• 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

Heiwa said:
1. Yes! (Who said it was pre-formed?)

2. No! Actually it is very educational to start with simple structures (4 columns in 3-D) to learn the basics and then go to more complex structures (280+ columns) to apply the basics in a professional manner. NWO physics 1-D theories like Bazant/Seffen have nothing to do with this.
Click to expand...

stupidity.jpg
 
DGM said:
Please start by anchoring all of the legs to the ground before you start this test. Does the table still tip? If not what happened to the other legs.
Click to expand...

Test? Of course, in lesson 12 we can modify the boundary conditions of the sad occurence in lesson 1, etc. But I didn't tell you where on the table the impact occurred - lesson 5. Or if the plate of grilled steaks had uniform density. Lesson 8.

Anyway, one leg failed due to the impact and the horizontal table top apparently came in a sloping position a little, as there was no support in one corner.

This apparently affected the weights on the table - attached to it in various ways - lesson 6. They apparently moved sideways in the direction of the slope (actually the horizontal part of the slope - lesson 7) due to vertical gravity force ... but there was no magic horizontal force (gravity doesn't work in that direction) apart from friction (also caused by gravity in a way), which is another phenomenom, so they just went sideways ... and crashed on the ground.

It seems that loose weights on a structure take the easiest way down and do not start to crush intact structure below. It only happens in 1-D simulations of scientists like Bazant and Seffen. But we live in 3-D, which of course also can be manipulated by, e.g. Hollywood! But they only do it in 2-D. Think 3-D. It helps.
 
Last edited:
Heiwa said:
Rant snipped................
It seems that loose weights on a structure take the easiest way down..................
Click to expand...

Now if you really understood buildings and were capable of doing the calculations you would realize that this is indeed what happened on 9/11.
 
Heiwa said:
Test? Of course, in lesson 12 we can modify the boundary conditions of the sad occurence in lesson 1, etc. But I didn't tell you where on the table the impact occurred - lesson 5. Or if the plate of grilled steaks had uniform density. Lesson 8.

Anyway, one leg failed due to the impact and the horizontal table top apparently came in a sloping position a little, as there was no support in one corner.

This apparently affected the weights on the table - attached to it in various ways - lesson 6. They apparently moved sideways in the direction of the slope (actually the horizontal part of the slope - lesson 7) due to vertical gravity force ... but there was no magic horizontal force (gravity doesn't work in that direction) apart from friction (also caused by gravity in a way), which is another phenomenom, so they just went sideways ... and crashed on the ground.

It seems that loose weights on a structure take the easiest way down and do not start to crush intact structure below. It only happens in 1-D simulations of scientists like Bazant and Seffen. But we live in 3-D, which of course also can be manipulated by, e.g. Hollywood! But they only do it in 2-D. Think 3-D. It helps.
Click to expand...


Try it with a 1 acre table, and drop 30000 tons on it. See how much slides off the sides then.
 
phunk said:
Try it with a 1 acre table, and drop 30000 tons on it. See how much slides off the sides then.
Click to expand...

In Bazant/Seffen's 1-D universe there is no 1 acre table - only a point at a top of line. Try to put 30 000 tons on that point (uniform density of course). Not possible unless the universe is infinite.

OK - a 2-D table (still not a 1 acre table that requires 3-D) with two legs A and B. Where do you put your 30 000 tons. On leg A? It crushes! On leg B? It crushes! Between legs A and B. Legs A and B do not crush.

OK - a 3-D 1 acre table! How many legs? Three at least! A, B and C. Where do you put your 30 000 tons? Uniform? 10 000 tons on each leg.

OK - A, B and C collapses.

And the 3 times 10 000 tons remain intact on top of the rubble of A, B and C.

Where did the 30 000 tons end up?
 
DGM said:
Now if you really understood buildings and were capable of doing the calculations you would realize that this is indeed what happened on 9/11.
Click to expand...

I understand buildings and I am capable of doing the the calculations and I therefore realize that what happened on 9/11 was not due to gravity alone. Some other suspects were involved. Read my article http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm . Intelligent comments are always welcome.
 
phunk said:
Try it with a 1 acre table, and drop 30000 tons on it. See how much slides off the sides then.
Click to expand...
First we'd have to answer what the density is of that 30,000 tons of material. Density matter more than mass you know! (According to Heiwa at any rate.)
 
Last edited:
Heiwa said:
In Bazant/Seffen's 1-D universe there is no 1 acre table - only a point at a top of line. Try to put 30 000 tons on that point (uniform density of course). Not possible unless the universe is infinite.

OK - a 2-D table (still not a 1 acre table that requires 3-D) with two legs A and B. Where do you put your 30 000 tons. On leg A? It crushes! On leg B? It crushes! Between legs A and B. Legs A and B do not crush.

OK - a 3-D 1 acre table! How many legs? Three at least! A, B and C. Where do you put your 30 000 tons? Uniform? 10 000 tons on each leg.

OK - A, B and C collapses.

And the 3 times 10 000 tons remain intact on top of the rubble of A, B and C.

Where did the 30 000 tons end up?
Click to expand...
This post is a prime example of the old saying;
"If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance try to baffle them with your BS"
Guess what Heiwa? It didn't work!
 
Heiwa said:
I have this plastic garden table with four legs. We BBQued and put a lot of weight on the table (you know; bottles, plates, glasses = weight). And then one guest dropped a plate of grilled steaks on the table (impact) and one leg of the table failed (design fault) - buckled - and the table tipped ... and all the weight shifted ... and ended up on the ground.
The other three table legs ... miraculously didn't globally collapse due to this impact. I wonder why?
Click to expand...


Great god almighty. You can't possibly be an engineer. Thats like trying to compare a dog when it lifts its leg to pee on a hydrant, to the tower core structure. Do you have any idea how "stoooopid" (jersey dialect. not a typo) you sound?
 
I understand buildings and I am capable of doing the the calculations and I therefore realize that what happened on 9/11 was not due to gravity alone. Some other suspects were involved.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct. It was gravity and a WHOLE LOTTA' MASS.
 
I have this plastic garden table with four legs. We BBQued and put a lot of weight on the table (you know; bottles, plates, glasses = weight). And then one guest dropped a plate of grilled steaks on the table (impact) and one leg of the table failed (design fault) - buckled - and the table tipped ... and all the weight shifted ... and ended up on the ground.
The other three table legs ... miraculously didn't globally collapse due to this impact. I wonder why?
Click to expand...

To equate a plastic BBQ table with the twin towers is globally dumb. You've no idea what inertia is, do you?
 
DGM said:
This post is a prime example of the old saying;
"If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance try to baffle them with your BS"
Guess what Heiwa? It didn't work!
Click to expand...

Of course it worked! Nobody could answer the last question.
 
Heiwa said:
Of course it worked! Nobody could answer the last question.
Click to expand...

What's the point in answering questions related to an example that doesn't say anything about the real conditions (something that has been pointed out to you with several examples btw)? An answer that you would probably just ignore, like you do with all arguments or questions you can't handle.

The fact that you got not on but two stundie nominations from this thread allready (the first one right now in second place in the march poll) should tell you something about the sense you make...
 
Last edited:
padragan said:
What's the point in answering questions related to an example that doesn't say anything about the real conditions (something that has been pointed out to you with several examples btw)? An answer that you would probably just ignore, like you do with all arguments or questions you can't handle.

The fact that you got not on but two stundie nominations from this thread allready (the first one right now in second place in the march poll) should tell you something about the sense you make...
Click to expand...

Example? 30 000 tons of solid, rigid, uniform density, indestructible mass (an upper block) is dropped and destroyed something much bigger. What happened to this upper block afterwards? Did it disappear? When, where? It is a fantastic mass.

Another example. I drop a 100 kgs steel block on you. Afterwards, when you have been crushed, I retrieve my 100 kgs steel block from the mess that were you, so I can drop it on someone else.

What happened to your 30 000 tons?
 
Heiwa said:
Example? 30 000 tons of solid, rigid, uniform density, indestructible mass (an upper block) is dropped and destroyed something much bigger. What happened to this upper block afterwards? Did it disappear? When, where? It is a fantastic mass.

Another example. I drop a 100 kgs steel block on you. Afterwards, when you have been crushed, I retrieve my 100 kgs steel block from the mess that were you, so I can drop it on someone else.

What happened to your 30 000 tons?
Click to expand...
So reality no longer matters to you I see. Keep trying to convince the children. Adults know better (and children aren't as gullible as you think).
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
So reality no longer matters to you I see. Keep trying to convince the children. Adults know better (and children aren't as gullible as he thinks).
Click to expand...
I guess he doesn't think that multi-story pile of debris included the upper portions of the buildning at all.
It is amazing that children that young can type so well, isn't it?
 
I have a layman's question....

Do the simplifying assumptions of Seffen & Bazant, that Heiwa seems obsessed with (uniform density, unbreakable rigid upper block etc), make global collapse more or less likely than a more sophisticated analysis would?

If they make collapse less likely it seems Heiwa's position is untenable.

If it makes collapse more likely, has a more realistic analysis been carried out?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom