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

[Heiwa]

So you and Heiwa share the inability to build buildings, understand buildings, understand failure modes, understand reality, and share the same paranoid delusions of 911 being an inside job backed up with zero evidence; just talk.

Pls quote me correctly and do not put my words in the mouth of TS.

This thread is about structures and the inability of a small part of a structure to produce a one-way crush down of the remainder, when dropped on it, etc. It means, e.g. that WTC 1 could not have been destroyed by its upper part. But here we just discuss the basics. Pls, no stupid talk off topic.

 

[BigAl]

Pls quote me correctly and do not put my words in the mouth of TS.

This thread is about structures and the inability of a small part of a structure to produce a one-way crush down of the remainder, when dropped on it, etc. It means, e.g. that WTC 1 could not have been destroyed by its upper part. But here we just discuss the basics. Pls, no stupid talk off topic.

What happens when we add structural damage, unplanned concentrated load, fire, and the unanticipated lack of firefighting capability?

 

[A W Smith]

Why a one-way Crush down is not only possible. It happened back in 1982

Originally Posted by bill smith
...
One-tenth of a structure has never. ever in the entire history of this planet crushed down the other nine-tenths of the same structure to the ground by gravity alone and it never ever will. The real Newton says so...

Here goes bills incredulity. plummeting to earth

 

[twinstead]

Bill do you think that if you brought up your theories to ANY real scientific or engineering organization that you would get any different responses than you do here? Do you think that the JREF is in a vacuum, and only we take issue with you?

Dude. Practically The WHOLE FRIGGIN' WORLD disagrees with you.

 

[tfk]

Since nobody is arguing the collapse based on arbitrary made up ratios ...

.
Precisely, Griz.

This is why I've tried to get Heiwa to tell us how far the upper part could have crushed the lower part before the collapse became "self-sustaining".

If his answer had been 50 stories, then his mantra is reduced to 21% (13 stories) cannot crush down 79% (50 stories).

If his answer had been 25 stories, then his mantra is reduced to 34% (13 stories) cannot crush 66% (25 stories).

If his answer had been 10 stories, then his mantra is reduced to 57% cannot crush down 43%.

My question:

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?

His answer:

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.

In his own words, Heiwa claims that the collapse would have been arrested in "less than a second". One second's fall would be less than 16 feet, 1.3 stories.

But inanimate matter, like the towers, is NOT sentient. Inanimate matter cannot look down below the floor into which it is crashing and know how many more floors of the structure there are below it, so that it can know whether it should follow "Bjorkman's Idtent Silliness". Inanimate matter only interacts with the material with which it is in contact.

And the upper, falling Part C is only in contact with the floor & columns that it is hitting. In other word, one floor and 3 story tall columns.

Therefore, Heiwa's silly axiom is now reduced to "the upper 81% (13 stories) cannot crush down the bottom 19% (3 stories)".

Unless Heiwa's postulating "sentient buildings", of course.

Tom

 

[tsig]

.
Precisely, Griz.

This is why I've tried to get Heiwa to tell us how far the upper part could have crushed the lower part before the collapse became "self-sustaining".

If his answer had been 50 stories, then his mantra is reduced to 21% (13 stories) cannot crush down 79% (50 stories).

If his answer had been 25 stories, then his mantra is reduced to 34% (13 stories) cannot crush 66% (25 stories).

If his answer had been 10 stories, then his mantra is reduced to 57% cannot crush down 43%.

My question:


His answer:


In his own words, Heiwa claims that the collapse would have been arrested in "less than a second". One second's fall would be less than 16 feet, 1.3 stories.

But inanimate matter, like the towers, is NOT sentient. Inanimate matter cannot look down below the floor into which it is crashing and know how many more floors of the structure there are below it, so that it can know whether it should follow "Bjorkman's Idtent Silliness". Inanimate matter only interacts with the material with which it is in contact.

And the upper, falling Part C is only in contact with the floor & columns that it is hitting. In other word, one floor and 3 story tall columns.

Therefore, Heiwa's silly axiom is now reduced to "the upper 81% (13 stories) cannot crush down the bottom 19% (3 stories)".

Unless Heiwa's postulating "sentient buildings", of course.

Tom

Not even it fell for two miles.

 

[tfk]

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.

.
An absolutely superb analogy.

Bravo.

Tom

PS. Does this mean that if I really, REALLY don't like them, I should keep slipping them their drugs ...??

 

[MIKILLINI]

I built some stairs last week. Never in the History of the world had I ever before built any stairs. Do they exist?

You seem to have run aground here Bill. Something always has to happen for the first time.

Correct. There is always a precedent and with precedents comes understanding followed by measures that ensure an improved result. Virtually every precedent is a learning experience, but some will never acknowledge it.

 

[beachnut]

Pls quote me correctly and do not put my words in the mouth of TS.

This thread is about structures and the inability of a small part of a structure to produce a one-way crush down of the remainder, when dropped on it, etc. It means, e.g. that WTC 1 could not have been destroyed by its upper part. But here we just discuss the basics. Pls, no stupid talk off topic.

Stupid talk is your failed idea. The top part of the WTC did collapse on the lower section and destroyed the entire building on 911 making your ideas on the subject complete garbage, poppycock, and a dismal failure.

The cool part of your posts they don't have any substance. You have no evidence to support your failed axiom and no ability to understand the WTC. Robertson who built the WTC structurally says your conclusion is nonsense. The single expert on the subject say your conclusion is ridiculous and all you can do is continue exposing your ignorance on the WTC structure. Your peak delusions was comparing the collapse to kids jumping on a bed. Pure poppycock. You pizza box engineering is not very amusing since you are spreading a lie; your explosive/thermite fantasy.

More proof of the failure of the OP and your ideas posted on this thread is your acceptance as a A&E member. Being with Gage and supporting his lies pretty much dooms your credibitiy. But even more the lack of evidence and zero computations to support your ideas are the biggest sign of failure for you and your failed ideas.

WTC1 collapsed on 911 due to impacts and fires; you failed.

The 2 mile drop makes your ideas insane. Ask any engineer or physics teacher. BillSmith is incapable of seeking the truth from real engineers as she fails to heed the many engineers here who see your work as anti-intellectual claptrap. When will you and Tony produce the model to show your idea failed?

 

[alienentity]

Bill may well be the dullest tool in the shed, or anywhere else, but by now he regrets his attempt to persuade us that nothing can ever happen for the first time. It's his old failing: he posts nonsense that sounds good to him, and finds himself stuck defending sheer idiocy.

That explains why he, Heiwa and Tony Szamboti get along famously. Say no more.

 

[Heiwa]

WTC1 collapsed on 911 due to impacts and fires;

That's the OCT! In this thread we discuss Why a one-way Crush down is not possible. Any ideas how a one-way crush down is possible?

 

[dtugg]

That's the OCT! In this thread we discuss Why a one-way Crush down is not possible.

Yes, we undestand that you haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about.

Any ideas how a one-way crush down is possible?

Gravity.

 

[BadBoy]

The building was brought down by explosive demolition.

Then prove it. It is rather simple. Yet after 8 years none of you twoofs can do it.
not datamined eyewitnesses who when fully examined do not agree with your bs points.
not make believe air squibs.

Bill, as has been said over and over, you do need to do that you know. You DO need to prove it. Its one thing raising conjecture and another thing progressing from this and proving that it is possible proposition.

You cant just say, "theres problems with the math that says a crushdown is not possible, therefore it "must have been" CD.

What you have to do is put forward a completed theory with proof. Even proving that it was CD STILL wouldn’t prove that it was not a terrorist attack. You are so, soooo far away from proving anything though. Until you do you will not be taken seriously. And of course from what I have seen yourself and Heiwa are definitely not up to the job anyway. You guys just don’t have the ability.

Anyway, from what I've seen you are a long way from even disproving that a crushdown could happen. Every argument put forward sofar on this thread that I have read has been answered and rebutted to quite a reasonably significant level of detail.

You have to

1. Prove a crushdown is not possible. According to the experts your movement has not managed to do this yet to any level that could be taken seriously on this forum, let alone in the real world such as a court of law.
2. Prove that CD was possible - including the likely hood that is could have been prepared for.
3. Be able to answer all the other questions such as lack of explosives evidence etc etc.
4. what happened to the original jets and people on them.
5. Evidence that specific individuals were implicated, or proven to be involved.

What’s frustrating with the way you truther guys argue is that in a court of law you wouldn’t be able to avoid the questions and chop and change as you do. You would have been thrown out long ago. You appear to think that postulating on a website(s) provides you with some authority that somehow legitimizes your claims. Well I’m afraid not.

However, the problem with deniers is that it stops the world from moving on. It stops us from quickly learning from our mistakes. The western media also often do a good job of messing with the facts to either make a story or support a political agenda. Public opinion can be swayed/confused by muddying the water with in-factual or out of context information, especially around a complicated subject such as this one.

You need to grow up and get you head out of the clouds. Start looking for the truth around real crimes that your government may (or may not) have committed in the name of its people.

 

[BadBoy]

Hay guys, Im kinda new here. Has the one way crush down been proven as such? I know NIST apparently explains what happens upto the point of failure. And then the Bazant & Co model that shows in principle its possible (am I correct here?)

I've seen a lot of good (and to me real interesting stuff) rebuffing truthers engineering based arguments. I dont claim to understand it all, but it is obvious from the way questions are avoided by truthers that they are dont have the skill to argue their point at that level and/or the facts just dont support their proposition.

Is there a peer reviewed widely accepted published theory on the actual collapse?

er, this isn't an invitation for Bill to get one his soap box, so Bill you dont have to reply to this, I already know what it would be. I was just wondering is all.

 

[R.Mackey]

Yes. NIST itself is peer reviewed. So are Dr. Bazant's numerous papers on the subject, so is Dr. Seffen's, so are the many other papers including computer simulations from China and South Korea.

There is in fact such an excess of energy available that hardly anyone has bothered to come up with a precise theory of collapse. Even the most conservative models predict the total collapse of the structures. There's little point going any further, unless you're a Truther clutching at straws, but that's not science at all.

 

[Heiwa]

Yes. NIST itself is peer reviewed. So are Dr. Bazant's numerous papers on the subject, so is Dr. Seffen's, so are the many other papers including computer simulations from China and South Korea.

There is in fact such an excess of energy available that hardly anyone has bothered to come up with a precise theory of collapse. Even the most conservative models predict the total collapse of the structures. There's little point going any further, unless you're a Truther clutching at straws, but that's not science at all.

Well, Drs. Bazant and Seffen assume that the upper part (C) is rigid, which it is not, so their 1-D, peer reviewed or not, theories and differential equations (a line (A), non-rigid, that shortens itself when another line (C), rigid, pushes (sic) on it) are not really applicable to WTC 1.

Chinese and South Korean computer simulations of one-way structural crush downs are news to me! Any links?

Re "There is in fact such an excess of energy available that hardly anyone has bothered to come up with a precise theory of collapse" any figures of energy available and how to apply it and why it would produce a 'collapse' and anybody with a precise theory about it?

 

[funk de fino]

For any who are interested the NIST report admits that most of the central core beam to column connections were moment connections.

You never read the whole report did you? You already proved you haven't.

 

[funk de fino]

I interpreted the figure as those that were shown being moment connections as there are several left out of the figure.

If the arrows pointing to the two beams are intended to show that they are the only moment connections then I stand corrected. However, I would add that the discussion of which were and weren't moment connections could be clearer and I don't know why it isn't and why the NIST does not fully describe the connections of all of the beams. I think you have to admit that they don't do that.

Does it hurt when you make a clanger like that?

 

[bill smith]

Bill, as has been said over and over, you do need to do that you know. You DO need to prove it. Its one thing raising conjecture and another thing progressing from this and proving that it is possible proposition.

You cant just say, "theres problems with the math that says a crushdown is not possible, therefore it "must have been" CD.

What you have to do is put forward a completed theory with proof. Even proving that it was CD STILL wouldn’t prove that it was not a terrorist attack. You are so, soooo far away from proving anything though. Until you do you will not be taken seriously. And of course from what I have seen yourself and Heiwa are definitely not up to the job anyway. You guys just don’t have the ability.

Anyway, from what I've seen you are a long way from even disproving that a crushdown could happen. Every argument put forward sofar on this thread that I have read has been answered and rebutted to quite a reasonably significant level of detail.

You have to

1. Prove a crushdown is not possible. According to the experts your movement has not managed to do this yet to any level that could be taken seriously on this forum, let alone in the real world such as a court of law.
2. Prove that CD was possible - including the likely hood that is could have been prepared for.
3. Be able to answer all the other questions such as lack of explosives evidence etc etc.
4. what happened to the original jets and people on them.
5. Evidence that specific individuals were implicated, or proven to be involved.

What’s frustrating with the way you truther guys argue is that in a court of law you wouldn’t be able to avoid the questions and chop and change as you do. You would have been thrown out long ago. You appear to think that postulating on a website(s) provides you with some authority that somehow legitimizes your claims. Well I’m afraid not.

However, the problem with deniers is that it stops the world from moving on. It stops us from quickly learning from our mistakes. The western media also often do a good job of messing with the facts to either make a story or support a political agenda. Public opinion can be swayed/confused by muddying the water with in-factual or out of context information, especially around a complicated subject such as this one.

You need to grow up and get you head out of the clouds. Start looking for the truth around real crimes that your government may (or may not) have committed in the name of its people.

We can say with 100% certainty the following:-

1. Never before in the recorded histpry of the planet Earth has one-tenth of any structure crushed nine-tenths of the same structure down flat on the ground by gravity alone. Never, ever before.

2. This is what is claimed for WTC1 by the government and their agencies. These agencies only investigated up to the point of collapse. They expliicitly did not look for evidence of explosives/incendiaries as is standard procedure. The job is plainly unfinished.

3. The onus is on you and your government to explain the collapses, not on us to explain anything though we are of course absolutely free to speculate to our heart's content.

4. The bottom line is that the burden of proof still lies with the government and it's agents.

 

[funk de fino]

We can say with 100% certainty the following:-

1. Never before in the recorded histpry of the planet Earth has one-tenth of any structure crushed nine-tenths of the same structure down flat on the ground by gravity alone. Never, ever before.

2. This is what is claimed for WTC1 by the government and their agencies. These agencies only investigated up to the point of collapse. They expliicitly did not look for evidence of explosives/incendiaries as is standard procedure. The job is plainly unfinished.

3. The onus is on you and your government to explain the collapses, not on us to explain anything though we are of course absolutely free to speculate to our heart's content.

4. The bottom line is that the burden of proof still lies with the government and it's agents.

The WTC were not crushed down flat on the ground. The piles were rather high.

try again

PS the USG is not everyones goverment