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

bill smith said:
Do you mean the F4 ? If so I do not compare chalk with cheese. You may do so at your leisure.

Let me show you a little picture. Maybe you will get a clue.

http://nomoregames.net/presentations/Madison_No_Planes_Final_August_07.ppt_files/slide0045_image034
Click to expand...


Get a clue to what? You can't possibly dream that the plane in the photo crashed into the building at 500 mph. Not even you. Seriously, you're cracking under the strain of your constant defeats. You can never win, Bill. You're wrong about everything. Your desperate throws are getting embarrassing to watch. Take a deep breath and acknowledge that your photo has absolutely no relation to anything that happened on 9/11.
 
bill smith said:
Not really. Not in the empircal sense. I assume Bazant theorised a block that stayed undamaged to the end and was hhen conveniently crushed up. What are we arguing Bazant for anyway ? Bazant is done and dusted and out of the picture.
Click to expand...


Uh, who dusted him? How can ignorant liars peddling a lunatic fantasy dust a highly-respected engineer? You never attempted to read Bazant's paper, and Heiwa wasn't able to understand it.
 
bill smith said:
Well for the reasons I gave in the post you reference I find it impossible to believe that the fragile delicate aircraft negotiated those massive obstacles by way of bludgeoning it's way tthrough. But at the time time I also find it hard to believe that the perps would NOT have used real planes and resorted to the use of holograms or injected images of planes. That just seems too cmplicated and vulnerable to errors. (even though there is considerable evidence to support the injected images of planes)
Click to expand...

So you maintain both contradictory beliefs at the same time? The planes were real AND they were holographic?

So to square this circle you have to start thinking in other directions.
Click to expand...

Actually, I believe it works better if you stop thinking altogether.
 
Gamolon said:
Is this the true definition of the term "rigid body" when used in a structural sense? It makes perfect sense to me.

I still would like Heiwa to provide me an example of a rigid body that fits his definition he posted.
Click to expand...

tsig said:
"In physics, a rigid body is an idealization of a solid body of finite size in which deformation is neglected. In other words, the distance between any two given points of a rigid body remains constant in time regardless of external forces exerted on it. Even though such an object cannot physically exist due to relativity, objects can normally be assumed to be perfectly rigid if they are not moving near the speed of light."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigid_bodies
Click to expand...
As an example of how those of use in industries where things actually are supposed to move (as opposed to construction, where you really, really want them to remain in place)--we don't actually don't care that the propeller is going round and round, or that turbines are whirling at 50000 rpm when analyzing the inertial characteristics of the system--
we don't care that the arrow is vibrating when determining the path of the center of mass. Only when figuring the actual impact, within a few 1/1000's of a unit do these values actually come in to play.
We use "rigid body" dynamics to get the gross values, then refine with detail for the most accuracy when necessary.
Start simple, so you can define the problem. Engineers LIKE simple.
 
ferd burfle said:
Based on your posts, I didn't expect you to be teachable, but I am curious about why you say "no way". Do you think they faked the demonstration? Or you reject this based on your superior knowledge of physics and engineering?

Thanks,

ferd
Click to expand...



Admitting that one real-world example is true would require him to consider the possibility that his pet hypothesis is wrong. He'll never do that, ergo, he must reject the real-world example out of hand.
 
rwguinn said:
As an example of how those of use in industries where things actually are supposed to move (as opposed to construction, where you really, really want them to remain in place)
Click to expand...

I think this is really the crux of the matter. Heiwa has all along acted as if it's normal for big chunks of a building to move around in relation to the rest of it, and finds it impossible to believe that engineers would design something that couldn't handle this.

That's probably why boat building and structural engineering are not considered interchangeable skills.
 
bill smith said:
Not really. Not in the empircal sense. I assume Bazant theorised a block that stayed undamaged to the end and was hhen conveniently crushed up. What are we arguing Bazant for anyway ? Bazant is done and dusted and out of the picture.
Click to expand...

Then how can you and Heiwa argue that the upper portion cannot be considered a "rigid body" when neither of you can provide me with an example of what a real world rigid body should be?

What a stupid position you both have taken.

That's like me trying to teach someone how to kick a soccer ball and you coming by and saying "That's not how it's done". Then I ask you "What is the proper way to kick a soccer ball?' and you replying "I don't don't know."

So based on what Heiwa has posted, including his defintion, and you supporting him, you both are saying one of two things.

1. There are rigid bodies in the structural engineering world and that the upper portion of the tower doesn't represent one at all.

or

2. There is nothing in the structural engineering world that can be considered a rigid body.

Which is it? If it's number 1, then please provide a structural object or concept that DOES represent a rigid body. If it's number 2, then how can you and Heiwa claim that the upper portion of the tower is NOT a rigid body if a rigid body can not even exist in a structural sense?
 
bill smith said:
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.
Click to expand...

so refuting ryan mackeys physics of 9/11? episodes 1, 2 or 3?

Can water cut steel? Can bare feet walk on fire? can a bird cause a plane to crash?

come on bill... can wind throw a rock a mile? can a rock destroy 100 miles of forest? can a bolt destroy the space shuttle?

I'm still waiting for simple answers to the questions bill.
 
bill smith said:
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.
Click to expand...

First time in history claim bill? Oh vey.

before august 1945, no city had ever been destroyed by a single bomb before. Are atom bombs fake bill?

before 1959, no one had ever gone into outerspace before... are satellights fake bill?

Come on bill... try again... with facts, figures, evidence and proof.
 
Heiwa has "model" confused with "reality". This is the same confusion that leads people to believe that quantum physics is magic.

Only problem is...this isn't nearly as complicated as quantum physics. It certainly shouldn't be difficult for a professional trained in the field to grasp.
 
bill smith said:
Do you mean the F4 ? If so I do not compare chalk with cheese. You may do so at your leisure.
Click to expand...

F4? Where did that come from? Did you even follow the link I gave?

Let me show you a little picture. Maybe you will get a clue.

http://nomoregames.net/presentations/Madison_No_Planes_Final_August_07.ppt_files/slide0045_image034
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clue, bill. You showed me in no uncertain terms you have absolutely no knowledge of physics. Hint: what would be different about your picture if the jet had been traveling hundreds of miles an hour instead of just a few miles per hour?

ferd



eta: Curse your fast fingers, FineWine!
 
Last edited:
Gamolon said:
Then how can you and Heiwa argue that the upper portion cannot be considered a "rigid body" when neither of you can provide me with an example of what a real world rigid body should be?

What a stupid position you both have taken.

That's like me trying to teach someone how to kick a soccer ball and you coming by and saying "That's not how it's done". Then I ask you "What is the proper way to kick a soccer ball?' and you replying "I don't don't know."

So based on what Heiwa has posted, including his defintion, and you supporting him, you both are saying one of two things.

1. There are rigid bodies in the structural engineering world and that the upper portion of the tower doesn't represent one at all.

or

2. There is nothing in the structural engineering world that can be considered a rigid body.

Which is it? If it's number 1, then please provide a structural object or concept that DOES represent a rigid body. If it's number 2, then how can you and Heiwa claim that the upper portion of the tower is NOT a rigid body if a rigid body can not even exist in a structural sense?
Click to expand...

A rigid body is just an approximation of the real thing using worst case assumptions.
 
ferd burfle said:
F4? Where did that come from? Did you even follow the link I gave?



Thanks for the clue, bill. You showed me in no uncertain terms you have absolutely no knowledge of physics. Hint: what would be different about your picture if the jet had been traveling hundreds of miles an hour instead of just a few miles per hour?

ferd
Click to expand...

Suppose the plane was hanging statonary in the sky and you flew he building at the aluminium plane at 600 mph do you really think the plane would smash through 33 well braced steel box-columns , go on to destroy 10 massive core columns and partially exit the building through perhaps a dozen more steel box columns ? The physics are exactly the same . Don't rush to answer.

Or do you think the 500,000 ton building would swat the 150 ton plane from the sky ?
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
Suppose the plane was hanging statonary in the sky and you flew he building at the aluminium plane at 600 mph do you really think the plane would smash through 33 well braced steel box-columns , go on to destroy 10 massive core columns and partially exit the building through perhaps a dozen more steel box columns ? The physics are exactly the same . Don't rush to answer.
Click to expand...

Yes. Why would it not?


A lead bullet flying only slightly faster than 500MPH can punch through steel about as thick as what the exterior beams on the upper floors of WTC were made of. Lead is much softer than aircraft alloy aluminum.
 
ferd burfle said:
F4? Where did that come from? Did you even follow the link I gave?



Thanks for the clue, bill. You showed me in no uncertain terms you have absolutely no knowledge of physics. Hint: what would be different about your picture if the jet had been traveling hundreds of miles an hour instead of just a few miles per hour?

ferd
Click to expand...

"comments on things he never looks at" (noted)

that thing probably lurched at the gate
the building couldnt stop a 10 mph plane that only started moving from a few feet away (it went through a brick wall it looks like there lol)
another did the same thing in newark a few years ago
if anything that pic hurts bill way more than it helps
sucks for him that he dont realize it though lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom