• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

bill smith said:
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 ?
Click to expand...

C''mon Grizzly. Help us out here . All us concerned citizens are waiting for your answer to this vital question. Seriously.
 
GlennB said:
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.
Click to expand...

Heiwa said:
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.
Click to expand...

Please answer the question, and provide 'energy balance' figures.
 
bill smith said:
If Bazant is a gross simplification- an unrealistic oone even then what is the official story ?
Click to expand...

There isn't an "official story". There never has been. The idea that there is an officially sanctioned, complete and thorough explanation of the 9/11 collapses is an invention of conspiracy theorists, intended to make it look as if their fantasies have a similar status to reality.

bill smith said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is simply moronic. We know that, as soon as the upper block began to fall, 100% of the columns that connected part C and part A were completely disconnected.

bill smith said:
So what is the official story ?
Click to expand...

A bogeyman created by conspiracy theorists, so as to have something to argue against. It doesn't exist.

bill smith said:
What provided the force to crush he building down ?
Click to expand...

GM1M2/R2
Dave
 
Hey Dave,

Dave Rogers said:
There isn't an "official story". There never has been. The idea that there is an officially sanctioned, complete and thorough explanation of the 9/11 collapses is an invention of conspiracy theorists, intended to make it look as if their fantasies have a similar status to reality.
Click to expand...

This is an excellent point. And it says a lot about the self-correcting way that real science & real engineering operate. And how they collide with real politics.

One might well say that the official US Gov't story is "We're bureaucrats, politicians & lawyers. We don't know nuthin' 'bout building no buildings.

So we've given the task of explaining what happened to the most qualified guys that we could gather, we funded their work, and they produced an elaborate report. We provisionally accepted their conclusions. Since that time, the world's engineering establishment has reviewed those results and found their assumptions, methods & conclusions to have followed best engineering practices. Moreover, the world's engineering establishment has accepted those conclusions, with a few typical little squabbles, as the best explanation of all the observed evidence. And since we don't know nuthin' 'bout building no buildings, we think it's wise if we accept it too.

Until the engineers tell us that they found something new. And we'll listen to those guys too.

Because, did we mention that 'we don't know nuthin' 'bout building no buildings'?"
___

But understanding that "there is no official story" requires a certain level of subtlety of thought. An appreciation of complex socio-political nuances.

Do you REALLY think that Bill is up to this task??

After all, this is the guy who, with a chip on his shoulder & a stamp of his foot, and the full expectation that "he had you in his cross-hairs", just DEMANDED that you provide him with the answer to the impenetrable mystery of "What provided the force to crush [t]he building down ?"

Can I get a "Duh..."? :rolleyes:

Tom
 
Dave Rogers said:
There isn't an "official story". There never has been. The idea that there is an officially sanctioned, complete and thorough explanation of the 9/11 collapses is an invention of conspiracy theorists, intended to make it look as if their fantasies have a similar status to reality.



This is simply moronic. We know that, as soon as the upper block began to fall, 100% of the columns that connected part C and part A were completely disconnected.



A bogeyman created by conspiracy theorists, so as to have something to argue against. It doesn't exist.



GM1M2/R2


Dave
Click to expand...

N/o x w(ay) x 2
 
There is so much meat here now that I hardly know where to start.
So it seems that Bazant is gone and the government explanation is said not to exist.

No government explanation ?

There is a vacuum.

Well we HAVE an explanation and we demand an opportunity and the means to publicly and officially test it.
 
bill smith said:
There is so much meat here now that I hardly know where to start.
So it seems that Bazant is gone and the government explanation is said not to exist.

No government explanation ?

There is a vacuum.

Well we HAVE an explanation and we demand an opportunity and the means to publicly and officially test it.
Click to expand...

Bazant isn't the government. His research was published in a journal which... isn't part of the government.
 
bill smith said:
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%.
Click to expand...

But this didn't happen did it Bill? You said so yourself.

bill smith said:
Shall I put up the video of WTC2 with around 5800-900 feet of the core clearly still standing nd we can work off that ?
Click to expand...

So did one way crushing occur on 911? Yes or no ?
 
The nearest thing to a government explanation was the NIST report. But the NIST FAQ was a far more importnt document in terms of informing the wider public. So it follows absolutely that the need for accuracy and utter clarity was far greater for the FAQ considering that so many people's oinions were formed or influenced by it. It was obviously essential that no vital component be underlayed or not mentioned and no ambiguities were allowed to creep into the FAQ.

Does anybody disagree with this ?
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
So it seems that Bazant is gone and the government explanation is said not to exist.
Click to expand...

Where on Earth did you get the idea that "Bazant is gone"? Bazant's analysis is perfectly valid as a limiting case, a concept you continue to refuse even to try to comprehend.

And where do you get the idea that reality is defined by a Government explanation? What happened, happened, whether a government explains it to you or not. Only a sheep would think otherwise; only a sheep would require that everything be explained in detail for their convenience, and believe that they could demand a complete explanation of everything.

bill smith said:
Well we HAVE an explanation
Click to expand...

No, you don't. You have a vague suggestion.

Dave
 
bill smith said:
The nearest thing to a government explanation was the NIST report. But the NIST FAQ was a far more importnt document in terms of informing the wider public. So it follows absolutely that the need for accuracy and utter clarity was far greater for the FAQ considering that so many people's oinions were formed or influenced by it. It was obviously essential that no vital component be underlayed or not mentioned and no ambiguities were allowed to creep into the FAQ.

Does anybody disagree with this ?
Click to expand...

Only anyone who understands the purpose of the NIST enquiry. The NIST FAQ was a means of summarising for the general public a serious engineering study whose purpose was to inform revision of safety standards in the construction of tall buildings. The rantings of the truth movement are utterly insignificant in comparison.

Whinge all you like, bill. It doesn't matter. You don't matter.

Dave
 
carlitos said:
If there is a theory, or even a vague suggestion, I can think of an excellent place to post it.
Click to expand...

Of course! Bill, you say you have an explanation. Please post it in full in the thread indicated. This will, of course, be very simple for you if you actually have an explanation, so if you don't do so we'll all know what conclusion to draw.

Dave
 
bill smith said:
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.
Click to expand...
Er, obviously a crushdown is possible cos we All SEEN IT HAPPEN!!!!

How about starting from the most likely scenario that is was the rather large aircraft crashing into the buildigs that was responsible and work from there and see if it all fits before looking into thecless likely scenarios
 
Hay Bill, do you check under the bed before you go to sleep at night, I bet you do
 
bill smith said:
C''mon Grizzly. Help us out here . All us concerned citizens are waiting for your answer to this vital question. Seriously.
Click to expand...
Bill, as often as I'm online here I do have a life... and part of that life involves trying to get department consent to register for my fall term classes in the Master's program. Do try to be patient if I don't respond immediately... I was at the University waiting for their offices to open when I responded to you earlier.

bill smith said:
If Bazant is a gross simplification- an unrealistic one even then what is the official story?
Click to expand...
As far as the collapses are concerned there is none. It's purely an engineering matter. Planes were rammed into buildings, and their structural integrity was severely compromised, if you don't understand the basic engineering concepts of the materials and structures then you aren't in much of a position argue with it.

bill smith said:
What provided the force to crush he building down?
Click to expand...
Fire was responsible for collapse initiation, and the force of 15 to 30 stories worth of material generated load types which the structures were never expected to experience during their life times. Once the columns buckle they aren't suited to carry a building. And their integrity relies heavily on them maintaining their geometry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom