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

[FineWine]

Heiwa, as a newbie and a novice I feel you havet put together a good enough expose' by a long long long longer way. IMHO you are obviously well out-classed here. I would suggest you either give up since your not good enough to win the argument, or find a top class guy who agrees with you to complete your theory properly so it holds together, or find another angle. But from where Im sitting man, you been mulched pretty bad. And whatever about the physics the suggested alternative is just nuts.

The bolded part is going to prove rather tricky.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Now thats what I dont get, why doesnt the upper block crumble in the same way the lower block does? Im not arguing that it should, or that it did, just that I dont get why it didnt.

The way Bazant puts it is that a layer of debris builds up between the upper and the lower block. The upper block rests on the debris, and since the debris is falling at a roughly constant 2/3 G acceleration, the force on the upper block is only 1/3 of its static weight. The lower block is crushed more by the debris layer than the upper block, once the upper block has crushed down enough to create a big enough mass of debris. The debris produced by the crushing of the lower block is added to the debris layer, increasing its mass and hence its ability to crush the lower block further down.

You'll notice, if you look carefully at Heiwa's posts, that he talks a lot about an upper block C and a lower block A. The clever bit of smoke and mirrors he uses is never to mention that these are Bazant's symbols, and that (as you might expect if you stop and think about it) there's also a part B; namely, the layer of debris. The reason he never mentions part B is that he's trying to pretend it doesn't exist, because it's the part of the collapse that does what he claims is impossible: crushes down the lower structure. As long as he pretends it's not there, he can carry on pretending that crush-down is impossible.

In practice the collapse wasn't as simple as Bazant's model, which doesn't consider things like rotation of the upper block. We know that the upper blocks did in fact crush up significantly. However, once you take account of the fact Heiwa likes to try and hide, that it's part B, not part C, that's crushing the lower structure, then things become much clearer; partial crush-up of part C actually adds to part B, so it makes conditions slightly more favourable to collapse.

Dave

 

[Justin39640]

The way Bazant puts it is that a layer of debris builds up between the upper and the lower block. The upper block rests on the debris, and since the debris is falling at a roughly constant 2/3 G acceleration, the force on the upper block is only 1/3 of its static weight. The lower block is crushed more by the debris layer than the upper block, once the upper block has crushed down enough to create a big enough mass of debris. The debris produced by the crushing of the lower block is added to the debris layer, increasing its mass and hence its ability to crush the lower block further down.

You'll notice, if you look carefully at Heiwa's posts, that he talks a lot about an upper block C and a lower block A. The clever bit of smoke and mirrors he uses is never to mention that these are Bazant's symbols, and that (as you might expect if you stop and think about it) there's also a part B; namely, the layer of rubble. The reason he never mentions part B is that he's trying to pretend it doesn't exist, because it's the part of the collapse that does what he claims is impossible: crushes down the lower structure. As long as he pretends it's not there, he can carry on pretending that crush-down is impossible.

In practice the collapse wasn't as simple as Bazant's model, which doesn't consider things like rotation of the upper block. We know that the upper blocks did in fact crush up significantly. However, once you take account of the fact Heiwa likes to try and hide, that it's part B, not part C, that's crushing the lower structure, then things become much clearer; partial crush-up of part C actually adds to part B, so it makes conditions slightly more favourable to collapse.

Dave

i tried pointing out the lack of a part b a few times
but with my lack of proper engineering credentials it didnt get much notice lol

 

[FineWine]

The way Bazant puts it is that a layer of debris builds up between the upper and the lower block. The upper block rests on the debris, and since the debris is falling at a roughly constant 2/3 G acceleration, the force on the upper block is only 1/3 of its static weight. The lower block is crushed more by the debris layer than the upper block, once the upper block has crushed down enough to create a big enough mass of debris. The debris produced by the crushing of the lower block is added to the debris layer, increasing its mass and hence its ability to crush the lower block further down.

You'll notice, if you look carefully at Heiwa's posts, that he talks a lot about an upper block C and a lower block A. The clever bit of smoke and mirrors he uses is never to mention that these are Bazant's symbols, and that (as you might expect if you stop and think about it) there's also a part B; namely, the layer of debris. The reason he never mentions part B is that he's trying to pretend it doesn't exist, because it's the part of the collapse that does what he claims is impossible: crushes down the lower structure. As long as he pretends it's not there, he can carry on pretending that crush-down is impossible.

In practice the collapse wasn't as simple as Bazant's model, which doesn't consider things like rotation of the upper block. We know that the upper blocks did in fact crush up significantly. However, once you take account of the fact Heiwa likes to try and hide, that it's part B, not part C, that's crushing the lower structure, then things become much clearer; partial crush-up of part C actually adds to part B, so it makes conditions slightly more favourable to collapse.

Dave

Would it be accurate to say that there is no part B at the very beginning of the collapse? The thirteen collapsing floors hit the floor immediately below, crush it, and thereby create part B. Do I understand you?

 

[newton3376]

i tried pointing out the lack of a part b a few times
but with my lack of proper engineering credentials it didnt get much notice lol

And also because no one likes you....

It's likely because of the creepy avatar

 

[Justin39640]

And also because no one likes you....

It's likely because of the creepy avatar

heyyyy not nice lol

lego people are creepy
always smiling lol

 

[Dave Rogers]

Would it be accurate to say that there is no part B at the very beginning of the collapse? The thirteen collapsing floors hit the floor immediately below, crush it, and thereby create part B. Do I understand you?

Yes, that's more or less right. I think it's Bazant and Verdure that gives the equations - I forget which Bazant paper is which - but the simplified picture is that, as the debris layer builds up, the crush-up slows down, while crush-down doesn't because the lower structure has nowhere else to go.

Dave

 

[bill smith]

Bad Boy you are thinking pretty clearly it seems. Just do not accept any rubbish you are told as gospel. Trust yourself and your instincts.

 

[newton3376]

Bad Boy you are thinking pretty clearly it seems. Just do not accept any rubbish you are told as gospel. Trust yourself and your instincts.

That is why he is asking the question Bill....he ISN'T trusting his "instincts"....he is asking those who are qualified to answer.

Engineering and physics often yield results and truths that go against our instincts or against what we would call common sense.

Things are not always intuitive in the world of engineering and science....which is why you should leave the engineering and science to engineers and scientists.

 

[twinstead]

Just do not accept any rubbish you are told as gospel

You should take your own advice.

 

[Longfellow]

Well for the reasons I gave in the post you reference I find it impossible to believe ...(snip)

Emphasis mine.

Arguments from Incredulity rock! [/twinstead mode]

(even though there is considerable evidence to support the injected images of planes)...(snip)

Emphasis mine.

Surely you're not trying to say that images of planes were 'injected' into footage, are you? That has been, and ever shall be, the dirt-dumbest [/beachnut mode] idea put forth by the idiotic 'truth' movement.

Great Ghu, bill smith! What about the eyewitnesses? You're not seriously suggesting holograms, are you? I mean, I like Star Trek too but this is bordering on insanity! There are people who post here that are eyewitnesses to the impact(s) in New York. Are you asking them to substitute reality for your fantasy? Seriously?

Of all the people here, I truly think that you would benefit the most from an internet time-out. Walk away, bill. Just walk away for a solid 48 hours and you will be amazed at the world out there. Grass is green, flowers are blooming, the locusts are starting their mid-summer cacophony (all of course presuming you live in the Northern Hemisphere).

[/derail]

 

[bill smith]

WE are all still waiting to see your rebuttal of his physics of 9/11.

but since he has you on ignore, the childish attempt to appear that he isn't going to defend himself is noted.

Again twoof... can a paint fleck destroy a satelight? can a rock destroy 100 miles of forest? can water cut through steel? Can a piece of straw shatter a brick?

I dubbed Ryan Mackey 'The Flying Debunker' some time ago. It's a pretty accurate description. He flies in, lays a strategic egg and flies out again. He does not wait around to debate. In one way I understand this as he has a lot to lose by taking the risk.

Incidentally the'ignore' feature provides himself and peoole like you an opportunity to say that he has not seen a particular post and that that's why he does not engage. Not everybody is entirely persuaded by this though.

 

[Gamolon]

I find it impossible to believe that the fragile delicate aircraft negotiated those massive obstacles by way of bludgeoning it's way tthrough.

What massive obstacles are you speaking of? The perimeter columns?

 

[bill smith]

That is why he is asking the question Bill....he ISN'T trusting his "instincts"....he is asking those who are qualified to answer.

Engineering and physics often yield results and truths that go against our instincts or against what we would call common sense.

Things are not always intuitive in the world of engineering and science....which is why you should leave the engineering and science to engineers and scientists.

Not in this case. The lightest one-tenth of a building has never in recorded world history crushed down the other nine-tenths of the same building. Plain common sense is enough to spot the con.

 

[bill smith]

Emphasis mine.

Arguments from Incredulity rock! [/twinstead mode]




Emphasis mine.

Surely you're not trying to say that images of planes were 'injected' into footage, are you? That has been, and ever shall be, the dirt-dumbest [/beachnut mode] idea put forth by the idiotic 'truth' movement.

Great Ghu, bill smith! What about the eyewitnesses? You're not seriously suggesting holograms, are you? I mean, I like Star Trek too but this is bordering on insanity! There are people who post here that are eyewitnesses to the impact(s) in New York. Are you asking them to substitute reality for your fantasy? Seriously?

Of all the people here, I truly think that you would benefit the most from an internet time-out. Walk away, bill. Just walk away for a solid 48 hours and you will be amazed at the world out there. Grass is green, flowers are blooming, the locusts are starting their mid-summer cacophony (all of course presuming you live in the Northern Hemisphere).

[/derail]

Please put me on your ignore list right away. Thanks.

 

[Longfellow]

Please put me on your ignore list right away. Thanks.

No.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Surely you're not trying to say that images of planes were 'injected' into footage, are you? That has been, and ever shall be, the dirt-dumbest [/beachnut mode] idea put forth by the idiotic 'truth' movement.

Last week, you'd have been right. But what bill smith is dancing around, trying not to actually say, is that he/she/it thinks that there were real planes that crashed into the towers, pre-rigged explosives within the towers that blasted holes in them at the moment the planes impacted, and - for God only knows what unfathomable reason - fake planes inserted into the video streams as well as the real ones. Just go back over bill smith's posts and see if you can come up with any other interpretation.

Compared to that, dirt is practically eligible for Mensa.

Dave

 

[Longfellow]

Aahh -- Thanks, Dave Rogers. Perhaps I'll rethink bill's request and go ahead and ignore him. My doc says I need to watch my blood pressure.

 

[carlitos]

Based on what I see quoted, the timeout idea is an excellent one. If not that, perhaps Bill could clarify his idea about the planes / no planes / hurricane-powered laser beams in this topic?

 

[Heiwa]

I just dont get why:

a. the bottom floor(s) of part C didnt collpase instead of A or
b. both upper and lower parts collapsed into each other until part C completely disintigrates.

What doesnt seem intuitive is the top half C killing itself on the bottom half A, leaving A with little or minimal damage or mutual amount of damage as C. The image of C falling on A and then of C getting smaller and smaller as A gets smaller and smaller is like something from a cartoon.


Heiwa, as a newbie and a novice I feel you havet put together a good enough expose' by a long long long longer way. IMHO you are obviously well out-classed here. I would suggest you either give up since your not good enough to win the argument, or find a top class guy who agrees with you to complete your theory properly so it holds together, or find another angle. But from where Im sitting man, you been mulched pretty bad. And whatever about the physics the suggested alternative is just nuts.

??? Nobody has so far been able to show that a one-way crush down is possible! Reason is that it is against the Björkman axiom of structural damages. Pls google for that.
Richard Gage is a top class guy that supports me. You'll find him at http://www.ae911truth.org