• 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

newton3376 said:
Bill.....you aren't getting it.....he is trying to keep things more general and simple for starters. He will get to the details after he has gone over the basic principles and concepts.

If he wanted to he could explain it to you using basically all math...all equations...but you wouldn't understand any of it because you don't have the background knowledge.

You don't have the background knowledge to even understand the math behind the physics, much less the actual physics or engineering....so he is keeping it in as simple of terms as possible. Try closing your mouth for a change and trying to LEARN something.



You just aren't getting it Bill.

Maybe it's because you are too stubborn....
Maybe it's because you lack the fundamental education and training....
Maybe it's because you just aren't intelligent enough....
Maybe it's because you are delusional....

Who knows why you aren't getting it.....you just aren't. Put your questions and theories aside for a few minutes and READ HIS POST. Read it and THINK about what he is saying....

The analogies and illustrations are for YOUR BENEFIT....to make it easier to understand what is going on. But you would rather just keep repeating sound bites than trying to actually learn something.

It's too bad that you can't just shut up and try to learn instead of talking about things you have zero business talking about.
Click to expand...

I have interacted with T for several years on these subjects and I can tell you with complete honesty that there is nothing to learn about the truth of 9/11 from him. You will learn as time goes by.
 
Last edited:
It's been 8 years Bill. How much more time do you need to come up with one spec of evidence?
 
bill smith said:
Maybe somebody will make a jpeg of a 47 column core with all it's lateral bracing and then superimpose the lines of text you have posted on top. I think that could be a very very effective image.
Click to expand...

The lateral bracing was the perimeter columns. The floors provided the connection between the core columns and the perimeter columns. The floors were destroyed. The core columns fell down because of this.

Do you understand this concept?
 
Newtons Bit said:
The lateral bracing was the perimeter columns. The floors provided the connection between the core columns and the perimeter columns. The floors were destroyed. The core columns fell down because of this.

Do you understand this concept?
Click to expand...

Do I have to post that WTC2 video aagain ?
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
The video which you gullibly conflated a graphic overlay with reality? Go ahead champ! We all can use another laugh :D
Click to expand...

Not the overlay. The core that it was describing and that can be fairly clearly seen. The overlay just shows how the bracing looked.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1615521411849861778 shorter clip
http://images.google.nl/imgres?imgu...q=core+wtc2&gbv=2&ndsp=20&hl=en&sa=N&start=60 longer clip

PS for the longer clip scroll down to 'wtc2 took 30 seconds to collapse'.
 
Last edited:
Heiwa,

Heiwa said:
What are you trying to prove here?
Click to expand...
.
There was a grand total of 8 minutes between the posting of your previous post, and your reply that I am now answering. That gave you perhaps 4 minutes to read my post & 4 minutes to type your typically vacuous reply. Maybe 1 minute scan & 7 minutes babble. Who knows.

Try reading what I wrote. Try understanding it in the simple, clear context of the discussion that we've been having. A discussion that is NOT about your broken-record silliness. But is about the simple, clear wager that I offered, you jumped at, but then you were smart enough to chicken out of. Smart move, that.
.
Heiwa said:
A new way of controlled demolition of a building?
Click to expand...
.
Your comment reveals the fact that you neither read nor understood what I wrote. Don't be afraid. It's not that difficult. Even you should be able to understand it. Clearly not in 4 minutes, tho.
.
Heiwa said:
Put plenty of funny people up top ... and a one-way crush down takes place?
Click to expand...
.
Your comment reveals the fact that you neither read nor understood what I wrote. Don't be afraid. It's not that difficult. Even you should be able to understand it. Clearly not in 4 minutes, tho.
.
Heiwa said:
Sorry, you are supposed to drop the complete upper part C on lower part A and then demonstrate that part C can one-way crush down A.
Click to expand...
.
There you go using that word "suppose", again....

Tsk, tsk.

You are on the wrong discussion. This discussion is about the wager that I offered you. The one that you declined.
.
Heiwa said:
I have already shown (post #1 of original thread, etc) that it is not possible.
Click to expand...
.
You've shown nothing.

Your post #1 is both wrong & irrelevant. This post is a stepping stone on the way to explaining to non-mechanical engineers exactly why you are wrong. Mechanical engineers understand this easily already, and don't need my simplified explanation.

Perhaps this is still too difficult for you to understand... That would be a real problem. I don't frankly see how much simpler I could make this concept.

If it remains a mystery to you, perhaps you should consider a different line of work.
.
Heiwa said:
You are supposed to prove me wrong.
Click to expand...
.
No, Anders. You're wrong.

Competent engineers have already done that a long, long time ago for other competent engineers.

I have chosen to take the issues related to the collapse that you intentionally mash together into gibberish, and to try to present them in easy to understand terms to non-engineers.

You have no important role in that. You are welcome to comment, of course.

You really should read before replying, tho. It will make you appear less frivolous.

Tom
 
bill smith said:
Do I have to post that WTC2 video aagain ?
Click to expand...

That was a yes or no question. Do you understand the concept? You can disagree with whether it happened or not (and we can look at actual photographs laters), but do you understand the CONCEPT?
 
Newtons Bit said:
That was a yes or no question. Do you understand the concept? You can disagree with whether it happened or not (and we can look at actual photographs laters), but do you understand the CONCEPT?
Click to expand...

I think so. It's pretty straightforward.
 
bill smith said:
I often have that feeling myself. One overlay is pretty much like another I reckon.
Click to expand...

Legge_1a435a9e.jpg


This is what the remaining core actually looked like. It's very, very beat up. There's also not that regular grid of beams (which wouldn't provide lateral bracing anyways) like the fake overlay in the video you posted.
 
Newtons Bit said:
[qimg]http://stj911.org/legge/docs/Legge_1a435a9e.jpg[/qimg]

This is what the remaining core actually looked like. It's very, very beat up. There's also not that regular grid of beams (which wouldn't provide lateral bracing anyways) like the fake overlay in the video you posted.
Click to expand...

Are you not at all interested in the fact that the image on the right seems to show the steel becoming dust ?
 
bill smith said:
Are you not at all interested in the fact that the image on the right seems to show the steel becoming dust ?
Click to expand...

It fell over. That's smoke. Or are you implying that the structure, as it was leaning over and starting to fall was dustified?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom