse onset of the main bilding. This is proof that the interior of C was already destroyed prior to collapse onset of the main structure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9-owhllM9k
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
I am happy to be helping towards a resolution of this world scandal Heiwa.

If you let the antena video fully load you can make it fullscreen. Then you can take the slider and draw it back and forth. Then you can clearly see the falling hat truss (repesented by the falling antenna) acting as a 'plunger' inside part C first causing the lateral line of smoke to burst from the windows of say floor 105-106 and then moving down to squirt the flames from the impact zone just prior to collapse onset of the main bilding. This is proof that the interior of C was already destroyed prior to collapse onset of the main structure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9-owhllM9k
Click to expand...

Your whoppers get bigger.
 
Heiwa said:
Or something like it. Interestingly enough, after WTC 1 went on fire at the initiation zone, floors 94-98, between upper part C and lower part A, it seems many other fires started up in upper part C as recorded on videos! There were no fires down in lower part A. Looking at part C, smoke is getting out at many levels far above floor 98! No smoke without fire. But is the smoke from down below or new fires up in part C?
Anyway, part C was the weak top on part A and apparently subject to damages causing the mast on the roof to drop. To suggest that this weak and damaged part C can one-way crush down undamaged part A is preposterous. Thanks Bill for your support in this little effort to enlighten the JREF forum.
Click to expand...


To suggest that thirteen collapsing floors won't crush the floor they collapse onto is preposterous for an irrational, uneducated fanatic like Bill Smith. For someone who professes to hold a degree in engineering, it is beyond belief. It is the equivalent of a mapmaker insisting the Earth is flat. What mad extremes your bizarre political agenda has driven you to! Why you sacrificed every shred of self-respect to lend your name to blatant idiocy is for psychologists to debate.
 
bill smith said:
I am happy to be helping towards a resolution of this world scandal Heiwa.

If you let the antena video fully load you can make it fullscreen. Then you can take the slider and draw it back and forth. Then you can clearly see the falling hat truss (repesented by the falling antenna) acting as a 'plunger' inside part C first causing the lateral line of smoke to burst from the windows of say floor 105-106 and then moving down to squirt the flames from the impact zone just prior to collapse onset of the main bilding. This is proof that the interior of C was already destroyed prior to collapse onset of the main structure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9-owhllM9k
Click to expand...


Oops! You made a slip. You said WORLD scandal. But the world doesn't acknowledge your insane, agenda-driven foolishness as a scandal. Engineers in countries that hate America almost as much as you do can't find errors of science in the NIST reports. By your own admission, you are an extremely unintelligent person with no technical education. Your glaringly obvious limitations prevent the real engineers from teaching you anything, but what can you hope to teach them?
 
FineWine said:
Oops! You made a slip. You said WORLD scandal. But the world doesn't acknowledge your insane, agenda-driven foolishness as a scandal. Engineers in countries that hate America almost as much as you do can't find errors of science in the NIST reports. By your own admission, you are an extremely unintelligent person with no technical education. Your glaringly obvious limitations prevent the real engineers from teaching you anything, but what can you hope to teach them?
Click to expand...

Every government on Earth knows that 9/11 was an inside job FineWine. Pragmatic reasons such as America's big stick and economic power are powerful reasons for governments to keep silent on the issue. Moral cowardice is not exclusive to Americans. Thus the lack of acknowledgement.
 
bill smith said:
Every government on Earth knows that 9/11 was an inside job FineWine. Pragmatic reasons such as America's big stick and economic power are powerful reasons for governments to keep silent on the issue. Moral cowardice is not exclusive to Americans. Thus the lack of acknowledgement.
Click to expand...

Yea. That MUST be the reason why scientists in Iran and North Korea are keeping their mouths shut, right? LOL
 
twinstead said:
Yea. That MUST be the reason why scientists in Iran and North Korea are keeping their mouths shut, right? LOL
Click to expand...

Not just Iran, and North Korea; Venezuela, and Cuba (Venezuela especially) would be having a field day with this one if they truly had evidence of such an inside plot.
 
bill smith said:
Every government on Earth knows that 9/11 was an inside job FineWine. Pragmatic reasons such as America's big stick and economic power are powerful reasons for governments to keep silent on the issue.
Click to expand...

China being a huge manufacturer of our goods and services would probably have a hard time giving a damn about Americas economic shtick. Financially they already have the United States by the nuts. I'm pretty sure one of our resident economists could fill you in on the details.
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
China being a huge manufacturer of our goods and services would probably have a hard time giving a damn about Americas economic shtick. Financially they already have the United States by the nuts. I'm pretty sure one of our resident economists could fill you in on the details.
Click to expand...

Especially China may have good reason not to speak out. This could easily go off topic so I posted my answer on the general discussion thread instead.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4918195#post4918195
 
Last edited:
general question:
did the NIST mention the sway dampening system in the top of each tower?
and if it may have had any effect on the collapse mechanism?
perhaps its reaction to being suddenly tilted to the side may be another variable to consider
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom