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

Grizzly Bear said:
If you have a different view of how the collapse should have happened then you have to holy task of demonstrating a sequence of events which is more plausible and more likely than the observed structural failure of both towers. Part of that task is actually knowing what you're talking about, something neither yourself nor Anders have succeeded in demonstrating. Don't waste our time making a claim without backing it up.
Click to expand...

Sorry Grizzly. Unless you can answer the question that Newton and friends could not answer then the burden of proof is on you. You have to show how one-tenth of a structure can crush the other nine-tenths of the same structure down to the ground by gravity alone.

You have to show why WTC1 is the very first structure in the known history of the universe to get away with violating Newton's laws.

Considering that we have considerable evidnce to supposrt controlled demolition already I would say that you have your work cut out for you. (If you need video evidence you only have to ask)
 
Last edited:
DavidJames said:
I hope people are finally able to see bill smith for the troll he is. I don't know if his failure to comprehend is voluntary or not, but that's irrelevant. At some point people need to stop feeding him. In one respect he's like christopfera (sp?) but while he was pretty much stuck on one facet of crazy logic, smith will embrace anything to provoke a response.

Continue to satisfy his thirst for attention, but understand you achieve nothing but feeding his ego.
Click to expand...
Shields up Mr. James. lol
 
bill smith said:
Sorry Grizzly. Unless you can answer the question that Newton and friends could not answer then the burden of proof is on you. You have to show how one-tenth of a structure can crush the other nine-tenths of the same structure down to the ground by gravity alone.
Click to expand...

What does this hypothetical structure have to do with WTC and what happened to it on 9/11?
 
bill smith said:
Sorry Grizzly. Unless you can answer the question that Newton and friends could not answer then the burden of proof is on you.
You have to show how one-tenth of a structure can crush the other nine-tenths of the same structure down to the ground by gravity alone.
Click to expand...
Since nobody is arguing the collapse based on arbitrary made up ratios I fail to see where the burden of proof falls onto myself or others to justify. In fact, neither you nor Heiwa have offered any architectural or engineering justification for assessing the structural integrity in this fashion.

Correction, Heiwa's shown a model, but it doesn't follow established physical properties of the materials. He thinks steel connections can hinge down despite them not being intended for torsional stress. He believes long slender column assemblies can not only stand for tens of stories unbraced, but also contain all of the contents and "stop the collapse with friction".

bill smith said:
You have to show why WTC1 is the very first structure in the known history of the universe to get away with violating Newton's laws.
Click to expand...
Why do I need to prove a dullard wrong when his very own models -- intended to prove that "Newton's laws where violated" -- violate physics themselves? Ohhh... that might be a sore spot. I mean afterall Anders' has to abandon the laws of physics to prove that they were violated... I see, so not only are you a troll, you're a liar, a hypocrite, and you have no qualifications in this field to speak of, and all of the same applies to Anders.
 
Last edited:
Newtons Bit said:
BS is ignoring the thousands of pages of engineering documentation again, isn't he?
Click to expand...

NIST explains (sic) on a few lines in its 10 000 pages report that the reason for a one-way crush down is that the energy applied on the structure exceeded the capacity to absorb strain energy of same structure = global collapse ensued.

So that's it, folks! Just apply energy that exceeds the strain energy absorption capacity and global collapse ensues.

Only problem is that the capacity to absorb strain energy of a structure generally exceeds any energy that can be applied by dropping a piece of structure on it by a factor of 1000! Reason is that it is not easy to apply kinetic energy or force on a structure (due to Newton's third law) with a bit of same structure.

You actually need a big hammer just to bend a small piece of steel, etc, etc.

To even suggest that dropping a little piece of structure on a bigger piece of same structure will result in one-way crush down is &@*#~}+!

It is really fascinating to see how many JREFers, incl. alleged engineers, scientists, etc, that believe in the NIST &@*#~}+! What a load of &@*#~çù£ you produce in order to hide your ignorance.
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
Since nobody is arguing the collapse based on arbitrary made up ratios I fail to see where the burden of proof falls onto myself or others to justify. In fact, neither you nor Heiwa have offered any architectural or engineering justification for assessing the structural integrity in this fashion.

Correction, Heiwa's shown a model, but it doesn't follow established physical properties of the materials. He thinks steel connections can hinge down despite them not being intended for torsional stress. He believes long slender column assemblies can not only stand for tens of stories unbraced, but also contain all of the contents and "stop the collapse with friction".


Why do I need to prove a dullard wrong when his very own models -- intended to prove that "Newton's laws where violated" -- violate physics themselves? Ohhh... that might be a sore spot. I mean afterall Anders' has to abandon the laws of physics to prove that they were violated... I see, so not only are you a troll, you're a liar, a hypocrite, and you have no qualifications in this field to speak of, and all of the same applies to Anders.
Click to expand...

Calm down...you don't have to get mad about it. You just have to answer the question or accept that a collapse of any structure, big or small on this planet ever in it's 4,500 million year history has never, ever happened by the topnost and lightest one-tenth crushing the other and stronger nine-tenths down flat on the ground by gravity alone .

If you cannot then you are left with a situation that has never ever taken place and you must obviously show how that occurred. The onus is definately on you.

We belong to the 100% has- never-ever-happened camp- the 100% majority.

You blong tto the camp that must explain the only deviation ever from this perfect record.

We don't have to explain it obviously. We say it was controlled demolition and therefore still belongs to our camp- leaving Isaac Newton vindicated.

Ergo: you must prove that WTC1 was not brought down by controlled demolition.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
Calm down...you don't have to get mad about it. You just have to answer the question or accept that a collapse of any structure, big or small on this planet ever in it's 4,500 billion year history has never, ever happened by the topnost and lightest one-tenth crushing the other and stronger nine-tenths down flat on the ground by gravity alone .
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with what happened to the WTC towers on 9/11?
 
DavidJames said:
I hope people are finally able to see bill smith for the troll he is. I don't know if his failure to comprehend is voluntary or not, but that's irrelevant. At some point people need to stop feeding him. In one respect he's like christopfera (sp?) but while he was pretty much stuck on one facet of crazy logic, smith will embrace anything to provoke a response.

Continue to satisfy his thirst for attention, but understand you achieve nothing but feeding his ego.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if Bill is a troll....

He just doesn't really understand the mathematics and physics that is being discussed here.....

But that's okay. He isn't an engineer or scientist and doesn't have the background, education, or experience so we would not expect him to understand this stuff.

I would recommed just brushing him off with a "sorry you aren't qualified....your opinion just doesn't matter".

What is troubling is that both Heiwa and Tony should have at least a basic understanding (especially Tony) of the math and physics that is being discussed and yet they make huge errors.

Heiwa can't even hold a discussion with those here that are experienced in structural and mechanical engineering.....he doesn't even see or understand the detailed step by step methods that tfk has tried to illustrate some basic principles.....

Let alone the points raised by Newtons bit or the others here experienced in those areas.

So apparently Heiwas education and experience are much less technical than I first assumed.

Tony is a different story.....he had made several errors that have been pointed out by several others and yet he doesn't retract.

Someone like myself (an electrical engineer) should not be able to read his errors being pointed out and understand them more clearly than he does....but this is what you get with truthers. It is really sad.

I have no doubt that Heiwa and Bill will continue to be "truthers" but I don't care since they simply lack the understanding and intelligence to be anything else.

But hopefully Tony will stop this nonsense and eat some humble pie and admit he was mistaken....doing that goes a long way towards getting respect among engineers and scientists.
 
Heiwa said:
Nobody argues about that. Topic is here that a one-way crush down of a structure will not follow due to some local failures and application of energy up top.
Click to expand...

What does that hypothetical structure have to do with the WTC towers and what happened to them on 9/11?
 
bill smith said:
I didn't say 'the first time in history' You said that. I said that it has never, ever ever happened in the entire world history of this planet Earth and that it didn't happen on 9/11 either. The building was brought down by explosive demolition.
Isaac Newton is in full agreement as paraphrased in 'Smith's first Law of WTC1'
Click to expand...

Tell me Bill, in order to ensure the buildings' total collapse (and you are one who judges by what it "looks" like), one would have to be real thorough about setting up the charges and having the confidence it will go as planned, don't you think? Going as planned with not just one building, but 3 buildings, 2 airliners, the sacrifice of office workers, first responders and the passengers added in for good measure.

But, herein lies the thing that always bothered me when I once argued on the twoof side:

The image of airliners crashing into buildings was/is still disturbing on it's own. Controlled demolition gives absolutely no purpose to or for any reason. Why anyone would go to such great lengths to set up these structures for demolition, at the very high risk of being discovered, just does not make it worth the massive condemnation they would have received from the world.
 
Last edited:
MIKILLINI said:
Tell me Bill, in order to ensure the buildings' total collapse (and you are one who judges by what it "looks" like), one would have to be real thorough about setting up the charges and having the confidence it will go as planned, don't you think? Going as planned with not just one building, but 3 buildings, 2 airliners with the sacrifice of office workers, first responders and the passengers added in for good measure.

But, herein lies the thing that always bothered me when I once argued on the twoof side:

The image of airliners crashing into buildings was/is still disturbing on it's own. Controlled demolition gives absolutely no purpose to or for any reason. Why anyone would go to such great lengths to set up these structures for demolition, at the very high risk of being discovered, just does not make it worth the massive condemnation they would have received from the world.
Click to expand...

even if the buildings didnt fall i still think we would have been in pretty much the same place as we are today
 
bill smith said:
Given the well motivated suspicions of controlled demolition and the extremeness of the statistical unliklihood of this anomaly the explosive demolition of WTC1 is a cast-iron certainty.
Click to expand...


The only people who suspect demolition are agenda-driven fools who know nothing about the subject. There are compelling reasons why structural engineers and demolition experts do NOT suspect demolition. Please don't add statistics to the long list of disciplines you are totally ignorant about. From a statistical standpoint, the probability of your imaginary conspiracy actually existing is indistinguishable from zero.
 
Heiwa said:
OK - if it is simple and easy just explain how a one-way crush down is possible, I am very curious to know. Stop arguing about arguing.
Click to expand...
.
LMAO...

Sure you're "very curious"...

That must be why every time I try to get you to discuss what broke & when, you clam up.

I've listed what I think are the sequence of fracture items about 3 separate times now. You've listed them zero times.

Now, if you are so "very curious" why don't you give us YOUR list of the order in which things fractured. Or were "blown up".

Allow me to predict that your answer will describe EXACTLY how "very curious" you are about the structural "damage" assessment.

"Read my paper" answers will be laughed at and mocked thoroughly.

tk
 
newton3376 said:
I have no doubt that Heiwa and Bill will continue to be "truthers" but I don't care since they simply lack the understanding and intelligence to be anything else.

But hopefully Tony will stop this nonsense and eat some humble pie and admit he was mistaken....
Click to expand...
Those guys have been at this for years. This isn't a matter of someone being stubborn about a difference of opinion regarding an engineering calculation.

This is not an intellectual engineering issue.

If people think they are helping these guys with their problem, the way I see it is it's like trying to help a drug addict by handing him crack whenever he wants it. These guys have no interest in correct engineering principles, they just want more crack.

Whatever though, I'll shut up again for a bit and watch the trolls get exactly what they want.
 
Heiwa said:
Sorry, according to Mackey on Hardfire upper part C is a solid mass M and not some collapsing floors of any kind. NIST has suggested that part C first disintegrates (not clear why?) and that all C floors drop one after the other on the A top floor (thus C is not a solid mass) and overloads it = the pancake theory. It has since been abandoned.

But let's assume that the bottom C floor contacts the top A floor (all intermediate columns C/A have disappeared). What happens?

Right! The two assemblies of various elements C and A deform: actually the columns above/below interface deform!

It seems that you suggest that the first failures are then that the bottom columns of C fail, so that the second bottom C floor drops and contact A and the first C floor resting on A. Very well. I agree. BTW - how much energy was required for that? And where did the pieces of C-columns go?

It then seems that you suggest that more C columns higher up fail, so that more C floors can drop and pile up on A and the C-floors already there!

It looks like some sort of 'pan-cake' theory. So how much energy was required to break all the columns so that the C-floors could drop?

And when does the first element in A fail? When C is totally destroyed and is replaced by a pile of C-floors on top of A?

Pls note that A carried all those C-floors before for 30+ years, ok, with assistance of C-columns. So you really suggest that all C-columns fail first and then only C-floors pile up on top of A and that then A collapses? Seen on any videos?

Anyway, I suggest you follow my advice and take it step by step. No reason to rush away.
Click to expand...


It is staggering that someone who claims to hold a degree in engineering is completely incapable of forming a mental image of what happened. You simply can't conceptualize the result of dropping thirteen floors onto a single floor designed to support much, much less weight. You talk about the bottom floor of the falling mass "resting" on the single floor it has just crashed on top of, while the top floors of the collapsing mass presumably float in midair. Such statements are why people here regard you as a madman.

Speaking of taking it step-by-step, I'll bet that when you first heard of Zeno's Paradox, you quickly concluded that Achilles can never catch the tortoise, and nothing could ever change your mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom