• 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

Newtons Bit said:
So BS, are you objections to my post now satisfied?
Click to expand...

If you mean that the perimeter walls and their floor trusses to the core provided lateral support to the core then I am satisfied. I'm not sure that I ever disputed it. But I am also satisfied that the core itself had internal lateral bracing and was probably capable of standing alone.
 
bill smith said:
If you mean that the perimeter walls and their floor trusses to the core provided lateral support to the core then I am satisfied. I'm not sure that I ever disputed it. But I am also satisfied that the core itself had internal lateral bracing and was probably capable of standing alone.
Click to expand...

And what element(s) created this internal lateral bracing?

And what caused the core (as seen in the videos just posted) to fall over?
 
Newtons Bit said:
And what element(s) created this internal lateral bracing?

And what caused the core (as seen in the videos just posted) to fall over?
Click to expand...

Beams welded between the core columns.

It really looked like it crumbled to me. Lengths of steel fall sideways not straight down.
 
Last edited:
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.

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.
Click to expand...


Excuse me, Mr. Robot, your upper part C, the collapsing floors, is the BIG PART. The collapsing floors hit exactly ONE floor, the floor immediately below, crushing it and adding its mass. The process is repeated until the building is gone. Your "lower part A" is a mythical concept fabricated by you to sell your idiotic garble of basic physics to agenda-driven suckers.

Has the humiliation of being exposed as a total fraud caused you to lose your grip on reality? It's over, man. You've been comprehensively refuted.
 
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...


What would be effective in pounding into your skull the image of core columns breaking at their splices? When will you grasp the idea that Heiwa's mythical columns that spear the collapsing floors like a fork spearing a meatball that has been tossed into the air BROKE AND WERE UNABLE TO SPEAR ANYTHING?
 
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...


No. He imagines intact core columns spearing--punching through--the collapsing floors. This massive short-circuit makes it impossible for him to conceptualize the collapse.

Oddly, Heiwa seemingly suffers from the same cognitive malfunction, which is a tad less excusable for an engineer.

This entire ridiculous thread rests on a man's (a "bot's"?) belief, real or feigned, that core columns that broke at their welds and fell down should have, through magic, "arrested" the collapse of all the floors above them.
 
bill smith said:
Beams welded between the core columns.

It really looked like it crumbled to me. Lengths of steel fall sideways not straight down.
Click to expand...

not when the support beneath them fails
then they fall straight down lol
like they did in the video

you must need glasses
the steel turned to dust indeed lmao
how bad do you have to lie about things that are obvious to 3 year olds?

what do you think MORE explosives survived the initial collapse to take out the core?
lmaoooo
no
 
bill smith said:
Beams welded between the core columns.

It really looked like it crumbled to me. Lengths of steel fall sideways not straight down.
Click to expand...

The beams were bolted, not welded. Even if they were welded, wide-flanges wouldn't be able to brace the columns. They'll buckle in their weak-axis. Which is why we (and by we, I mean engineers) put floor slabs or metal decks welded to the the top of the beams.

What you just saw was Euler Buckling, aka elastic Buckling. The steel literally behaves like a wet noodle. It does not form plastic hinges like stockier, well braced columns do at the critical buckling stress.

Are you familiar with the difference between elastic and inelastic buckling?
 
Newtons Bit said:
The beams were bolted, not welded. Even if they were welded, wide-flanges wouldn't be able to brace the columns. They'll buckle in their weak-axis. Which is why we (and by we, I mean engineers) put floor slabs or metal decks welded to the the top of the beams.

What you just saw was Euler Buckling, aka elastic Buckling. The steel literally behaves like a wet noodle. It does not form plastic hinges like stockier, well braced columns do at the critical buckling stress.

Are you familiar with the difference between elastic and inelastic buckling?
Click to expand...


Did I misdiagnose Bill's problem in my post #946?
 
bill smith said:
Beams welded between the core columns.

It really looked like it crumbled to me. Lengths of steel fall sideways not straight down.
Click to expand...

And this now passes as of as investigation and evidence in Crazytown ? “It looked like “?

Are your standards so low that this is what you would pass off as evidence?

You would actually stand in a court of law and say to your peers, “It looked like" as you accuse your fellow country men of mass murder and try to excuse the murderous terrorists who committed this wicked act?

It is a small mercy that you will never get your chance, you will never be heard, you will never get your day in court.
 
Last edited:
Heiwa,

Well, what is your response?

Will the football players spread over 6 yards create a bigger or smaller impact on the wall when they run into the wall, compared to the same numbers of football players spread over 30 yards?

If your answer is anything except "greater force", then perhaps you have a future in the food service industry.

The concentrated mass of players produces a greater instantaneous force and a greater average force. Just like a concentrated mass of debris would.

The conditions of the wager model are met.

Tom
 
Newtons Bit said:
http://911review.com/errors/wtc/imgs/dustspire.gif

And the page that I got it from: http://911review.com/errors/wtc/spire.html
Click to expand...
.

Hey Newt,

You may have seen this already. If not...

One of the best ways to view this video, & see what is really going on, is to view the collapse in reverse.

This video (from about 1:57) shows this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dWBBEtA5bI

Doing it like this makes it look like cardiovascular angiograms. Where they infuse radio-opaque dye into an artery or vein to watch the perfusion of blood. You can easily see the steel beam "insert itself" into the cloud of dust when you do this.



Tom
 
Newtons Bit said:
Bazant has already provided proof of one limit case of collapse: the upper block is a rigid block which impacts the lower block. Collapse ensues (as proved by math).

The other limit case is the upper block has absolutely no structural capacity. It breaks apart until the debris on the upper most floor (floor 90) exceeds the capacity of the floor. This floor fails and dumps all of the debris load and its own weight (dead and live) unto floor 89.

Floor 89 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 88
Floor 88 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 87
Floor 87 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 86
Floor 86 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 85
Floor 85 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 84
Floor 84 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 83
Floor 83 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 82
Floor 82 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 81
Floor 81 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 80
Floor 80 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 79
Floor 79 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 78
Floor 78 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 77
Floor 77 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 76
Floor 76 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 75
Floor 75 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 74
Floor 74 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 73
Floor 73 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 72
Floor 72 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 71
Floor 71 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 70
Floor 70 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 69
Floor 69 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 68
Floor 68 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 67
Floor 67 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 66
Floor 66 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 65
Floor 65 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 64
Floor 64 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 63
Floor 63 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 62
Floor 62 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 61
Floor 61 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 60
Floor 60 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 59
Floor 59 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 58
Floor 58 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 57
Floor 57 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 56
Floor 56 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 55
Floor 55 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 54
Floor 54 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 53
Floor 53 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 52
Floor 52 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 51
Floor 51 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 50
Floor 50 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 49
Floor 49 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 48
Floor 48 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 47
Floor 47 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 46
Floor 46 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 45
Floor 45 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 44
Floor 44 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 43
Floor 43 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 42
Floor 42 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 41
Floor 41 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 40
Floor 40 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 39
Floor 39 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 38
Floor 38 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 37
Floor 37 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 36
Floor 36 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 35
Floor 35 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 34
Floor 34 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 33
Floor 33 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 32
Floor 32 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 31
Floor 31 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 30
Floor 30 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 29
Floor 29 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 28
Floor 28 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 27
Floor 27 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 26
Floor 26 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 25
Floor 25 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 24
Floor 24 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 23
Floor 23 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 22
Floor 22 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 21
Floor 21 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 20
Floor 20 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 19
Floor 19 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 18
Floor 18 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 17
Floor 17 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 16
Floor 16 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 15
Floor 15 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 14
Floor 14 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 13
Floor 13 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 12
Floor 12 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 11
Floor 11 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 10
Floor 10 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 9
Floor 9 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 8
Floor 8 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 7
Floor 7 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 6
Floor 6 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 5
Floor 5 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 4
Floor 4 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 3
Floor 3 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 2
Floor 2 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to floor 1
Floor 1 fails and drops the debris plus its own weight to the ground


Your inability to understand this simple concept does not absolve your "Axiom" from being debunked. I consider this matter settled, your axiom disproved theoritically, your challenge met by WTC 1&2 and am placing you back on ignore.
Click to expand...

So there are now two possibilities? Upper part C is rigid and one-way crushes down part A or part C is not-rigid and collapses (like pancakes), becomes compacted rubble, part B, that one-way crushes down part A.

Sorry, in either case part A will arrest the local failures. We all know that part C is not rigid so the Bazant theory is wrong.

Then we have the rubble compaction theory, which tfk is supposed to clarify. I have tried to drop many things none of which compacts itself into solid rubble. When I drop Comething it breaks into small pieces that cannot break Anything but I am ready to learn.
 
bill smith said:
Beams welded between the core columns.

It really looked like it crumbled to me. Lengths of steel fall sideways not straight down.
Click to expand...

but if the bottom gave out first (which is what I would assume happened, but I am not an engineer, nor am I psychic, but I do have some basic physics classes in high school) would the others not tumble sideways and all over the place?? As the bottom began to fail, the top would then be forced to handle loads it wasn't designed for, and began to fail also. I mean, really, the upper portion of that core didn't look pristine to me.

Oh, and the dirst and concrete dust that remains in the air after the core has fallen, is that what BS is talking about "dustification"????? I almost sharted myself when I read that.
 
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...

So you say that to destroy a structure A, you only have to destroy some floors up top of structure A ... and the whole structure A collapses, like a house of cards, incl. the core columns.

Actually, when the structure was built the top floors were not even there ... and there was no collapse!
 
Heiwa:
Actually, when the structure was built the top floors were not even there ... and there was no collapse!
Click to expand...

That is hysterical. Do you actually think before you type or do you just sit there wondering how big an arse to make of yourself? It is a pregnant question.

Just out of interest, what proportion of ships you've been involved in on the engineering side (cough) have sunk?
 
Newtons Bit said:
The beams were bolted, not welded. Even if they were welded, wide-flanges wouldn't be able to brace the columns. They'll buckle in their weak-axis. Which is why we (and by we, I mean engineers) put floor slabs or metal decks welded to the the top of the beams.

What you just saw was Euler Buckling, aka elastic Buckling. The steel literally behaves like a wet noodle. It does not form plastic hinges like stockier, well braced columns do at the critical buckling stress.

Are you familiar with the difference between elastic and inelastic buckling?
Click to expand...

Does eular buckling require a lot of heat?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom