I need all debunkers I can get!

Myriad said:
So, for instance, here is a diagram representing a load-bearing wall of eight columns, connected by horizontal members and bearing a total load of 800 units, evenly distributed. Each column can bear 400 units individually, so each is only bearing 25% of its capacity.

Code: 
 100   100   100   100   100   100   100   100
units units units units units units units units

  |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
  V     V     V     V     V     V     V     V

  I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I
  I     I     I     I     I     I     I     I
  I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I
  I     I     I     I     I     I     I     I
  I     I     I     I     I     I     I     I
  I     I     I     I     I     I     I     I
  I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I
 
  A     B     C     D     E     F     G     H

Now, along comes the Big Bad Wolf, who huffs and puffs and blows columns C, D, E, and F in.

Code: 
 100   100   100   100   100   100   100   100
units units units units units units units units

  |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
  V     V     V     V     V     V     V     V

  I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I
  I     I     I     I     I     I     I     I
  I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I
  I     I     X     X     X     X     I     I
  I     I                             I     I
  I     I     X     X     X     X     I     I
  I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I
 
  A     B     C     D     E     F     G     H

At this point, consider the loads on columns B and G. It would take some calculations to determine exactly what loads they're under now, and we'd need more information such as the stiffness of the spandrels and their connections. However, for some such values, it's quite possible that columns A and H are now under tension (I'm sure, with your experience in this area, you can immediately see why), which would mean that columns B and G are now bearing their loads, plus the magnitude of the tension on A and H, plus the loads from the damaged columns C-D-E-F, plus their own original loads -- in other words, the entire load on the wall, and then some.

But, since our wall is still standing, we know that that couldn't be the case here. Let's say, instead, that the stiffness of the spandrels is such that B and G are each bearing half of A and H's load, plus the loads from the damaged columns, plus their own original loads. That's 350 units each. Good thing they can bear 400.

Except... unfortunately, the BBW's huffing and puffing also ignited the interior space behind the wall on fire. In a few minutes, columns B and G will be heated up to 500 degrees C. Thus losing an "insignficant" 20% of their strength. What, one must wonder, will happen then? Is it not obvious?

Now, I'm not saying this accurately represents the specifics of what happened in the WTC towers on 9/11. (For one thing, no wolf appears on the videotapes.) NIST did quite a good job of explaining what did happen, and it involves, as you pointed out, the third dimension. However, this simple example does show that the general principles that you claim prove a progressive collapse impossible, namely transferring of loads and redundant capacity, does not show that failure from overstressing of structural members is ruled out in all cases. Thus, your categorical qualitative argument for impossibility fails. You must make case based on a quantitative analysis instead (for example, using actual figures instead of phrases like "very strong"), and I believe that if and when you do so, you will only end up repeating other engineers' findings that the NIST collapse scenario is quite plausible, and fits the available evidence, after all.





I look forward to reading the results of your pending investigation into that matter. Until then, I'm sure you'll pardon me if I trust the consensus of hard evidence from multiple independently recorded sources over your "distinct feeling."

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

You have understood what we are talking about. Impossible or very unlikely? Or cannot be endured? I will think about it. Thanks for your input.

However, this thread is now so full of irrelevant garbish of signatures of limited ability that are hard to endure so I stop reading it. They failed miserably to debunk my article.
 
Heiwa said:
However, this thread is now so full of irrelevant garbish of signatures of limited ability that are hard to endure so I stop reading it. They failed miserably to debunk my article.
Click to expand...

So because a few people have put questions to you which you do not want to respond to, you will now stop reading the whole thread? Have I read that quote correctly?

When you say "They" are you discounting the people that have professional qualifications? Is the "They" you refer to those "Of limited ability"? How have you defined their ability?

If you have discounted the professional people able to discuss the points of your article it raises the question why bother to write the article in the first place if you are unwilling to read questions from people qualified to have opinions on it?

From my very limited point of view, as a member of the public, it would seem that the professional people on this thread have been very successful in debunking your article.

I do hope you take the time to read this reply even though you may feel it is ‘Garbish’.
 
Heiwa said:
You have understood what we are talking about. Impossible or very unlikely? Or cannot be endured? I will think about it. Thanks for your input.
Click to expand...


You're welcome.

And by the way, I agree that it was very unlikely (though obviously not impossible) that anyone would crash large heavily-fueled airliners into large skyscrapers on that particular day. However, once it happened, a proper engineering analysis shows that the collapses were not unlikely at all.

May I suggest that for your own sake, you refrain from attempting to use this argument to convince others that the collapses were impossible, until you've finished thinking about it?

However, this thread is now so full of irrelevant garbish of signatures of limited ability that are hard to endure so I stop reading it. They failed miserably to debunk my article.
Click to expand...


To be fair, most of the article consists of your stated opinion that the towers were too strong to collapse under any circumstances. This was not debunked because it is not possible to debunk an opinion. (Except by showing that the person expressing the opinion does not actually hold the opinion being expressed, but I'm fully convinced that your paper does accurately state your opinion.)

What has been debunked, however, are the principles and evidence you offered to support your opinion, such as the idea that load carrying capacity can be transferred from one column to another, the notion that impact damage and thermal effects from fire in combination cannot possibly overcome built-in safety/redundancy factors, and the claim that certain phenomena such as floor sagging and exterior column buckling are not possible, when they were actually observed at the scene.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Myriad said:
You're welcome.

What has been debunked, however, are the principles and evidence you offered to support your opinion ... such as floor sagging and exterior column buckling are not possible, when they were actually observed at the scene.

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

Were they? Who observed them? Etc.

Actually, the photos are obvious fakes and must have popped up late to support an impossible, invented sequence of events prior alleged global collapse.

Reason? There is not sufficent mass/load above to deform the south wall as shown. It is as simple as that.
 
Heiwa said:
Were they? Who observed them? Etc.

Actually, the photos are obvious fakes and must have popped up late to support an impossible, invented sequence of events prior alleged global collapse.

Reason? There is not sufficent mass/load above to deform the south wall as shown. It is as simple as that.
Click to expand...
Don't worry you paper will still reach your target audience. Uninformed children. Good luck with that.
 
The photos and VIDEOS have to be fake because Heiwa has convinced himself that the vast majority of REAL experts around the world are wrong?

Amazing what kind of mental gymnastics some people will go through to maintain their beliefs.
 
DGM said:
Heiwa:
Did you see this thread where your asked to put your money where your mouth is?
Click to expand...

We've seen this a thousand times here. All Heiwa has to to is declare the bowing impossible and those images are automatically fake, no further explanation necessary.

The moon hoax people are especially good at that.
 
twinstead said:
We've seen this a thousand times here. All Heiwa has to to is declare the bowing impossible and those images are automatically fake, no further explanation necessary.

The moon hoax people are especially good at that.
Click to expand...
What's worse is he wants us to prove they're real. The old "let's see if I can make them jump through hoops" gag. Not likely in this pathetic case of denial. I'll rate this with "no-planers".
 
Heiwa said:
Were they? Who observed them? Etc.

Actually, the photos are obvious fakes and must have popped up late to support an impossible, invented sequence of events prior alleged global collapse.

Reason? There is not sufficent mass/load above to deform the south wall as shown. It is as simple as that.
Click to expand...

This video is going to deal a fatal blow to your ego Anders Bjorkman. But reality is reality
Google Video This video is not hosted by the ISF, the ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
 
A W Smith said:
This video is going to deal a fatal blow to your ego Anders Bjorkman. But reality is reality
Google Video This video is not hosted by the ISF, the ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
Click to expand...

And what is it all about?
 
you have made an error

Heiwa said:
Not until you reminded me. Pretty useless pictures actually. Obvious fakes.
Click to expand...
The only fake around here is you. Fake paper, bad calculations based on false information to mislead others. You have failed and been exposed by calling what happen on 9/11, what really happen, fake.

That makes you a fake! Happy New Year fake idea man! Happy New Year
 
Last edited:
Are police in on the conspiacy too? Even though they lost at least 22 of their brothers?



Buckling Steel
According to Shyam-Sunder, the concave bowing of the steel was seen on the sides of the towers opposite where the planes hit them. At 10:06 a.m. that morning, an officer in a police helicopter reported that ``it's not going to take long before the north tower comes down.'' This was 20 minutes before it collapsed. In another radio transmission at 10:21 a.m., the officer said he saw buckling in the north tower's southern face, Shyam-Sunder said.
The report includes photographs taken from police helicopters showing the bending columns.
Police had already ordered a complete evacuation of the north tower at the time those transmissions were made, said Police Department Inspector Michael Coan. Both transmissions came after the south tower was already down, he said.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom