• 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:
No, it requires no heat.

You could have just replied "no" to my question, "Do you understand this concept?"
Click to expand...

Ijust have this picture in my head of a massive steel column behaving like a 'wet noodle' and apparently without any heat. I am asking what is going on with the molecular structure at that time. Is it a momentary phenomenon or does the steel stay like a wet noodle ?
 
Last edited:
tfk said:
... the video that shows the core of the building still standing after the collapse wave has passed it by...
Click to expand...

If that's so, we have more clear evidence that the Bazant & Co's and Seffen's theories are not valid. Thanks. Now, what about your solid rubble compaction theory - the rubble Box! - that is supposed to crush anything. Does it tally with your video observations?
 
bill smith said:
Ijust have this picture in my head of a massive steel column behaving like a 'wet noodle' and apparently without any heat. I am asking what is going on with the molecular structure at that time. Is it a momentary phenomenon or does the steel stay like a wet noodle ?
Click to expand...

The molecular structure? Nothing has changed.

Think about a piece of steel wire. If you anchor a very short piece of it in the ground it will just stay there erect. If you anchor a very long piece it behaves basically like a rope (it falls down).
 
tfk said:
Let me see if I have this straight...

You just watched the video that shows the core of the building still standing after the collapse wave has passed it by...

And yet, you still have the senselessness to say:



Do you ever stop to think to modify your opinions to match what you see with your eyes?

If the collapse wave can so OBVIOUSLY fracture the connections between the cross trusses & the core columns, then how can you possibly write that "in order to ... crush down [the towers] you have to destroy the core"?

BTW, a second question: WHAT was going to stop the crush down after it had descended, say 20 floors? after 40 floors? after 80 floors?

According to your theory, did they have to keep blowing up floors? Or was there some point where the collapse was self-sustaining?

Tom
Click to expand...

I doubt that in the lowest 15 or 20 floors the core could have could have been destoyed at all in a simple gravity collapse. They were just too thick and strong at that point, Buried maybe- eliminated ?....never.

It's equally as certain that the collapse could have never started as proposed using gravity alone. The impacted 90% of the building was basically 100% intact at that point giving the massive core columns perfect bracing. It's completely obvious.
 
Last edited:
BUMP [modified for Heiwa]

Grizzly Bear said:
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 [Heiwa]?


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...
Click to expand...
Anders, do you need to be put in detention in order to get you to do your homework?
 
Newtons Bit said:
The molecular structure? Nothing has changed.

Think about a piece of steel wire. If you anchor a very short piece of it in the ground it will just stay there erect. If you anchor a very long piece it behaves basically like a rope (it falls down).
Click to expand...

A wire like that coils down if I'm not mistaken. How would this be represented in a massive steel column ? Crumbling at the bottom ? As we see in the video ?
 
bill smith said:
A wire like that coils down if I'm not mistaken. How would this be represented in a massive steel column ? Crumbling at the bottom ? As we see in the video ?
Click to expand...

he meant straighten it out 1st

metal wire doesnt necessarily mean electrical
i do work at manufacturing plants that make hardware
bolts, screws, rivets, brake anchor pins, etc, etc
at some places all of these parts start out as massive coils of wire that is cut, stamped, machined, etc, into a final batch of pieces (hardware also comes from rolled round stock and other processes but thats a different subject)

when the coil is long its easy to flex the material
but not the cut down parts

this is very simple stuff to understand
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
rwguinn said:
bill smith, heiwa:
One of the first rules:
When you find yourself in a hole, Put the shovel down!
Click to expand...

You should tell T..It might help his disastrously poor compacted-rubble-provides-more-force-than-the-orinal-intact-body argument.Eh readers ? lol
 
bill smith said:
You should tell T..It might help his disastrously poor compacted-rubble-provides-more-force-than-the-orinal-intact-body argument.Eh readers ? lol
Click to expand...
Bill, your ignorance of sensible comprehension is beyond measure. Since you don't realize this, or like to be a guru's parrot, then carry on. Fence sitters can see your foolish arguments.
 
Heiwa said:
If that's so, we have more clear evidence that the Bazant & Co's and Seffen's theories are not valid. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Eh no it actually renders this
Heiwa said:
In order to one-way crush down destroy WTC 1 and 2 you have to destroy the core ... at regular intervals. Controlled demolition is the only way.
Click to expand...

as complete and utter garbage.

You have just admitted there is clear evidence that your theory is not valid.Thanks.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
Ijust have this picture in my head of a massive steel column behaving like a 'wet noodle' and apparently without any heat. I am asking what is going on with the molecular structure at that time. Is it a momentary phenomenon or does the steel stay like a wet noodle ?
Click to expand...

Do you understand why modern skyscrapers like the WTC are structured differently from older skyscrapers like the Empire State Building? And why engineers think the older ones will last hundreds of years longer?

Just save time and say "no".
 
Heiwa said:
If that's so, we have more clear evidence that the Bazant & Co's and Seffen's theories are not valid. Thanks. Now, what about your solid rubble compaction theory - the rubble Box! - that is supposed to crush anything. Does it tally with your video observations?
Click to expand...

Refer to my earlier post using the "Mack truck falling on a disassembled IKEA shelf" and you might begin to understand how rubble can become compacted.

Oh, and I must have missed the post where someone claimed that compacted rubble could crush anything. Could you point me to it?
 
aggle-rithm said:
Refer to my earlier post using the "Mack truck falling on a disassembled IKEA shelf" and you might begin to understand how rubble can become compacted.
Click to expand...

Pls explain again how rubble is compacted when part C of structure A impacts A and one-way crushes A. KISS.
 
Heiwa said:
If that's so, we have more clear evidence that the Bazant & Co's and Seffen's theories are not valid. Thanks. Now, what about your solid rubble compaction theory - the rubble Box! - that is supposed to crush anything. Does it tally with your video observations?
Click to expand...

And you paid all of that money to become a structural engineer? Really?

wow...

All of that money and time wasted.

You realize that Bazant was showing how the EASIEST model for analyzing the collapse.
Do you realize that Bazant and co made serious attempts to make it very simiple and easy, and they showed that it still was going to collapse (EVEN WITH EVERY ASSUMPTION TO STOP THE COLLAPSE), and it still didn't.

and you design ships? I'd love to know the designs and companies who use them so I NEVER get on one.
 
Last edited:
Heiwa:
Pls explain again how rubble is compacted when part C of structure A impacts A and one-way crushes A. KISS.
Click to expand...

Please explain again how much you paid and to whom in order to justify flaunting yourself as a qualified engineer. We could all use a laugh. KISS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom