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

[TruthersLie]

Oh I do think they will publish it.

Just like they took and published the other twoof in JEM and let Bazant completely demolish.

I think they will do the same thing here. I think they will publish it, and then completely rip it to shreds...

 

[Justin39640]

Oh I do think they will publish it.

Just like they took and published the other twoof in JEM and let Bazant completely demolish.

I think they will do the same thing here. I think they will publish it, and then completely rip it to shreds...

that would be terrific lol

 

[aggle-rithm]

It's not easy to make a difference. The fun is to try.

But you're NOT trying. You're repeating yourself, over and over again, oblivious to the many solid rebuttals to your position. You haven't convinced anyone here because you can't state your case without using verbal tricks and logical fallacies.

The fact that you continue this unprofitable course makes me think you don't take any of this seriously.

 

[bill smith]

Hey Al,


.
I have to disagree.

In Bill's own words:


.
This is Bill's idea of entertainment. Of sport. Of fun.

Tom

So- T.- back to busiiness. In order to save WTC1 from being exposed as an inside job caused by explosive demolition you have to answer the following question:-

Has there ever been a case recorded in the entire World history of the Planet Earth where one-tenth if a structure, big or small has crushed down flat on the ground the other and stronger nine-tenths of the same strructure using only the force of gravity ? (9/11 itself is excluded as it is still sub judice.)

 

[aggle-rithm]

So- T.- back to busiiness. In order to save WTC1 from being exposed as an inside job caused by explosive demolition you have to answer the following question:-

Has there ever been a case recorded in the entire World history of the Planet Earth where one-tenth if a structure, big or small has crushed down the other and stronger nine-tenths of the same strructure ? (9/11 itself is excluded as it is still sub judice.)

Has there ever been a case where a 110 story building was destroyed by explosive demolition?
(9/11 itself is excluded.)

BTW, this "entire History of the Planet Earth" business is getting tiresome.

99.99% of the history of the Earth can be excluded because there were no people to build any sort of structure.
99.5% of recorded history can be excluded because there were no structures even remotely comparable to the WTC towers.

What you're really saying is "the last fifty years".

 

[BigAl]

So- T.- back to busiiness. In order to save WTC1 from being exposed as an inside job caused by explosive demolition you have to answer the following question:-

Has there ever been a case recorded in the entire World history of the Planet Earth where one-tenth if a structure, big or small has crushed down flat on the ground the other and stronger nine-tenths of the same strructure ? (9/11 itself is excluded as it is still sub judice.)

Fire caused WTC1, 2, 7 to collapse. What happened to every other building that ever existed is irrelevant.

 

[bill smith]

Has there ever been a case where a 110 story building was destroyed by explosive demolition?
(9/11 itself is excluded.)

BTW, this "entire History of the Planet Earth" business is getting tiresome.

99.99% of the history of the Earth can be excluded because there were no people to build any sort of structure.
99.5% of recorded history can be excluded because there were no structures even remotely comparable to the WTC towers.

What you're really saying is "the last fifty years".

Even John Skilling, boss of Leslie Robertson said that he had few doubts that expert controlled demolition people could bring down the twin Towers.

Apart from that the CD of the building is only a technical matter. The one-tenth crushing down the nine -tenths of the building by gravity alone is a big problem for the fundamental laws of physics which is rather more to the point.

 

[BigAl]

Even John Skilling, boss of Leslie Robertson said that he had few doubts that expert controlled demolition people could bring down the twin Towers.

"could", of course, but nobody saw any man-made demolition at WTC on 9/11.

He died in 1998. Were he alive on 9/11 he would most likely agree with all his peers, all of whom agree that fire was the final cause of the collapse of the towers.

Here's one of his peers;

Henry Guthard, 70, one of Yamasaki's original partners who also worked as the project manager at the [WTC] site, said, "To hit the building, to disappear, to have pieces come out the other side, it was amazing the building stood. To defend against 5,000 (sic) gallons of ignited fuel in a building of 1350 feet is just not possible.

Report From Ground Zero
http://snurl.com/j54gc (Bottom of page 188)
​

 

[dtugg]

Even John Skilling, boss of Leslie Robertson said that he had few doubts that expert controlled demolition people could bring down the twin Towers.

Did he say it could have been done secretly and detected after the fact only by the stupidest group of people in the world?

Apart from that the CD of the building is only a technical matter. The one-tenth crushing doen the nine -tenths of the building by gravity alone is a big problem for the fundamental laws of physics which is rather more to the point.

There is nothing about the collapses of the WTC that presents any problems with the laws of physics. You just have no idea what you are talking about. And has been told to you repeatedly, the upper block only had to destroy one floor at a time. 10% destroys 1%. 11% destroys 1%. 12% destroys 1%. And so on. You must know that you are lying by now, liar.

 

[FineWine]

So- T.- back to busiiness. In order to save WTC1 from being exposed as an inside job caused by explosive demolition you have to answer the following question:-

Has there ever been a case recorded in the entire World history of the Planet Earth where one-tenth if a structure, big or small has crushed down flat on the ground the other and stronger nine-tenths of the same strructure using only the force of gravity ? (9/11 itself is excluded as it is still sub judice.)

No, Bill, you brainless, evil frauds have to make the positive case for demolition. Structural engineers and demolition professionals have found zero evidence for explosives and agree that the collapses of the towers do not resemble demolitions. Agenda-driven fools insist against facts and logic that their fantasies have some basis in reality. Let's see what you have.

The falling floors, as you know, were the BIG PART. Stop lying, Bill.

 

[FineWine]

Even John Skilling, boss of Leslie Robertson said that he had few doubts that expert controlled demolition people could bring down the twin Towers.

Apart from that the CD of the building is only a technical matter. The one-tenth crushing down the nine -tenths of the building by gravity alone is a big problem for the fundamental laws of physics which is rather more to the point.

Demolition professionals point out that nobody has ever attempted to bring down a building as big as WTC 7, much less structures the size of the 110-story towers. What do lying morons know that real experts don't.

Run, Bill, run.

 

[BigAl]

Demolition professionals point ourt that nobody has ever attempted to bring down a building as big as WTC 7, much less the 110-story towers. What do lying morons know that real experts don't.

Run, Bill, run.

People here know the largest-ever man-made building demolition.
What was it?

 

[Gaspode]

Quite a lot of incivil and off-topic posts in a very short time.

Expect some moves to AAH. In the meantime, thread will be set to Moderated status.

Link to the original OP here.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Gaspode

 

[tfk]

It would appear that normal steel used up top on WTC 1 is pretty unaffected by heat up to 500°C and that the ultimate stress is still > 200 N/mm ²

.
The studies by Bazant et al, that demonstrate that unlimited creep (i.e., to catastrophic failure) is a function of BOTH temperature & stress level have been presented numerous times. And those studies have shown that, at high stress levels, runaway creep can occur at temperatures as low as 150°C.

Anyone who ignores those studies and continues to say that "steel will remain unaffected by heat up to 500°C" is incompetent.
.

It confirms my little experiment at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist1.htm#6 !

.
There's no experiment performed here. There is an experiment described. Not performed.
.

And let's face it! Before steel reaches 500°C it must pass 300 and 400°C and any deformations would start then. That steel structure suddenly locally explodes as seen on all videos of 911 due to small fires that are burning out is not possible. So somebody pushed the button!

.
No video shows any "steel exploding". Absolute nonsense.

Video shows connections rupturing, steel being thrown outward, gypsum being turned into particulates, concrete being crushed and lots of debris being tossed outward.


Tom

 

[Newtons Bit]

.
The studies by Bazant et al, that demonstrate that unlimited creep (i.e., to catastrophic failure) is a function of BOTH temperature & stress level have been presented numerous times. And those studies have shown that, at high stress levels, runaway creep can occur at temperatures as low as 150°C.

Anyone who ignores those studies and continues to say that "steel will remain unaffected by heat up to 500°C" is incompetent.
.

.
There's no experiment performed here. There is an experiment described. Not performed.
.

.
No video shows any "steel exploding". Absolute nonsense.

Video shows connections rupturing, steel being thrown outward, gypsum being turned into particulates, concrete being crushed and lots of debris being tossed outward.


Tom

Don't forget about the pictures that show the perimeter columns being increasingly pulled inwards. Those are direct evidence of the columns heating up gradually.

 

[beachnut]

Even John Skilling, boss of Leslie Robertson said that he had few doubts that expert controlled demolition people could bring down the twin Towers.

Apart from that the CD of the building is only a technical matter. The one-tenth crushing down the nine -tenths of the building by gravity alone is a big problem for the fundamental laws of physics which is rather more to the point.

The more important fact is...
Robertson was the chief structural engineer on the WTC and Skilling was not. Robertson designed the structure, Skilling did not.

Robertson says the idea of controlled demolition using explosives or thermite at the WTC complex are nonsense. No one else in the world is more qualified than Robertson and he debunked the CD ideas and the WTC collapse debunks Heiwa.

One of the big problems with adopting the delusions of a conspiracy theory with explosives and thermite is the complete lack of evidence on the steel and at ground zero. The big problem with people believing the lies of the OP and CD theories; the people lack a practical knowledge of math, physics, and engineering. If you care to be skeptical of your own conclusions based up to now solely on opinions, hearsay, and false information then you must take the time to study and gain knowledge so you do not fall for the lies of Heiwa and other conspiracy theories on 911.

Knowledge is a needed to fight the anti-intellectual fraud from the movement falsely using the name of truth.

The failure of the WTC towers to stand after a major impact and uncontrolled fires prove Heiwa's ideas are not true. There is not need to prove Heiwa's ideas wrong, Heiwa has to prove his ideas in not nonsense. Heiwa has not presented any substantive work to support his nonsensical idea the WTC can not fall due to impact, and fires.

 

[tsig]

The more important fact is...
Robertson was the chief structural engineer on the WTC and Skilling was not. Robertson designed the structure, Skilling did not.

Robertson says the idea of controlled demolition using explosives or thermite at the WTC complex are nonsense. No one else in the world is more qualified than Robertson and he debunked the CD ideas and the WTC collapse debunks Heiwa.

One of the big problems with adopting the delusions of a conspiracy theory with explosives and thermite is the complete lack of evidence on the steel and at ground zero. The big problem with people believing the lies of the OP and CD theories; the people lack a practical knowledge of math, physics, and engineering. If you care to be skeptical of your own conclusions based up to now solely on opinions, hearsay, and false information then you must take the time to study and gain knowledge so you do not fall for the lies of Heiwa and other conspiracy theories on 911.

Knowledge is a needed to fight the anti-intellectual fraud from the movement falsely using the name of truth.

The failure of the WTC towers to stand after a major impact and uncontrolled fires prove Heiwa's ideas are not true. There is not need to prove Heiwa's ideas wrong, Heiwa has to prove his ideas in not nonsense. Heiwa has not presented any substantive work to support his nonsensical idea the WTC can not fall due to impact, and fires.

According to Heiwa no building anywhere could ever collapse.

 

[releaseeabode]

This thread is about Why a one-way-way Crush down is not possible and not, e.g. government conspiracies. If any government authority is aware of the possibility that one-way crush downs of structures are possible, they should do something about it! The good news are that one-way crush downs of structures are NOT possible. The bad news are that some government authorities support and encourage the opposite. Even worse, they are not alone! Just read most of above posters! It seems there are plenty of lunatics around.

1. The Energy in a mass and it's ability to do useful Work are two entirely different things.
2. Simplistic Energy calculations are flawed because we have no real idea how the Energy was ACTUALLY applied within the complexity of the WTC collapse.
3. I remember when FEMA published it's initial report, which included a total misrepresentation of the tower structure, claiming "pancake collapse". Where did that go?
4. Bazant is flawed for exactly the same modelling simplification reasons that the "Heiwa Challenge" is flawed.
5. It is also flawed because he has to invent an Energy to Work conversion process based upon an accumulation of mass under gravity to justify a "One way crush down" that may not even have happened and may not even be necessary to have happened to cause the collapse!
5. Bazant essentially proposes a pseudo "pancake collapse".
6. Both Bazant and FEMA were clearly influenced by the extensive video coverage of the collapse. They have simplified their models to try explain how the collapse "appears" rather than deal with the complexity of the WTC towers. Bazant is a "God of the Gaps" in the absence of any real hard data.
7. There is an addiction to "pancake collapse" as the overriding reason for the way the towers "appeared" to collapse.

I don't agree with Bazant's incredulous "One way crush down" which is essentially a "pancake collapse" plus explanation of video footage. That does not mean that explosives were involved!

 

[bill smith]

The more important fact is...
Robertson was the chief structural engineer on the WTC and Skilling was not. Robertson designed the structure, Skilling did not.

Robertson says the idea of controlled demolition using explosives or thermite at the WTC complex are nonsense. No one else in the world is more qualified than Robertson and he debunked the CD ideas and the WTC collapse debunks Heiwa.

One of the big problems with adopting the delusions of a conspiracy theory with explosives and thermite is the complete lack of evidence on the steel and at ground zero. The big problem with people believing the lies of the OP and CD theories; the people lack a practical knowledge of math, physics, and engineering. If you care to be skeptical of your own conclusions based up to now solely on opinions, hearsay, and false information then you must take the time to study and gain knowledge so you do not fall for the lies of Heiwa and other conspiracy theories on 911.

Knowledge is a needed to fight the anti-intellectual fraud from the movement falsely using the name of truth.

The failure of the WTC towers to stand after a major impact and uncontrolled fires prove Heiwa's ideas are not true. There is not need to prove Heiwa's ideas wrong, Heiwa has to prove his ideas in not nonsense. Heiwa has not presented any substantive work to support his nonsensical idea the WTC can not fall due to impact, and fires.

The more I look at it Beachnut the more I think you are wrong about this. I am starting to think that an impregnable case can be made for the reversal of the burden of proof in he case of WTC1.

A one way crush down of WTC1 is just plain impossible and would be easy to demonstrate to any court.

Here it is defferent of course.

 

[Heiwa]

.
The studies by Bazant et al, that demonstrate that unlimited creep (i.e., to catastrophic failure) is a function of BOTH temperature & stress level have been presented numerous times. And those studies have shown that, at high stress levels, runaway creep can occur at temperatures as low as 150°C.

Anyone who ignores those studies and continues to say that "steel will remain unaffected by heat up to 500°C" is incompetent.
.

.
There's no experiment performed here. There is an experiment described. Not performed.
.

.
No video shows any "steel exploding". Absolute nonsense.

Video shows connections rupturing, steel being thrown outward, gypsum being turned into particulates, concrete being crushed and lots of debris being tossed outward.


Tom

Suggest you study the NIST report Fire Protection of Structural Steel in High-Rise Buildings. at http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/pdf/GCR04_872.pdf .

Note that NIST confirms that the WTC destruction was a singular event that has never happened before or after 911 2001, and, not spelled out, has not been explained! That creep would produce a one-way crush down of a structure is not confirmed anywhere.

Actually, the whole purpose of fire protection of structural steel in high-rise buildings is just to delay the occurence of local failures allowing people to get out and fire fighters to get in. That local failures due fire in turn can produce a one-way crush down or progressive collapse of any kind of a complete structure, most of it unaffected by the fire, is simply not possible - as explained in post #1 of the original thread.

The 911 videos show quite clearly how the complete steel/composite structures explode in a fountain of debris. Sorry - no 'progressive collapse' (sic) of any kind.

It seems that this 'progressive collapse' of steel structures buisiness started long after 911 with strange models where some mass elements are assumed rigid (sic!) and that these rigid mass elements are held in position by springs and non-rigid connections. In even stranger simulations, the connections of a rigid mass element are assumed to fail so that the rigid mass element drops and contacts another rigid mass element, the connections of which fail, and .... HOKUS POKUS ... we have a progressive collapse!

Actually, all these models and theories simply confirm that progressive collapse is only possible with rigid mass elements (or complete rigid assemblies of rigid mass elements). As no such elements or assemblies of elements exist in the real world, progressive collapse or, even worse, one-way collapse of a structure by a part of itself (topic) is simply not possible.