• 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

padragan said:
I think you missed the "put up or shut up" part...

I'd also like to know your definition of "gently".
Click to expand...

JREF is a place to discuss in a friendly and lively way so I ignore some comments.

I do not actually use the word 'gently' in my article, I carefully avoided it and used some other ones.
 
Zorglub said:
No you don´t. That makes the discussion so much easier for you. What happened to your theory about thousands of gallons of hidden gasoline cans cunningly sneaked into the WTC-complex? You used to promote that as a plausible cause for the explosion you claimed was not caused by the two planes.
Click to expand...

You must have misread my article? Only mention of fuel there is that you need abt 40 kgs (or 55 litres) of diesel oil to pull up 33 000 tons of upper block 3.7 metres (using a big crane). Topic is tower collapse. I just do it in reverse, pulling the upper block up again to have a look at what could have gone wrong. And that fuel must be injected in the engine of the crane, of course.
 
Heiwa said:
JREF is a place to discuss in a friendly and lively way so I ignore some comments.
Click to expand...

I know. You ignore every single post that points out where you are wrong or asks for proper calculations.

In my case this is the third reply where you fail to answer my question on density. And like I promised I will point it out to you every single time you do that.

I do not actually use the word 'gently' in my article, I carefully avoided it and used some other ones.
Click to expand...

You used it in your posting above, something that got you another stundie nomination. I don't care much for what you call it in you so called paper, either you think it's a fitting description or you don't. Obviously you think it's a fair description since you used it.
 
Heiwa said:
JREF is a place to discuss in a friendly and lively way so I ignore some comments.

I do not actually use the word 'gently' in my article, I carefully avoided it and used some other ones.
Click to expand...

Please allow me to be friendly, lively and equally so gentle with my following post.

Heiwa, I can honestly say that in the entire history of absurd theories, yours is without a doubt the most absurd. It stands head and shoulders above absurdity. In fact you have actually redifined absurdity.

For your theory to be remotely workable and be carried out, let alone be passed as a working plan defies all rationality.

Lunging from one desperate attempt to another to dismiss the massive dynamic weight that fell, you have stated it should have slide off, bounced off, stopped, fallen gently, become entangled and the most absurd of all have actually said it was totally disintegrated in mid air before it even fell on the lower section of the building. For 33000 tons of steel framed building to simply disintegrate would require an enormous amount of explosive power, but you simply hand wave this away, because it does not fit in with your theory, it simply destroys your theory, because you know that no such event happened.

Guess what? Most people know that if no weight fell and totally missed the section below nothing will happen. But this is where your mind blowing theory has and will continue to fail. The massive dynamic weight did not simply disappear, no matter how much you try to hand wave it away. It was very real and really did fall onto the floor trusses below.

Simply repeating the same nonsense over and over again will not make it go away, just like the massive weight/s that fell onto of the non load bearing floor trusses.

Heiwa. I would actually like to thank you for submitting the most insane, absurd, unworkable, laughable demolition theory I personally have ever seen.
 
Last edited:
stateofgrace said:
Please allow me to be friendly, lively and equally so gentle with my following post.

Heiwa, I can honestly say that in the entire history of absurd theories, yours is without a doubt the most absurd. It stands head and shoulders above absurdity. In fact you have actually redifined absurdity.

For your theory to be remotely workable and be carried out, let alone be passed as a working plan defies all rationality.

Lunging from one desperate attempt to another to dismiss the massive dynamic weight that fell, you have stated it should have slide off, bounced off, stopped, fallen gently, become entangled and the most absurd of all have actually said it was totally disintegrated in mid air before it even fell on the lower section of the building. For 33000 tons of steel framed building to simply disintegrate would require an enormous amount of explosive power, but you simply hand wave this away, because it does not fit in with your theory, it simply destroys your theory, because you know that no such event happened.

Guess what? Most people know that if no weight fell and totally missed the section below nothing will happen. But this is where your mind blowing theory has and will continue to fail. The massive dynamic weight did not simply disappear, no matter how much to try to hand wave it away. It was very real and really did fall onto the floor trusses below.

Simply repeating the same nonsense over and over again will not make it go away, just like the massive weight/s that fell onto of the non load bearing floor trusses.

Heiwa. I would actually like to thank you for submitting the most insane, absurd, unworkable, laughable demolition theory I personally have ever seen.
Click to expand...
Nominated!
 
stateofgrace said:
Lunging from one desperate attempt to another to dismiss the massive dynamic weight that fell, you have stated it should have slide off, bounced off, stopped, fallen gently, become entangled and the most absurd of all have actually said it was totally disintegrated in mid air before it even fell on the lower section of the building. For 33000 tons of steel framed building to simply disintegrate would require an enormous amount of explosive power, but you simply hand wave this away, because it does not fit in with your theory, it simply destroys your theory, because you know that no such event happened.

Guess what? Most people know that if no weight fell and totally missed the section below nothing will happen. But this is where your mind blowing theory has and will continue to fail. The massive dynamic weight did not simply disappear, no matter how much you try to hand wave it away. It was very real and really did fall onto the floor trusses below.

Simply repeating the same nonsense over and over again will not make it go away, just like the massive weight/s that fell onto of the non load bearing floor trusses.

Heiwa. I would actually like to thank you for submitting the most insane, absurd, unworkable, laughable demolition theory I personally have ever seen.
Click to expand...

Thanks for comments. You also seem to have misread the article? The upper blocks of WTC1,2 seem to be a problem. They are according Bazant/Seffen supposed to be rigid, stiff, solid, of uniform density, indestructible, etc., in order to first free fall, then impact and finally drive two global collapses of intact steel structures that have never been seen before and after 911.
So I just point out that neither block was rigid, stiff ... and so on. And that the indestructible blocks disappeared!

The weights of these blocks were not massive! Why use such words? They just compressed the structure below to <30% yield when intact. And the load bearing structure below only occupied 0.13% of the total foot print (WTC1 at the initiation zone), which is an indication how strong it was! And plenty of space/volume to get entangled in.

Nist could not explain the collapses except that PE = KE < SE. Complete nonsense as PE/KE has nothing to do with SE. Bazant and Seffen came to assistance as outlined above. But they assume that the load bearing structure occupy 100% of the total foot print (uniform density, you know) and no space/volume for entanglement. Quite insane, actually. Like many other aspects of 911. And sadly, many participants at JREF seem to be sect members of this cult of insanity.
 
Heiwa said:
You must have misread my article? Only mention of fuel there is that you need abt 40 kgs (or 55 litres) of diesel oil to pull up 33 000 tons of upper block 3.7 metres (using a big crane). Topic is tower collapse. I just do it in reverse, pulling the upper block up again to have a look at what could have gone wrong. And that fuel must be injected in the engine of the crane, of course.
Click to expand...
No I haven´t misread you "article". And I wasn´t even talking about what you might have written in it.
You have claimed, not on this forum though, that the explosion was caused by thousands of hidden gasoline cans/barrels within the WTC. Nowadays you refuse to debate what you think really caused the collapse. And I understand why. You don´t know. But you refuse to admit to yourself that you have no scenario where your theories will fit in.
Therefore you have hidden behind calculations and numbers hoping they will provide you with some sort pro-verbal guile suit.
You are little man living in France, without job or a place in this world, uneducated and confused. Sad really. Well, except that you claim that no planes hit the WTC and every person on Manhattan that day was paid by GWB to lie about the planes.
 
Architect said:
33,000t is not massive?!?!?!?!
Click to expand...

Not really - uniform density was only 0.18 ton/m3 = not massive. But large, yes. Plenty of air. Thus not solid. 70-80% of the 33 000 tons was just concrete, glass, furniture, insulation, etc.
The real strength of the towers were the load bearing columns of steel (massive - density 7.8 ton/m3) but only <1% of the volume and cross area. Could never be damaged by all the light weight rubbish in the towers. But according Bazant/Seffen this rubbish is indestructible. Rubbish of course!

Any local failures causing some shifting of weights would have been arrested very quickly by these columns.

You have not read my article have you? http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm ! Does your sect leader forbid it? (Should I start a new thread about that?).
 
Last edited:
Ah, but with the outer columns bowing inwardly, the inner core exposed to fire, those load bearing columns of steel, around the impact area were severely weakened. And thus, their ability to support the load applied to them was diminished, this led to a collapse, and the load they had held, fell, becoming a dynamic load and as you should know by now, a dynamic load is made heavier by the speed at which it impacts the stuff below. And as the stuff below was not indestructible, it was not built to withstand the impact from a dynamic load. It couldn't arrest the collapse, failed and fell too.
 
Last edited:
peteweaver said:
Ah, but with the outer columns bowing inwardly, the inner core exposed to fire, those load bearing columns of steel, around the impact area were severely weakened. And thus, their ability to support the load applied to them was diminished, this led to a collapse, and the load they had held, fell, becoming a dynamic load and as you should know by now, a dynamic load is made heavier by the speed at which it impacts the stuff below. And as the stuff below was not indestructible, it was not built to withstand the impact from a dynamic load. It couldn't arrest the collapse, failed and fell too.
Click to expand...

Yes, yes - the load bearing columns around the impact area were weakened and could not support the load applied to them (from above). You mean loads? Every column carried its load. Plenty of loads. Gravity at work.
And the loads fell. OK. Free fall = accelerating = increasing speed, or - due to deformation of support = no acceleration = low speed?
Impact the stuff below? OK, it must have been free fall.
Free fall would take 0.8-0.9 seconds = 20 frames on any video. Can you supply any? I would like to see the free falls and the impacts. And what happened to the load bearing columns that failed and permitted free fall.

And the stuff below couldn't arrest the collapse? What collapse? Of the lower structure. It has not yet started!

Before further collapse starts, the loads from above must be applied to the structure below. Not so easy! It is nothing there!! Except for a big floor. The uppermost floor of the structure below.

Very good, actually. This floor will probably fail as part of the first step of the progressive collapse and divert the loads that made it fail from above in all directions ... and slow down the collapse. The next floor will really arrest the progressive collapse.

At this time 90% of the loads from above have not yet touched anything below. They are too late to participate in the action! The local collapse has already stopped. Read my article and you will understand why. Link in my previous message.
 
Heiwa said:
Not really - uniform density was only 0.18 ton/m3 = not massive.
Click to expand...
And we're back to the ridiculous density argument... good grief, even I can plainly see what's wrong with it, and I'm no structural engineer or architect. How on earth can you not see what's wrong with it?
 
Corsair 115 said:
And we're back to the ridiculous density argument... good grief, even I can plainly see what's wrong with it, and I'm no structural engineer or architect. How on earth can you not see what's wrong with it?
Click to expand...

Dear sect member. According to the prophets Bazant and Seffen on behalf of Nist uniform density, be it O.18 or 516 tons/m3 is an absolute requirement for total, global collapse due to gravity. Now, when you see it is wrong, pls reconsider your sect membership. Be finally free.
 
Yes, yes, the whole world is wrong except you. All these trained structural engineers - what do they know?

Now, where are those structural calculations we've been waiting for? Put up, or shut up.
 
Architect said:
Yes, yes, the whole world is wrong except you. All these trained structural engineers - what do they know?

Now, where are those structural calculations we've been waiting for? Put up, or shut up.
Click to expand...


I don't think either of your options will ever happen. </cynic>
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom