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

[Dave Rogers]

Looked? Wow, Just Wow!! Looked?

Is this how you proceed with investigation Bill?? You have no idea of what dynamics are going on, how to calculate physics or determine the reaction of materials to stress.

But hey, it looked okay to you, so who needs details to make a case?

Bill has made it perfectly clear that that's his approach. He feels that first impressions, backed up by his own commentary, are all that's needed to make an unanswerable case, and that any analysis demonstrating that first impressions are misleading is simply an attempt to persuade people that they didn't see what they think they saw. If the world operated by bill smith's rules, we'd never have had the Enlightenment.

Dave

 

[funk de fino]

Post #624 ?

Liar?

 

[GlennB]

A simple energy balance would help, you know, energy is applied, energy breaks loose elements, energy is used to compact the elements, etc, etc.

Perhaps you could provide some 'energy balance' figures to support your belief that part C (10% of WTC) would be arrested by part A (90%) when dropped from 2 miles? Looking forward to it.

 

[Heiwa]

Perhaps you could provide some 'energy balance' figures to support your belief that part C (10% of WTC) would be arrested by part A (90%) when dropped from 2 miles? Looking forward to it.

The energy applied is simply a function of drop height applied.

The force that upper part C applies on lower part A at impact C on A is always the same as the force part A applies on part C at same impact regardless of drop height.

As A>C (A can absorb more strain energy than C) A will always arrest or destroy C, i.e. C cannot one-way crush down A as suggested by NIST, Bazant, Seffen and Co.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Why is it that my ears screech in agony every time people suggest Bazant's ****'ing MODEL is some kind of literal interpretation of reality? Why? How does reading text on a damn forum post do that?

 

[bill smith]

The energy applied is simply a function of drop height applied.

The force that upper part C applies on lower part A at impact C on A is always the same as the force part A applies on part C at same impact regardless of drop height.

As A>C (A can absorb more strain energy than C) A will always arrest or destroy C, i.e. C cannot one-way crush down A as suggested by NIST, Bazant, Seffen and Co.

This post is addressed to any concerned vitizens who may be reading this thread.

By now you will be aware that bobody in the over 3,000 posts that have been made in this thread and it's predecessor has been able to disprove the statement that the top one tenth of a structure cannot crush the other 90% of the same structure down to the ground using gravity alone. Neither has anybody managed to come up with a single example of this happening in the entire world history of construction on the planet Earth.

However controlled demolition can do this with ease. Many examples are available.

So you must ask yourself which is the more likely scenario. The example that has proved to be impossible to model or explain by calculation and that has had no precedent in world history either before or after 9/11 or the proposition (which is backed up by considerable amounts of evidence)that Controlled Demolition was the culprit.

Even though it's admittedly hard to face the horror of such a scenario being true it must be faced.

Remember that crazy guy on the subway ? You don't want to look him in the eye but you know that you will eventually have to look him in the eye.

 

[bill smith]

Why is it that my ears screech in agony every time people suggest Bazant's ****'ing MODEL is some kind of literal interpretation of reality? Why? How does reading text on a damn forum post do that?

If you are dismissing Bazant what will take his place ? We have some suggestions.


In short if Bazant is incorrect then what is the official story ? Is there one ?

 

[tfk]

Anders,

I am eagerly awaiting your evidence that broken elements, produced by a force F₁ at an impact, compact themselves to solid rubble in contact with something and that this compacted rubble in turn impacts and/or applies a force F₂ on something, again, poor something, that is bigger than the initial force F₁.
A simple energy balance would help, you know, energy is applied, energy breaks loose elements, energy is used to compact the elements, etc, etc.

Golly, Anders.

There have been several thoughts that have been running around in my head during the last several days... Let's see if you can pick out which one of these might have been one of them...

Thought A:
"You know, Tom, you really should set aside everything else in your life and get right onto that analysis for Anders. After all, he has always been so incredibly responsive to you - and everyone else at the JREF forum - whenever anyone has ever had a question for him."

Thought B:
"You know, Tom. since Anders was such a great sport about accepting your wager with such honesty and directness, you really should rearrange your schedule to get right back to him."

Thought C:
"You know, Tom, when Anders asked all those questions about your model for formation of rubble from the collapse of an IKEA bookcase, and he accidentally misstated what you'd really said just a teeeensy bit, he really was incredibly diligent about correcting the record just as soon as you pointed it out to him. You remember that he rescinded his erroneous statements & apologized profusely."

Thought D:
"You know, Tom, you made a bunch of rash, unjustifiable statements in your discussion with Heiwa over that darn IKEA bookcase. And then Anders went back to your post, copied & pasted your own statements, proving that he had quoted you accurately. Boy, THAT sure was embarrassing. Perhaps you should be extra diligent & responsive to Heiwa in the future to try to make it up to him."

Thought E:
"You know, Tom, that elaborate post that you made, oh, about 9 weeks ago covers a lot of these same issues. You remember, this one: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4743226 . The one that you put a fair amount of effort into, and that covers a lot of these same issues. That one that you finally posted in abject frustration after Heiwa simply ignored 90% of your comments over the preceding month. That one to which Heiwa has NEVER YET responded. You should rise above pettiness, Tom, and get right on this analysis. Because Heiwa wants it. And he wants it now."

Thought F:
"You know, Tom. Even tho the world's foremost experts believe that a collapse of the towers, once started, would inexorably progress to the ground, even tho every competent energy calculation agrees, even tho the world's engineering community agrees, and even tho every ounce of engineering judgment that you possess agrees, it is really important that you finish up that analysis for Heiwa ASAP. Because SO MUCH is hanging on its conclusions. And it's especially important that you get to it before this weekend! Because, for the past 8 long years, Anders has been on a Quest for the Truth and he just wants to understand...

... before Sunday."
___

Go ahead, Anders. Take a stab at it. You've got a 1 in 7 chance of getting the right answer.

Heiwa, I'll get to you ... when I get to you.

I can guarantee you a couple of things:

1. I will PROBABLY get to it in less than the 8 months that you've been evading & ignoring my simple, direct questions to you.

2. I will PROBABLY get to it in less than the 9 weeks that you've ignored my collapse description mentioned in thought E above.

Cheerio.

Tom

PS. My apologies to the rest of the readers for exposing the sarcastic places to which my thoughts run when I get a Snark-O-Gram before my morning coffee...

 

[Grizzly Bear]

In short if Bazant is incorrect then what is the official story ? Is there one ?

Do you know the difference between a representational model and reality? Of course not. Bazant, was correct in that even in his simplified model the collapse would have ensued. Do you know what a model is bill?


Definition of model

a simplified representation of a system or phenomenon, as in the sciences or economics, with any hypotheses required to describe the system or explain the phenomenon, often mathematically.

Definition of simplified
simplification - an explanation that omits superfluous details and reduces complexity
simplification - reduction: the act of reducing complexity
made easy or uncomplicated

In your world does a model = reality? Nah truther's ain't that stupid... oh wait...

EDIT: Anders are you paying attention? School's in session you're assignment is to study the definition of the words simplified and model and then read how they're applied to mathematics.

 

[stateofgrace]

This post is addressed to any concerned vitizens who may be reading this thread.

By now you will be aware that bobody in the over 3,000 posts that have been made in this thread and it's predecessor has been able to disprove the statement that the top one tenth of a structure cannot crush the other 90% of the same structure down to the ground using gravity alone. Neither has anybody managed to come up with a single example of this happening in the entire world history of construction on the planet Earth.

However controlled demolition can do this with ease. Many examples are available.

So you must ask yourself which is the more likely scenario. The example that has proved to be impossible to model or explain by calculation and that has had no precedent in world history either before or after 9/11 or the proposition (which is backed up by considerable amounts of evidence)that Controlled Demolition was the culprit.

Even though it's admittedly hard to face the horror of such a scenario being true it must be faced.

Remember that crazy guy on the subway ? You don't want to look him in the eye but you know that you will eventually have to look him in the eye.

Is that the same crazy guy who also goes to great lenghts to explain that the cores withstood the collapse therefore one way crushing did not happen, Bill?

Did one way crushing of either tower occur on 911, Bill ? Yes or no ?

 

[Heiwa]

Anders,



Golly, Anders.

There have been several thoughts that have been running around in my head during the last several days... Let's see if you can pick out which one of these might have been one of them...

Thought A:
"You know, Tom, you really should set aside everything else in your life and get right onto that analysis for Anders. After all, he has always been so incredibly responsive to you - and everyone else at the JREF forum - whenever anyone has ever had a question for him."

Thought B:
"You know, Tom. since Anders was such a great sport about accepting your wager with such honesty and directness, you really should rearrange your schedule to get right back to him."

Thought C:
"You know, Tom, when Anders asked all those questions about your model for formation of rubble from the collapse of an IKEA bookcase, and he accidentally misstated what you'd really said just a teeeensy bit, he really was incredibly diligent about correcting the record just as soon as you pointed it out to him. You remember that he rescinded his erroneous statements & apologized profusely."

Thought D:
"You know, Tom, you made a bunch of rash, unjustifiable statements in your discussion with Heiwa over that darn IKEA bookcase. And then Anders went back to your post, copied & pasted your own statements, proving that he had quoted you accurately. Boy, THAT sure was embarrassing. Perhaps you should be extra diligent & responsive to Heiwa in the future to try to make it up to him."

Thought E:
"You know, Tom, that elaborate post that you made, oh, about 9 weeks ago covers a lot of these same issues. You remember, this one: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4743226 . The one that you put a fair amount of effort into, and that covers a lot of these same issues. That one that you finally posted in abject frustration after Heiwa simply ignored 90% of your comments over the preceding month. That one to which Heiwa has NEVER YET responded. You should rise above pettiness, Tom, and get right on this analysis. Because Heiwa wants it. And he wants it now."

Thought F:
"You know, Tom. Even tho the world's foremost experts believe that a collapse of the towers, once started, would inexorably progress to the ground, even tho every competent energy calculation agrees, even tho the world's engineering community agrees, and even tho every ounce of engineering judgment that you possess agrees, it is really important that you finish up that analysis for Heiwa ASAP. Because SO MUCH is hanging on its conclusions. And it's especially important that you get to it before this weekend! Because, for the past 8 long years, Anders has been on a Quest for the Truth and he just wants to understand...

... before Sunday."
___

Go ahead, Anders. Take a stab at it. You've got a 1 in 7 chance of getting the right answer.

Heiwa, I'll get to you ... when I get to you.

I can guarantee you a couple of things:

1. I will PROBABLY get to it in less than the 8 months that you've been evading & ignoring my simple, direct questions to you.

2. I will PROBABLY get to it in less than the 9 weeks that you've ignored my collapse description mentioned in thought E above.

Cheerio.

Tom

PS. My apologies to the rest of the readers for exposing the sarcastic places to which my thoughts run when I get a Snark-O-Gram before my morning coffee...

I am still eagerly awaiting your evidence that broken structural elements, like IKEA book case parts, produced by a force F1 at an impact, compact themselves to solid rubble in contact with something and that this compacted rubble in turn impacts and/or applies a force F2 on something, again, poor something, that is bigger than the initial force F1.
A simple energy balance would help, you know, energy is applied, energy breaks loose elements, energy is used to compact the elements, etc, etc.

Spend your energy on that and not on more stupid questions.

 

[Dave Rogers]

By now you will be aware that bobody in the over 3,000 posts that have been made in this thread and it's predecessor has been able to disprove the statement that the top one tenth of a structure cannot crush the other 90% of the same structure down to the ground using gravity alone.

Certainly nobody has been able to prove that statement, which remains an unsupported assertion by someone known to alter data that does not support his conclusions. Why, then, should it require disproof?

However controlled demolition can do this with ease. Many examples are available.

Please offer one - even one - example of a controlled demolition in which the collapse was initiated nine-tenths of the way up the structure, then propagated to the ground artificially by controlled destruction of support structures.

Remember that crazy guy on the subway ? You don't want to look him in the eye but you know that you will eventually have to look him in the eye.

And see that he is, indeed, crazy.

Dave

 

[funk de fino]

If you are dismissing Bazant what will take his place ? We have some suggestions.


In short if Bazant is incorrect then what is the official story ? Is there one ?

The NIST december FAQ's.

 

[bill smith]

Do you know the difference between a representational model and reality? Of course not. Bazant, was correct in that even in his simplified model the collapse would have ensued. Do you know what a model is bill?


Definition of model


Definition of simplified
simplification - an explanation that omits superfluous details and reduces complexity
simplification - reduction: the act of reducing complexity
made easy or uncomplicated

In your world does a model = reality? Nah truther's ain't that stupid... oh wait...

EDIT: Anders are you paying attention? School's in session you're assignment is to study the definition of the words simplified and model and then read how they're applied to mathematics.

If Bazant is a gross simplification- an unrealistic oone even then what is the official story ? It can't be Bazant's ' falling part C ' because we know that more than 85% of the columns that connected part C and part A were fully intact.So what is the official story ? What provided the force to crush he building down ?

 

[bill smith]

The NIST december FAQ's.

Is that the one without the core columns ?

 

[bill smith]

Certainly nobody has been able to prove that statement, which remains an unsupported assertion by someone known to alter data that does not support his conclusions. Why, then, should it require disproof?



Please offer one - even one - example of a controlled demolition in which the collapse was initiated nine-tenths of the way up the structure, then propagated to the ground artificially by controlled destruction of support structures.



And see that he is, indeed, crazy.

Dave

That's a strong accusation to be throwing around Dave.

A controlled demolition is like it sounds. It can be started anywhere. That's why it's called controlled demolition. In this case it was done in such a way as to somewhat replicate a building being crushed down by it's own top 10%.

 

[HyJinX]

Liar

 

[Justin39640]

That's a strong accusation to be throwing around Dave.

A controlled demolition is like it sounds. It can be started anywhere. That's why it's called controlled demolition. In this case it was done in such a way as to somewhat replicate a building being crushed down by it's own top 10%.

its called controlled cause you control (or try to) where the pieces land
gravity still does most of the work
nothing about the WTC collapses resembled a "controlled" demolition

wheres was the booms bill?
theres audio from inside the building at the moment of the collapse
no booms are heard on that tape either

 

[Dave Rogers]

That's a strong accusation to be throwing around Dave.

I can substantiate it.

A controlled demolition is like it sounds. It can be started anywhere. That's why it's called controlled demolition.

Can you provide a source for this, or is it just a random assertion from an anonymous internet poster who has already demonstrated ignorance on many other subjects?

In this case it was done in such a way as to somewhat replicate a building being crushed down by it's own top 10%.

Since "Many examples are available", please give an example from any other time in the entire history of the world where a controlled demolition has been carried out so as to somewhat replicate a building being crushed down by its own top 10%. In the absence of any such example, please explain why it is reasonable to suppose that this is possible, when one of your arguments for the impossibility of crush-down is the absence of any equivalent example.

While you're at it, please explain how a crush-down of a building by the top 10% would violate the tautology you like to refer to as "Smith's Law".

Dave

 

[Newtons Bit]

Well, from videos we see big sections of wall perimeter columns say 12 m tall, just bolted together at their ends top/btm (the bracing) with the bolts having been sheared off, flying away laterally. No bending of these columns as far as I am concerned.

No Heiwa, the bolts don't brace the structure. That's retarded.