• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Layman's terms please! Tower collapse issue

beachnut said:
Or you could have the big picture.
One big mass.
Click to expand...

Most (95%) of the towers was air. Uniform density of the mass of the tower top part was <0.18, i.e. less than wool. Could not do much damage to anything.
 
Heiwa said:
Most (95%) of the towers was air. Uniform density of the mass of the tower top part was <0.18, i.e. less than wool. Could not do much damage to anything.
Click to expand...
I'm no physicist, structural engineer, or architect, but even I can see how incredibly ludicrous your statement is.
 
Corsair 115 said:
I'm no physicist, structural engineer, or architect, but even I can see how incredibly ludicrous your statement is.
Click to expand...

I totally agree. It's stundielicious!

If even I can see something is ludicrous, it IS indeed ludicrous.
 
Alferd_Packer said:
Let's drop a 100 tons of wool on Heiwa and we'll see just how much damage it doesn't do.
Click to expand...

Why not? It seems the upper block of WTC1 had mass 33 000 tons spread over 4000 m² floor area or only 8.25 tons/m². With uniform density 0.18 it is a 46 meters high.

Now drop a 1 x 1 x 46 meters bale of wool (it weighs 8.25 tons) 3.7 meters on something that you want to collapse and see what happens. Try to pin point the time (A) initiation (when you drop the bale) and impact/start of collapse occurs a little later. I would assume the bale would compress at impact a little after time (A).

Nist, Bazant, Seffen and other eccentric and isolated 'experts' (and many people on JREF) suggest that it - the upper block of uniform density 0.18 - is rigid and stiff and impinges the something at enormous speed and energy and collapses the something - while the bale of wool remains intact on top. It is an optimistic idea according my understanding of physics and the world around us.

But subject is time. When did this collapse start (A) and end (B)? And what happened to the upper block during this time ... and before? Remember (C).
 
Last edited:
applecorped said:
Heiwa, what has all of your research led you to conclude about the collapse of WTC?
Click to expand...

Read my easy to understand paper written in layman's terms at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm and you will see that the main conclusion is that Nist, Bazant and Seffen should improve their analysises of the initiations and collapses of WTC1 (and 2). For the sake of our children.

Rigid upper bodies, free fall, impacts, high velocity, enormous amount of potential energy released, shock waves, crush fronts, uniform density ... unscientific nonsense and dim assumptions, all of it. Every child understands that.
 
But the >90% air argument has been used a couple of times by official theorists. The air explains all the violent ejections (some windows are needed to build up pressure), and the air explains why the compaction from 3.7 meter to 25 cm is so successful, the air explains why steel is ejected with > 13.8 m/s while there is barely motion after collapse initiation, it also explains a rumbling sound that starts before visible motion, it explains a couple of isolated ejections (no transparant air because you can see it) far ahead of the statistical distribution of the collapse front. And don't forgot the chaos theory, with chaos in mind you can explain everything you want.
 
An ironclad ship is less dense than water. Otherwise it's a submarine.

Place your head in a bucket of water. Remove your head.

Place your head in an ironclad's hull. Compare and contrast.
 
Heiwa said:
Read my easy to understand paper written in layman's terms at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm and you will see that the main conclusion is that Nist, Bazant and Seffen should improve their analysises of the initiations and collapses of WTC1 (and 2). For the sake of our children.

Rigid upper bodies, free fall, impacts, high velocity, enormous amount of potential energy released, shock waves, crush fronts, uniform density ... unscientific nonsense and dim assumptions, all of it. Every child understands that.
Click to expand...

Heiwa

You seem to have forgotten about the threads where your paper was comprehensively questioned and you proved wholly unable to respond to the technical criticisms put to you. Why is this?
 
applecorped said:
Heiwa, what has all of your research led you to conclude about the collapse of WTC?
Click to expand...

Bear in mind that his research was so comprehensive that he didn't know that the towers had concrete floors, and he diesn't understand the composite nature of the building structure.

It wasn't a good start, and it just kept getting worse.
 
Heiwa said:
Most (95%) of the towers was air. Uniform density of the mass of the tower top part was <0.18, i.e. less than wool. Could not do much damage to anything.
Click to expand...

Comedy Gold. Stundie success is guaranteed!
 
einsteen said:
But the >90% air argument has been used a couple of times by official theorists. The air explains all the violent ejections (some windows are needed to build up pressure), and the air explains why the compaction from 3.7 meter to 25 cm is so successful, the air explains why steel is ejected with > 13.8 m/s while there is barely motion after collapse initiation, it also explains a rumbling sound that starts before visible motion, it explains a couple of isolated ejections (no transparant air because you can see it) far ahead of the statistical distribution of the collapse front. And don't forgot the chaos theory, with chaos in mind you can explain everything you want.
Click to expand...

Yes, well, the air does play a role in negating a couple of old conspiracy theorist "anomalies" like when they pretend that the towers were super-strong and should have acted like solid objects and toppled over like a tree in the forest, for instance. But, as you have mentioned, when they harp on things like the "squibs" it would seem to suggest that they immediately forget to account for the air again.

In Heiwa's example of the density when he accounts for all the air as part of the building, it's ludicrous for a number of reasons. And his comparison to the density of wool? I'm not sure how he resolves that with his position that steel is such a super strong material that it holds up just fine after losing much of its strength due to heavy fire conditions. Obviously the structure at the WTC was quite different from wool. Citing the density doesn't do anything to negate the mass of what's falling, unless he's expecting it to be rather buoyant in the ambient air, or something.
 
Hornit said:
Im conversing with some CT's about the collapse times of the towers and their conjectures about conservation of momentum. They claim that the observed times are too short and the explanations from folks like Bazant, Greening, and our own Newton's Bit dont jibe with the laws of conservation of momentum. I've linked some of Newtons Bit work, but not being an engineer, I'm out of my depth with some of this.

What I'm looking for is a simple explanation for why the towers could have come down inside of 12-15 seconds or so and still taken into account conservation of momentum. The way I understand Newton's Bit is that the collapse once started would be almost effortless due to buckling modes and the amount of and type of destruction and deformation of materials once you had initiation. It seems intuitive to me but some CT's using math (dangerous I know!) claim it had to be "helped" in order to come down so quickly.

Their argument is the buildings mass poses some resistance so the collapse could never progress as quickly as it did.

Any help with this is appreciated.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

If you can't be bothered by the math who cares what you think.

Keep your eyes wide closed and ignore the cliff.
 
Architect said:
Heiwa

You seem to have forgotten about the threads where your paper was comprehensively questioned and you proved wholly unable to respond to the technical criticisms put to you. Why is this?
Click to expand...

?? Unable to respond? Nothing wrong with my analysis. Give me an example where I err!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom