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

[Bluesky]

Not really. Nobody has asked about 99.8999999% of them

Its absurd for you to think that Engineers do not have an opinion on the most significant structural collapse in history.

There are 34,000 engineers licensed to practice in California. There are 140,000 members of the ASCE. So lets assume that there are 200,000 PE's in the states.

Statistically the annual death rate for Americans aged 25 to 65, is 400 per 100,000. So that means that each year, 800 PE's die and each year about 20 engineers sign the ae911tm petition. The annual death rate is more than ten times the total number of PEs that have signed the ae911tm petition.

And what is the most effective way for engineers to show their disagreement with the nonsense that you and Heiwa spout: it is to ignore it.

 

[Heiwa]

Really, the onus is on you. You are, in effect, claiming that when two objects collide and there is loose material between them, that loose material will not be compacted.

If that were true, then one of the earliest tools created by man -- the mortar and pestle -- would not work.

OK, the pestle is part F and the mortar is part D. Say you drop the pestle F in the mortar D and ... nothing happens! No rubble, part E develops at all. Are you really suggesting that a pestle can one-way crush down a mortar?

 

[Oscar]

Heiwa:

OK, the pestle is part F and the mortar is part D. Say you drop the pestle F in the mortar D and ... nothing happens! No rubble, part E develops at all. Are you really suggesting that a pestle can one-way crush down a mortar?

How many people are you hoping to get banned?

 

[twinstead]

OK, the pestle is part F and the mortar is part D. Say you drop the pestle F in the mortar D and ... nothing happens! No rubble, part E develops at all. Are you really suggesting that a pestle can one-way crush down a mortar?

No disrespect intended, but Is this some kind of joke?

 

[tfk]

I see from people's replies that little billy has been up to his morphed into his "pompous little buffoon" personna. He is an annoying little troll, ain't he.

This is the specific reason that I've stuck him on "Ignore".

All right, bill. A couple of points & back to Ignore with you.

... I can tell you with complete honesty that there is nothing to learn about the truth of 9/11 from [tfk]...
.

I tried to explain engineering principles to you. And failed.
As did Newton.
As did Glenn.
As did Ryan Mackey,
As did Newtons Bit,
As did BasqueArch,
As did ElMondo .
As did a half dozen or more others have tried to explain them to you.

All failed.

You & your determined ignorance are the common denominators.

We are all waiting ("snark") 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.

You speak for nobody but yourself.

These aren't my arguments, bill. They're Isaac Newton's arguments. They are the simple, inevitable consequences of the distribution of mass, impulse & the conservation of momentum. If you were capable of understanding those simple principles, you might understand.

But you don't.

So please be quiet.

You don't have the SLIGHTEST clue what you are talking about. Please keep your laughably meaningless judgments to yourself.

The ball is in Heiwa's court, bill. I presented him a clear, simple explanation of the effect that concentrating mass will have on impacts.

His response - absolute silence - should give you a hint of his position.

tom

 

[Newtons Bit]

No disrespect intended, but Is this some kind of joke?

I don't think it is. Simple mechanics are kind of above Heiwa...

 

[rwguinn]

I don't think it is. Simple mechanics are kind of above Heiwa...

I'm not sure he and b s can add 2 and 2 and get the same answer twice running...

 

[aggle-rithm]

OK, the pestle is part F and the mortar is part D. Say you drop the pestle F in the mortar D and ... nothing happens! No rubble, part E develops at all. Are you really suggesting that a pestle can one-way crush down a mortar?

I'm tempted to attack the argument, not the arguer here...but some arguers attack themselves.

 

[TruthersLie]

OK, the pestle is part F and the mortar is part D. Say you drop the pestle F in the mortar D and ... nothing happens! No rubble, part E develops at all. Are you really suggesting that a pestle can one-way crush down a mortar?

<facepalm>

I see you (and your family) got EXACTLY what you paid for with your engineering degree...

 

[newton3376]

OK, the pestle is part F and the mortar is part D. Say you drop the pestle F in the mortar D and ... nothing happens! No rubble, part E develops at all. Are you really suggesting that a pestle can one-way crush down a mortar?

I can't believe an engineer would say some of the things you say!

I can almost excuse Bill Smiths' ignorance since he has zero training or experience in engineering or physics....but aren't you supposed to be some kind of engineer?

If I were you I would be VERY concerned if someone I worked with happened to read your posts.....you should try to come up with some good excuses for your complete and epic failure to understand what Tom and others have been trying to tell you....

 

[tfk]

Heiwa,

According Bazant 'the collapsing floors' are assemblied in an upper part C that is rigid, thus they never collapse! They are one 'block'. Rigid!

.
You've been told 50 times that "rigid does NOT mean indestructible". You don't listen.

Bazant does NOT "assume that it will not crush up". He examines it in detail. Unlike you, Heiwa.

Bazant has laid out his proof in the Appendix here: http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/p...TC Collapse - What Did & Did Not Cause It.pdf

He calculated the initial crush up velocity, and showed that it quickly increases & then drops to zero. In less than one story. See his Figure 9.

And that it is therefore completely reasonable to treat the upper block as a rigid body.

If you've got some rational objection to make to his analysis, perhaps you ought to present it formally.

Some math would be good.
.

We are still awaiting tfk:s explanation how B is being compacted, etc, etc.

.
YOU are awaiting ...?? LoL.

I presented you a a simple assessment of the consequences of simply redistributing the mass from 3 stories to 1/2 story.

I've asked you 3 times now to reply to that. You've produced nothing.

Why don't you answer that.

Then I'll present the case for compacting the materials. **


Tom

** Although it completely bewilders me that an alleged engineer requires an explanation of "where does the compacted rubble come from when a 40,000 tonne, one acre square, 12 story building collapses onto a 450,000 tonne, 98 story building...

 

[tsig]

I'm tempted to attack the argument, not the arguer here...but some arguers attack themselves.

Are you implying that Fact A completely one-way crushes down Fact C?

Impossible! see (madeup) axiom

read my paper.

 

[Heiwa]

... it completely bewilders me that an alleged engineer requires an explanation of "where does the compacted rubble come from when a 40,000 tonne, one acre square, 12 story building collapses onto a 450,000 tonne, 98 story building...

Yes, where does it come from? From the top 12 storeys (part C) or from the 98 storeys (part A)? And why would it start to one-way crush down part A.

Don't you know that a one-way crush down is not possible (topic)?

 

[bill smith]

Yes, where does it come from? From the top 12 storeys (part C) or from the 98 storeys (part A)? And why would it start to one-way crush down part A.

Don't you know that a one-way crush down is not possible (topic)?

T.will have to prove how rubble can be created by local damage in contact and also prove how that can be compacted at the same time. Simultaneous breakage and compaction is a part of his problem.
So unless we are into another area of 9/11 physics expect more general obfuscation and time wasting. Maybe its better just to keep it as a switch to occasionally lash him across the legs with as the mood takes. lol.

 

[tsig]

T.will have to prove how rubble can be created by local damage in contact and also prove how that can be compacted at the same time. So simultaneous breakage and compaction is a part of his problem.
So unless we are into another area of 9/11 physics expect general obfuscation and time wasting. Maybe its better just to keep it as a switch to occasionally lash him across the legs with as the mood takes. lol.

Please keep your wishful fantasies to yourself.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Don't you know that a one-way crush down is not possible (topic)?

Don't you know that you haven't convinced anyone of that (besides Bill)?

Perhaps you should work on your communication skills.

 

[bill smith]

Don't you know that you haven't convinced anyone of that (besides Bill)?

Perhaps you should work on your communication skills.

You didn't really think that Truthers come here to convert jref people did you ? Speaking for myself I come here to embarrass you in front of whatever spectators there may be. I enjoy the tortured explanations and the pack animal mentality that is rife here. It really is a lesson in psychology that may someday soon be studied in University degree courses.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Speaking for myself I come here to embarrass you in front of whatever spectators there may be. I enjoy the tortured explanations and the pack animal mentality that is rife here.

Sorry but you have to know what the hell you're talking about before you think you can humiliate anyone other than yourself

 

[Newtons Bit]

You didn't really think that Truthers come here to convert jref people did you ? Speaking for myself I come here to embarrass you in front of whatever spectators there may be. I enjoy the tortured explanations and the pack animal mentality that is rife here. It really is a lesson in psychology that may someday soon be studied in University degree courses.

Like how you showed us that the core of the WTC was completely intact, including the beams, when it was only a doctored video?

Or when shown pictures of the remaining core after the collapse you automatically assumed it "dustified" when it was no longer in frame?

Or your knowledge of Euler Buckling? Wow, we were really amazed when you showed us up on that particular topic.

We're so embarrassed about having shown you to be wrong in every single topic.

 

[TruthersLie]

You didn't really think that Truthers come here to convert jref people did you ? Speaking for myself I come here to embarrass you in front of whatever spectators there may be. I enjoy the tortured explanations and the pack animal mentality that is rife here. It really is a lesson in psychology that may someday soon be studied in University degree courses.

they already have plenty of classes to study in university about delusional thinking...

though usually with paranoid schizophrenics they have delusions of granduer... I think you (bill and H) may be the first to ever experience delusions of adequecy.

try again.. this time with some feeling