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

[bill smith]

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?

I would be happy to get into this but I woudn't like to queer the pitch For T. We are all waiting (and getting sick of waiting) for T. to lay out his definitive theory of how compacted rubble has more force than the original body it was made from. At this rate I am beginning to get the impression that he is running scared.

This is causing my confidence in his other thoughts on 9/11 to come into serious doubt.

 

[Heiwa]

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.

Serious attempts to make it very simple and easy? lol! WITH EVERY ASSUMPTION TO STOP THE COLLAPSE? LOL!

OK, put all that info together and produce a structure A that will one-way crush down when you drop a part C (C=1/10A) on it. Keep It Simple, Stupid (= KISS).

BTW in civilized Europe engineering universities are free of charge as higher education is seen as a national investment so you don't pay up then ... but later with your taxes. Results are good engineers, like me.

 

[FineWine]

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.

Uh, Mr. Robot, you've been exposed. The thirteen collapsing floors hit the floor immediately below, crushing it and adding its mass. The process is repeated until the building is gone. THERE IS NO PART A!

There is nothing to arrest the collapses. Stop these insane lies.

 

[FineWine]

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!

Wait, wait--I think I've got it!

Now, we're supposed to point out that as the structure is being built, the top floor is simply the highest level the builders have reached. NOTHING, of course, is falling on it. When we scratch our heads and ask you to explain what the hell would be causing the structure to collapse, you will direct us to your papers where "everything" is explained.

Have I figured out the game?

 

[FineWine]

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.

It is obvious to real engineers that your obtuseness is staggering. You simply can't grasp anything that is explained to you.

 

[FineWine]

You should tell T..It might help his disastrously poor compacted-rubble-provides-more-force-than-the-orinal-intact-body argument.Eh readers ? lol

Uh, Bill, tfk is a real engineer, while you are an extremely unintelligent, agenda-driven know-nothing. Your inability to understand what tfk writes does not advance your insane cause. He is right; you are wrong. Labeling his explanation "disastrously poor" confirms your ignorance and stupidity. It does not change the FACT that he is correct.

 

[bill smith]

Uh, Bill, tfk is a real engineer, while you are an extremely unintelligent, agenda-driven know-nothing. Your inability to understand what tfk writes does not advance your insane cause. He is right; you are wrong. Labeling his explanation "disastrously poor" confirms your ignorance and stupidity. It does not change the FACT that he is correct.

A straight question FineWine. are yyou prepared to sink or swim with T's compacted rubble argument ? Try not to blur your answer.

 

[FineWine]

A straaight question FineWine. are yyou prepared to sink or swim with T's compacted rubble rgument ? Try not to blur your answer.

Yes, I will stand behind anything written by the real engineers and physicists--tfk, RWGuinn, Newrton's Bit, Dave Rogers, Mackey. Not that they need my help: I learn from them, not the reverse.

It is hilarious that a muddle-headed liar is asking a debunker not to "blur" his answer. Speaking of blurring, how about those "non-viable" parts? I wonder how the English translation reads?

A straight answer, please: what did Mackey get wrong in his lecture? Stop running, Bill--we can all see you sweat.

 

[FineWine]

A straight question FineWine. are yyou prepared to sink or swim with T's compacted rubble rgument ? Try not to blur your answer.

It shouldn't be necessary--but, unfortunately, it is-- to point out that whenever a real engineer amplifies or corrects a statement made by another real engineer, your insane fairy tale about explosives in the towers remains just as hopelessly false as ever.

 

[Justin39640]

I was talking about euler buckling not plastic buckling. Any type of buckle at the bottom, especialy in the already leaning column will cause it to fall longways.There is no arguing about this. Have a look at this video. Watch the massive steel column collapse more or less straight down.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=NL&hl=nl&v=-dWBBEtA5bI

eh wrong


watch this too
this is a tv antenna demo
watch on the 1st to fall how the bottom kicks out in the opposite direction of the sway of the top

 

[bill smith]

Yes, I will stand behind anything written by the real engineers and physicists--tfk, RWGuinn, Newrton's Bit, Dave Rogers, Mackey. Not that they need my help: I learn from them, not the reverse.

It is hilarious that a muddle-headed liar is asking a debunker not to "blur" his answer. Speaking of blurring, how about those "non-viable" parts? I wonder how the English translation reads?

A straight answer, please: what did Mackey get wrong in his lecture? Stop running, Bill--we can all see you sweat.

Frankly My dear FineWine- not on your best day.

 

[FineWine]

Frankly My dear FineWine- not on your best day.

Frankly, feeble attempts at sarcasm from one of the dumbest, most unteachable cranks infesting the net just don't cut it. You've been slapped senseless on every single idiotic lie you've peddled here. You've been exposed as a fraud and a fool, and your only response has been to run for the hills. You attempted, after absorbing a humiliating beating on your flirtation with Judy Wood's lunacy, to resurrect Ace Baker's no-planes insanity. You were directed to Ryan Mackey's lecture, which demolishes the mad pesudo-science concocted by Morgan Reynolds and Jim Fetzer. You have avoided repeated requests to tell us what the NASA engineer got wrong. You have no brains and no guts. You promote evil. That pretty much sums up my attitude toward you.

 

[bill smith]

eh wrong


watch this too
this is a tv antenna demo
watch on the 1st to fall how the bottom kicks out in the opposite direction of the sway of the top

Wow did you see that column crumble in the 2nd part of the first video and then come straight down more or less. Exactly like the video I showed you earlier of the core column crumbling and coming down the same way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=NL&hl=nl&v=-dWBBEtA5bI

Didn't see anything that mattered in the antenna video.

 

[FineWine]

Wow did you see that column crumble in the 2nd part of the first video and then come straight down more or less. Exactly like the video I showed you earlier of the core column crumbling and coming down the same way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=NL&hl=nl&v=-dWBBEtA5bI

Didn't see anything that mattered in the antenna video.

There were no explosives in the towers, Bill. Evidence for explosives is nonexistent, and not a single demolition expert anywhere in the world thinks that the collapses of the towers resembled controlled demolitions.

 

[bill smith]

It shouldn't be necessary--but, unfortunately, it is-- to point out that whenever a real engineer amplifies or corrects a statement made by another real engineer, your insane fairy tale about explosives in the towers remains just as hopelessly false as ever.

Now there are more reputations than T's hanging in the balance. Good man FineWine.

 

[Justin39640]

Now there are more reputations than T's hanging in the balance. Good man FineWine.

about 99.9% of the professional engineering world's? lol

 

[bill smith]

about 99.9% of the professional engineering world's? lol

Not really. Nobody has asked about 99.8999999% of them

 

[Justin39640]

Wow did you see that column crumble in the 2nd part of the first video and then come straight down more or less. Exactly like the video I showed you earlier of the core column crumbling and coming down the same way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=NL&hl=nl&v=-dWBBEtA5bI

Didn't see anything that mattered in the antenna video.

go back and watch the bottom
the kick out
the same thing happened to the core

heres another


of course you didnt see anything that mattered to you
cause youre blind

 

[Newtons Bit]

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.

He's not a structural engineer.

 

[stateofgrace]

BTW in civilized Europe engineering universities are free of charge as higher education is seen as a national investment so you don't pay up then ... but later with your taxes. Results are good engineers, like me.

You are not a good engineer, you are a disgrace to the engineering trade. You promote outrageous lies driven by you own agenda. You make claims, fail to back them up with any engineering principles, dodge any questions that are asked of you and repeat over and over the same debunked rubbish.

For example, you made this claim

Originally Posted by Heiwa

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.

It as been shown to be completely wrong, yet you fail miserably to acknowledge your mistakes and forge ahead with your politically driven drivel. You are an embarrassment to the offshore industry and an embarrassment to the engineering trade in general.

I have met and worked with hundreds of engineers during my career, non of who display the level of arrogance and utter disregard of principles you display.Do not pretend you are a good engineer again, you are an agenda driven kook who excuses mass murderers and accuses innocent people. You command nothing other than ridicule and contempt.