-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Proposed Design for Progressive Collapse Demonstration
- Thread starter Myriad
- Start date
Did it take long to come up with this failed idea?
Can you source your revelation?
Would explaining the dynamics of your earth shattering revelation (i.e. the failed statement) be hard to do?
I have to know the details of your statement; can you explain?
What prize are you offering for being proven wrong by a demonstration like mine? Heiwa has offered to put up a million dollars. What do you have? If not a prize you're willing to stake on it, how about a calculation? A rationale for your conclusion? An argument of any kind?
If not, then all you have offered here is your opinion. Now, sometimes offering opinions is quite a sensible thing to do. For instance, opinions are very important for political matters when deciding what to do as a political body, from many possible choices, of which more than one might be valid. (You'll find discussion of many different political matters in the Politics subforum.)
In deciding how physical systems behave, however, opinions are utterly worthless. Sorry.
Respectfully,
Myriad
Nothing of uniform construction can be crushed by 15% of itself.
If your model is of uniform construction and you claim it can be crushed by 15% of itself, then by all means try it out and look silly.
Edited to add that if you can produce a model, you better patent it quick. Demolition companies would campaign to make all buildings in the future in your design to aid them when the time comes to demolish them. Simply kick out a floor near the top and job done!
Honestly, I have no idea where non-toofers get their ideas.
If your model is of uniform construction and you claim it can be crushed by 15% of itself, then by all means try it out and look silly.
Edited to add that if you can produce a model, you better patent it quick. Demolition companies would campaign to make all buildings in the future in your design to aid them when the time comes to demolish them. Simply kick out a floor near the top and job done!
Honestly, I have no idea where non-toofers get their ideas.
Last edited:
Prove it with math.
Your idea is so dirt dumb you forgot the initial conditions.
Please state the source of your claim since you can't support it?
Source?
Just saying something makes you look anti-intellectual. Show the model and math proving your position.
You can't. This is standard post junk and run method of posting stupid ideas.
Last edited:
Nothing of uniform construction can be crushed by 15% of itself.
If your model is of uniform construction and you claim it can be crushed by 15% of itself, then by all means try it out and look silly.
Why are you parroting Heiwa when the engineers here have shown that he's wrong? You think that if the top fifteen floors of a hundred-story building collapse, the whole structure won't collapse? What will stop the collapse? I have asked Heiwa several times and his answers make no sense.
Nothing of uniform construction can be crushed by 15% of itself.
If your model is of uniform construction and you claim it can be crushed by 15% of itself, then by all means try it out and look silly.
Uh oh, an uninformed opinion repeated twice, augmented with a rolling eyes smiley! Now you've got me on the run!
You'll note if you read the OP that I've described the construction of my model, as well as my claim, in considerable detail. There is ample information for deciding whether or not you consider the model "of uniform construction" and on what basis ("uniform" being an extremely imprecise descriptor by itself), and to be aware exactly what I am and am not claiming. There is no need to guess about such matters unless you haven't bothered to read it.
I suggest that you regard reading the OP as a prerequisite for contributing further in this thread. I'm not telling you that "as a moderator;" there's no forum rule requiring you to do so. But since you're keen to offer your opinion as though that mattered in the slightest, shouldn't you at least try not to emphasize how little effort you are willing to make to inform yourself about the topic under discussion?
Respectfully,
Myriad
Too late! I can't patent a process that's already in use by someone else.
Respectfully,
Myriad
Not very wise business sense, myriad.
FineWine - find your head yet?
Had to thank myriad for putting up the demolition which shows how using explosives can indeed cause a global collapse. He fails to understand that explosives removed all the lower supports in sequence allowing the collapse. Exactly like WTC.
FineWine - find your head yet?
Had to thank myriad for putting up the demolition which shows how using explosives can indeed cause a global collapse. He fails to understand that explosives removed all the lower supports in sequence allowing the collapse. Exactly like WTC.
Last edited:
To avoid getting farther off-topic, I suggest that these issues be discussed in the context of the specific model described in the OP.
For instance, KreeL, you have made a prediction that this model would not collapse, with the reason being "resistance." Can you further elaborate on that? Specifically, which part(s) of the model will cause how much resistance, by what mechanisms? (Fracture energy, plastic deformation, friction, or what?) All of the information (except for material properties that can easily be looked up in any engineering handbook) to answer that question is provided; it's waiting only for your analysis as requested in the OP.
Respectfully,
Myriad
Homeland Insurgency
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2008
- Messages
- 1,705
Then why can't you understand it?
Carefully placed HUH? And this would have supported the apple for 30 years?
And what lifted the top of the WTC and dropped it?
Well for one I didn't mean just balance something on the top of something else. The top of the WTC wasn't a spinning plate on a stick.
Of course. It seemed to handle the load just fine.
ETA: I'm of course talking about the model's structural stability under controlled conditions, though it was also stable enough to withstand properly scaled wind, ants crawling over the structure, and minor ground tremors. I'm not saying the apple wouldn't rot in a few weeks.
Cranes (also pumps and elevators) lifted it, a piece at a time, when it was constructed.
Buckling of overloaded heat-weakened columns dropped it. Details here: http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/
No balancing or rotation was involved. The apple was quite stable. Dropping it did not cause it to fall off the foil tube, it caused the tube to be deformed (crushed).
Respectfully,
Myriad
Last edited:
But you did not answer mine. You have stated that no model would collapse, with the reason being "resistance." The topic of this thread is a particular model, that is described in detail in the OP.
Which part(s) of the model that is the topic of this thread will cause resistance?
How much resistance will occur? (An informative answer would include actual numbers with actual units.)
By what physical mechanisms will the resisting parts cause resistance?
Respectfully,
Myriad
Homeland Insurgency
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2008
- Messages
- 1,705
Of course. It seemed to handle the load just fine.
ETA: I'm of course talking about the model's structural stability under controlled conditions, though it was also stable enough to withstand properly scaled wind, ants crawling over the structure, and minor ground tremors. I'm not saying the apple wouldn't rot in a few weeks.
It would not have held the apple under any of those things for long.
You said you lifed up the apple 4 inches and dropped it after it was already in place. 4 inches is the entire height of an apple. Did the so-called upper block of the WTC free fall it's own entire height into the lower structure now with absolutely nothing in between? Did that upper block sustain its entire mass even through just the initiation never mind all the way down? How about your apple when it was over? Was it still intact?
That's not free fall dropping.
The foil tube? Why doesn't the foil have a core? Oh that nasty core foils the debunker again.
1337m4n
Alphanumeric Anonymous Stick Man
- Joined
- May 10, 2007
- Messages
- 3,510
Ah yes, the old "demolition companies would have a much easier job if the official story were true LOLOLOLOLOLOLOOL!!!!!1!!11!!1!111" argument. As if we haven't heard this old canard a hundred times before.
Tell me, KreeL: how many demolitions experts believe 9/11 to be an inside job?
How many, KreeL?
Hmm, so what you actually wanted was a model that will not collapse in an earthquake, but will collapse if the upper part is "shifted," by, for instance, an earthquake. Had you made that clear earlier, I would have realized that the task you set me earlier:
actually requires the model to collapse and not collapse under exactly the same circumstances. It appears I've wasted five minutes chasing rapidly moving goalposts.
I shifted it four inches. That's not very far compared to, for instance, the height of a wtc floor. If you wanted a different parameter envelope for the shifting, you should have specified one before making such a broadly general claim. Moving the goalposts after I've proven your claim wrong doesn't help your case, sorry.
So what?
Because I didn't make one, because nothing in your challenge mentioned it was needed. "Make the top part as heavy as you like and the bottom part as light and flimsy as you wish, as long is it has a core." Some of those words don't appear in your post. Can you find which ones?
Also, you've missed a key fact. The apple has a core. And it fell anyhow. This proves 9/11 was not an inside job.
Now, do you have any comments, criticism, suggestions, or predictions about the model described in the OP, which is the topic of this thread? If so, please state them so that they can be discussed.
Respectfully,
Myriad
All of them.