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

[bill smith]

And, at the same time, you think the Twin Towers weren't really hit at all. Your capacity for doublethink is impressive. Why do truthers embody all the evils of the fictional societies they claim to be fighting against?

Dave

.

Did I say the Towers were not hit at all ?

 

[Heiwa]

Heiwa,


.

please answer several of the questions that I've asked. Then I'll be happy to answer any that you have.

From previous posts:

1. Do you yet understand yet that "rigid body" does not mean "indestructible"?

2. 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"?

3. 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?

4. 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?

5. Please go back to post #624 & copy & paste the place where I mention the following statements. Or rescind them.
a. An "IKEA bookcase that disassembles itself..."
b. An "IKEA book case ... becomes solid rubble that destroys the ground..."
c. An "IKEA book case ... becomes solid rubble that destroys ... everything"

1. No - a rigid body cannot be changed structurally in any respect.

2. There is no such thing as a 'collapse wave' or a one-way crush down in structural damage analysis! In any structural collision only elements and connections break and broken elements may contact and rub against each other, which require energy. The weakest elements/connections fail first. Only local failures take place.

3. There is no such thing as a 'crush down'; e.g. small part C being dropped on and one way crushing down bigger part A of same structure. The local failures are arrested when there is no more energy available. It would take less than a second in the WTC 1 case.

4. It seems there will be many small impacts unless some players, Hollywood style, just go through the walls.

5. You introduced the IKEA book case box in the discussion for some strange reason.

Now, I look forward to your explanations and evidence that an assembly of elements in collision will produce rubble that first compacts itself and then destroys anything in its way.

 

[dtugg]

.

Did I say the Towers were not hit at all ?

When you spew no planer garbage, people tend to think that you are a no planer, genius.

 

[FineWine]

I find it really funny to hear that the Movement for Truth is almost dead when on this forum alone there are at least one hundred debunkers for every Truther. This would seem to indicate that you do not consider us dead by any means. On the contrary you validate and confirm us entirely. We could never have come so far without you and for that you have our thanks.

You write words that must sound good to you, or else you'd write something different, but one wonders if you ever take the trouble to ponder their meaning. How do people who destroy your arguments "confirm" you? Do you really imagine that a tiny movement that is widely ridiculed for its stupidity and reviled for its moral idiocy has "come so far"? Do you get the idea that you've accomplished less than nothing? You've raved, ranted, and told lies for almost eight years. You've failed to shake a single aspect of the mainstream account. You've failed to produce a shred of evidence for the insane myths you cling to so desperately. The realization that you've wasted years of your life on a nonsensical fairy tale must be hard to bear. But, making bad choices carries a price.

 

[dtugg]

1. No - a rigid body cannot be changed in any respect.

Says who? You?

 

[Dave Rogers]

No sweat Dave. I' sure we will all watch your future posting to see your system in action.

Because looking back over my past posts, to see that I've done exactly what I say I've done, would be too much like actual research for a truther. Besides, it might reveal information that disproves your paranoid fantasies, and why on Earth would you want to do that?

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

.

Did I say the Towers were not hit at all ?

You've hinted that you think the videos showing planes were faked, and that there were actually no planes. Anyone assuming rationality on your part would conclude that you don't think the towers were hit at all. Of course, I'm happy to rescind that assumption should you prefer I do.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Says who? You?

Standard woo methodology. Redefine words to an absurdly extreme meaning, then insist that your definition was the one intended by the original source. It's that good old fallacy of equivocation.

Dave

 

[FineWine]

Those same sane and smart people think that 1mm aluminium cut through 33 14'' x 14'' steel box columns that were braced against the concrete floors at 12 foot intervals . he 13 foot diameter lane severed these pretty cleanly and went on to destroy up to ten massive core columns snd partally carrying on to exit the building through maybe a dozen more 14'' x 14'' steel box columns.

Bread does not cut the knife and neither does liquid fuel nor paper-thin aluminium so maybe you see the level of respect that a person ight have for people who hold that opinion. So when people like that call a Truther stupid for making this point you can see why a stundie is a kind of ironic Oscar for us.

Bill, you're trying to rave no-planer insanity to people who are much, much smarter than you are. Evidently you were unable to comprehend a word Mackey said in his lecture. A 100-ton projectile moving at roughly 500 mph easily cuts steel columns. Please stop babbling now. Really, it's time to just stop.

Morgan Reynolds and Jim Fetzer are nuts. The plane entered the building, Bill. Nothing you or any other loon can do will ever change that fact. Yes, hands can break bricks, water can cut steel, and fluffy birds can damage titanium fan blades. Embrace reality, Bill. Your no-plane idiocy will always be wrong. The people you are parroting are insane.

 

[FineWine]

1. No - a rigid body cannot be changed in any respect.

2. There is no such thing as a 'collapse wave' or a one-way crush down! In any collision only elements and connections break and broken elements may contact and rub against each other, which require energy. The weakest elements/connections fail first. Only local failures take place.

3. There is no such thing as a 'crush down'; e.g. small part C being dropped on and one way crushing down bigger part A of same structure. The local failures are arrested when there is no more energy available. It would take less than a second in the WTC 1 case.

4. It seems there will be many small impacts unless some players, Hollywood style, just go through the walls.

5. You introduced the IKEA book case box in the discussion for some strange reason.

Now, I look forward to your explanations and evidence that an assembly of elements in collision will produce rubble that first compacts itself and then destroys anything in its way.

You appear to have suffered a massive breakdown. Your exposure as a complete fraud hit you hard. You keep repeating the same stupid lies. The collapsing floors are the BIG PART; the floors they hit, one at a time, are the small part. You cannot accept your failure with grace, so it is time for you to go away.

 

[FineWine]

Did you never wonder why WT7 as pre-rigged with explosivs at all ? Surely they did not plan to perform a controlled demolition on it at that time ?

No what I think happened was that flight 93 was supposed to have hit WTC7 exactly as the Twin Towers were hit. That would have meant that all three buildings were pre-rigged with explosives/incendiaries and all three were planned to go down in exctly the same way. Three buildings-three planes. AAll nice and neat.

But then fate intervened and the best laid plans started to unravel. Flight 93 got stuck in the runway and could not take off for an hour. By then it was too late to continue with it's planned mission so they had it fly out over Pennsvlvania while they decided what to do with it. In the end they faked a crash- very badly and landed the plane,probably at Cleveland.

Meantime they had a problem with WTC7 because they were already fairly advanced in the weakening of the structure prior to the plane hitting. So the building had to go. So they lit some unlikely looking fires on seperate floors of the building in the hope it would burn. No such luck so they had to go ahead and demolish it in the standard way at 5:20 in the afternoon. Thus their endless problems with WTC7- the forced errror that will bring them down.

Seriously, Bill, you appear to have lost any tenuous grip on reality you once had. Your lies were always stupid, but your latest flurry of bizarre gibberish is off-the-charts.

There were no explosives anywhere in the WTC complex, Bill--none! Evidence for explosives is nonexistent. Your imaginary conspiracy is so ludicrously swollen, so utterly impossible, that you can't begin to express a coherent thought about what you think happened on 9/11. The buildings, as everyone knows, fell from the floors hit by the planes. Why is it necessary to repeat for the thousandth time that no explosives could have survived the impacts and the fires? You frauds can't come close to fitting the collapse of WTC 7 into your lunatic myths.

It has all unraveled for you, Bill. You're done. Your thrashing and squirming is painful to watch.

 

[beachnut]

Did you never wonder why WT7 as pre-rigged with explosivs at all ? Surely they did not plan to perform a controlled demolition on it at that time ? ...

Never wonder how someone can mess up everything on 911 with ease? You start with a lie and make up delusions. There were zero explosives in WTC7; just fire. You lack facts, evidence, logic, knowledge which is why you can't form rational conclusions on 911.

Fire, not explosives (more energy in fire than explosives, ordinary office fires produce more energy than explosives used to bring down buildings)

WTC7 on fire. As the tangential tripe flows this is the best you have to support the delusions of Heiwa, more delusions and lies about WTC7.

Heiwa and you lack the facts and the skills required to understand 911. You both prefer crazy conspiracy theories.

 

[tsig]

1. No - a rigid body cannot be changed in any respect.

snip.

So you are a rigid body?

 

[Heiwa]

Says who? You?

Rigid body : An idealized extended solid whose size and shape are definitely fixed and remain unaltered when forces are applied. Treatment of the motion of a rigid body in terms of Newton's laws of motion leads to an understanding of certain important aspects of the translational and rotational motion of real bodies without the necessity of considering the complications involved when changes in size and shape occur. Many of the principles used to treat the motion of rigid bodies apply in good approximation to the motion of real elastic solids. See also Rigid-body dynamics.

 

[tfk]

1. No - a rigid body cannot be changed in any respect.

.
According to your definition, there is not one single "rigid body" in this universe.

That may be your definition. Bazant clearly doesn't agree with you. Since he has his "rigid body" crush up slightly at the beginning of the collapse and crushed up completely at the end of the collapse.

Bazant's definition seems eminently clear to me: A "rigid body" is a structure that moves thru space as a unit UNTIL some component's stress exceed its ultimate strength. At which point, that component detaches from the parent rigid body."

Sensible people also understand the concept of "approximately equivalent to"...
.

2. There is no such thing as a 'collapse wave' or a one-way crush down! In any collision only elements and connections break and broken elements may contact and rub against each other, which require energy. The weakest elements/connections fail first. Only local failures take place.

.
Please stop senselessly dodging questions based on your personal semantics.

OK, the "collapse wavefront", which I am DEFINING (so it does exist) as "the vertical location just above the topmost floor of the tower that is still intact at any given time".

Now please answer my question:
2. If the collapse wavefront can so OBVIOUSLY fracture the connections between the cross trusses & the core columns (as shown clearly in the "core remained standing" video, then how can you possibly write that "in order to ... crush down [the towers] you have to destroy the core"?

By my definition of this term, the collapse wavefront has moved BELOW the visible, standing but damaged core in this video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1615521411849861778
.

3. There is no such thing as a 'crush down'; e.g. small part C being dropped on and one way crushing down bigger part A of same structure. The local failures are arrested when there is no more energy available. It would take less than a second in the WTC 1 case.

.
Propaganda noted. Now please answer MY question:

3. WHAT was going to stop the "collapse wavefront" [my definition] 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?
.

4. It seems there will be many small impacts unless some players, Hollywood style, just go through the walls.

.
Evasion noted. Please answer MY question.

4. 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?
.

5. You introduced the IKEA book case box in the discussion for some strange reason.

.
Evasion noted. Please answer MY request.

5. Please go back to post #624 & copy & paste the place where I mention the following statements. Or rescind them.
a. An "IKEA bookcase that disassembles itself..."
b. An "IKEA book case ... becomes solid rubble that destroys the ground..."
c. An "IKEA book case ... becomes solid rubble that destroys ... everything"
.

Now, I look forward to your explanations and evidence that an assembly of elements in collision will produce rubble that first compacts itself and then destroys anything in its way.

.

As soon as you answer my questions & request, I'll be happy to answer yours.

Tom

 

[newton3376]

1. No - a rigid body cannot be changed structurally in any respect.

He asked you if you understand that "rigid body" does not mean "indestructible"?

Do you understand this or not? Answer the freaking question...

2. There is no such thing as a 'collapse wave' or a one-way crush down in structural damage analysis! In any structural collision only elements and connections break and broken elements may contact and rub against each other, which require energy. The weakest elements/connections fail first. Only local failures take place.

What do you mean there is no such thing as a collapse wave? What do you think Tom is referring to when he says "collapse wave"?

Honestly dude......try to keep up...

3. There is no such thing as a 'crush down'; e.g. small part C being dropped on and one way crushing down bigger part A of same structure. The local failures are arrested when there is no more energy available. It would take less than a second in the WTC 1 case.

Math please. Physics please. Engineering please. No one cares about your baseless comments based on your own wishful thinking.....put up or shut up

SHOW us why it isn't possible using math and physics instead of just you saying words...

4. It seems there will be many small impacts unless some players, Hollywood style, just go through the walls.

You didn't answer the question.....YET AGAIN.

Which scenerio would create a bigger impact? Answer the question for once...

5. You introduced the IKEA book case box in the discussion for some strange reason.

Sigh.

The reason is because you aren't intelligent enough to understand the more complex mathematics or physics explanation so Tom is trying to simplify it and hold your hand and take baby steps with you.

He is treating you like a child and attempting to come down to your level of understanding....he is actually making every effort to help you understand but you are either too stupid or too stubborn to see this.

But at least its' entertaining to watch you fumble about mumbling the same nonsense over and over....

Now, I look forward to your explanations and evidence that an assembly of elements in collision will produce rubble that first compacts itself and then destroys anything in its way.

Sigh.....

Unbelievable.

 

[Heiwa]

He asked you if you understand that "rigid body" does not mean "indestructible"?

Do you understand this or not? Answer the freaking question...



What do you mean there is no such thing as a collapse wave? What do you think Tom is referring to when he says "collapse wave"?

Honestly dude......try to keep up...



Math please. Physics please. Engineering please. No one cares about your baseless comments based on your own wishful thinking.....put up or shut up

SHOW us why it isn't possible using math and physics instead of just you saying words...



You didn't answer the question.....YET AGAIN.

Which scenerio would create a bigger impact? Answer the question for once...



Sigh.

The reason is because you aren't intelligent enough to understand the more complex mathematics or physics explanation so Tom is trying to simplify it and hold your hand and take baby steps with you.

He is treating you like a child and attempting to come down to your level of understanding....he is actually making every effort to help you understand but you are either too stupid or too stubborn to see this.

But at least its' entertaining to watch you fumble about mumbling the same nonsense over and over....



Sigh.....

Unbelievable.

I have answered tfk:s questions! See post #1162. Now I expect tfk to explain the rubble compaction rubbish.

 

[rwguinn]

This is all a nefarious plot by Heiwa and bill smith.
By posing as twoofers, by donning the mantle of stupid and mule-headedness, what these two are doing is acquiring a REAL engineering education from real engineers.
They will then use it for the betterment of all mankind, as a befitting tribute to the people they duped into teaching them about reality, and how to separate it from fantasy.

 

[Heiwa]

.
According to your definition, there is not one single "rigid body" in this universe.

That may be your definition. Bazant clearly doesn't agree with you. Since he has his "rigid body" crush up slightly at the beginning of the collapse and crushed up completely at the end of the collapse.

Bazant's definition seems eminently clear to me: A "rigid body" is a structure that moves thru space as a unit UNTIL some component's stress exceed its ultimate strength. At which point, that component detaches from the parent rigid body."

Sensible people also understand the concept of "approximately equivalent to"...
.

.
Please stop senselessly dodging questions based on your personal semantics.

OK, the "collapse wavefront", which I am DEFINING (so it does exist) as "the vertical location just above the topmost floor of the tower that is still intact at any given time".

Now please answer my question:
2. If the collapse wavefront can so OBVIOUSLY fracture the connections between the cross trusses & the core columns (as shown clearly in the "core remained standing" video, then how can you possibly write that "in order to ... crush down [the towers] you have to destroy the core"?

By my definition of this term, the collapse wavefront has moved BELOW the visible, standing but damaged core in this video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1615521411849861778
.

.
Propaganda noted. Now please answer MY question:

3. WHAT was going to stop the "collapse wavefront" [my definition] 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?
.

.
Evasion noted. Please answer MY question.

4. 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?
.

.
Evasion noted. Please answer MY request.

5. Please go back to post #624 & copy & paste the place where I mention the following statements. Or rescind them.
a. An "IKEA bookcase that disassembles itself..."
b. An "IKEA book case ... becomes solid rubble that destroys the ground..."
c. An "IKEA book case ... becomes solid rubble that destroys ... everything"
.

.

As soon as you answer my questions & request, I'll be happy to answer yours.

Tom

But I answered all your questions. If you don't like the answers is another thread. And I have no questions to you. Just a request - explain how rubble can compact and destroy non-rubble.

 

[newton3376]

I have answered tfk:s questions! See post #1162. Now I expect tfk to explain the rubble compaction rubbish.

Perhaps you misunderstand how this whole "question and answer" thing works....

Usually when someone asks a question you try to answer the actual question that was asked and not some imaginary question in place of it....Here is a simplified example of a question and answer session that makes sense....


Person A: Hey do you want to go to Fridays for lunch?

Person B: No....Im trying to eat healthy.


Notice that the person answered the question and then gave additional and relevant information...Here is another example, but this time things don't go as planned...

Person A: Hey do you want to go to Fridays for lunch?

Person B: I should get an oil change next week.

Person A: Um....ooooookay...So are you coming with us to Fridays?

Person B: I think I might buy a blackberry for my next phone.

Person A: Dude! Are you coming to Fridays or not?

Person B: I answered your question!!!

Person A: I D I O T


See how confusing that is? If the question was "Hey when do you think you should change your oil?" or perhaps "What do you think of the blackberry?" then this conversation might have made sense.....but THAT WASNT THE QUESTION NOW WAS IT?

Please try harder not to be a complete tool in the future Heiwa........thanks...