Moderated Steel structures cannot globally collapse due to gravity alone

[ElMondoHummus]

Ae91truth.org now has 610 gigned up professionals who are demanding an independent investigation. Can you name a similar body of professionals who support the official story ? You guys use a figure of 0.0001% of the world's engineers, but how may of those have actualy been individually asked what they think in a structured way involving lists of names ? Z-E-R-O.

First of all, that's a dumb way to frame the issue. Engineers and building professionals who've rendered opinions on either the governmental reports or the conspiracy theories have done so in other ways than joining some internet list. A Purdue team, for example, has actually published work validating an aspect of the NIST report. A trio of researchers from Worcester Polytechnic Institute have done work established the presence of a chemical reaction that established one aspect of the fire occuring and refutes the notion of thermite being used. A University of Edinburgh team has done work that actually criticizes specific elements of the NIST main tower reports, but does so in a way that validates the notion of airliner impacts and fires leading to the collapse. And that's just off the top of my head; R.Mackey mentioned one or two other groups who's identity I can't remember right at the moment, but who've also done work on individual aspects of the tower collapse narrative and have validated the concept that fires contributed to the impact damage and led to the collapse.

And those are specific examples of teams that have done full studies on their own hook. I haven't even begun to mention researchers who've merely put themselves on record as opposing the conspiratorial proposals. For example, there are all the ones who contributed to the Popular Mechanics work. Here are a few linked on the Debunking 911 site. Above and beyond that, two professors from Brigham Young University have taken issue with Steven Jones's unfounded hypotheses, and they did so independent of the university's own stand, which was also critical of Jones. Heck, Jones's statements alone have drawn a number of criticisms, a small number of which are represented here.

But guess what? It's not about numbers; it's about what people say. I don't care if there are 600, 6,000, or 6,000,000 people signed up at AE911T. Numbers don't impress me. Arguments with validating evidence do, and frankly, the hypotheses forwarded by AE911T fail. They've been refuted time and time again. It doesn't matter how many "Engineers" and "Architects" sign up over there, what matters is that the proposals forwarded by them fail. As demonstrated by the work done and statements given by all the professionals I've linked above.

So please, don't try to establish an argument from authority by invoking the AE911T group again. We're not impressed by it, and their claims are what matter, not who's "signed up" for that site.

 

[twinstead]

I think it does all boil down to the fact that these folks on this forum and others who solemnly declare the generally held explanation of the collapses "impossible" are in no way, shape, or form remotely qualified to do so.

What, exactly, is a layman to think of this situation? On one hand we have pretty much the entire engineering community, from around the world, and on the other hand, we have a few folks on an internet forum being told over and over again by people who appear to know what they are talking about that they don't know what they are talking about.

Hmmm. What to do. What to do.....

 

[tfk]

bill,

It wouldn't be fair if I didn't give you a crack at the same question as Dave Teddy.

In my experience, neither "fair" nor "honest" have ever burdened your discussions. Why bring them into the debate at this point?

Yes, I am sayng hat 1/4'' steel box columns cannot be flexed enough to store sufficient potential energy to throw themselves even 200 feet away from the building let alone three four or five hundred feet away . They will knuckle long long before that point.

Please show me your CALCULATIONS that support these two assertions.

tk

 

[twinstead]

Well I thiink that most of the World's engineers took the official story of 9/11 at face value just as most of the general populaton did. Then here is a proportion who WERE puzzled and know hat something is wrong but tey are fearful of being abelled 'cnsiracy theorists' and do not explore further. Then there are the enginerrs who do noot WANT to know that 9/11 was an inside job and actively resist knowing. This category is widely reflected in the general population. And lastlly there are those engineers and architects who have the courage of their convictions such as the membrs of ae911truth.org of whom our own Heiwa is a distinguised member.

Ae91truth.org now has 610 gigned up professionals who are demanding an independent investigation. Can you name a similar body of professionals who support the official story ? You guys use a figure of 0.0001% of the world's engineers, but how may of those have actualy been individually asked what they think in a structured way involving lists of names ? Z-E-R-O.

Well, at least I know you are towing the party line with your response. That's all I wanted to know.

So you are saying that the rest of the world's experts are keeping quiet, and living the lie by changing building codes and changing college courses based on what they know deep down is a lie, because the are afraid of being embarrassed or losing their jobs, and the brave folks at Ae91truth.org are working hard to bring the undeniable "truth" behind the collapses to the world. What a crock.

Your Ae91truth.org is a sham. They know it. You know it. That's the reason why after almost 8 years you folks are still debating on relatively obscure internet forums, blogs, and YouTube. You can rationalize "WHY" all you want, but the reason why most experts in the world aren't paying attention to you is because you're WRONG.

It can't get more simple than that.

 

[bill smith]

bill,



In other words, you lack the ability to do the calculations required. And are therefore simply pulling 200', 400' & 500' out of your butt. And hoping someone else will come along & do the calculations for you. And should those calculations prove you wrong, you'll simply move along to some OTHER inane bit of arcana.

But, based on extensive evidence in your history, you'll bring up the same refuted argument 3, 6, 9, 12 ... months from now, claiming that the debunked argument supports your conclusions.

Did you bring up the word "disingenuous" recently? How about "dishonest".



"... up to 70 mph ..." That single boundary limit includes 1 mph, 10 mph, 20 mph, 50 mph, etc. At EXACTLY what speed have you decided that "you can assume that springing out played little or no part" in the ejections.

It is both ironic and typical, bill, that your phraseology is getting better. While your understanding remains "stuck on stupid". Of course, it is people like the folks here, who know what they are talking about, who provide you with the correct phrasing. So that you can go off & impress the folks that possess - as hard as it is to imagine - even less understanding that you have.



Rather than offering a baseless attempt at condescension, would you care to attempt to explain how tiddly-winks are actually shot? You might actually learn something relevant.

If you do so, you'll find out that it is actually a variant of the mechanism that Dave has already suggested: levers.



Sherlock was smart enough to NOT base his conclusions on the uninformed opinions of rank amateurs.

tk

It's elementary

Edited by Tricky: 

See mod box here.

You can refute my aruments all you want but until you refute them CONVINCINGLY I will not be persuaded. At that point I will modify my position accordingly but not until then.

500 feet for the 4-ton section is accurate. 73 mph has ben measured for ejecta. That covers all distances and speeds in between so you can withdraw your scurrilous insinuations that I made up these figures.

So can we say that the springing out of columns by the potential energy stored in flexed perimeter box columns has been ruled out for any more than marginal distances of (say 75 feet ? Then we can move on to tiddley-winks.

 

[tfk]

bill,

Well I think everybody knows what you are really saying here Dave. This feels good.

Even if you are blissfully unaware, you are getting well & truly hammered while stating your OWN opinions.

Attempting to invoke a consensus of some imaginary legion supporters will simply subject you to ridicule.

Not that I'd mind the spectacle...

For Teddy's elucidation the box columns were 1/4'' thick steel and 14'' square. He knows the lengths already.

For your edification, no they are not.

Even if you are incapable of performing the calculations, why don't you see if you can take the first little baby step & at least provide an accurate description of the external supports that were thrown X distance.

This should be good...

tk

 

[Dave Rogers]

Well I think everybody knows what you are really saying here Dave. This feels good.
For Teddy's elucidation the box columns were 1/4'' thick steel and 14'' square. He knows the lengths already.

OK then. Your implied statement that "1/4'' steel box columns cannot be flexed enough to store sufficient potential energy to throw themselves even 200 feet away from the building" is incorrect.

Now, on to the next stage in this charade. Please prove that your statement is correct.

Dave

 

[bill smith]

Well, at least I know you are towing the party line with your response. That's all I wanted to know.

So you are saying that the rest of the world's experts are keeping quiet, and living the lie by changing building codes and changing college courses based on what they know deep down is a lie, because the are afraid of being embarrassed or losing their jobs, and the brave folks at Ae91truth.org are working hard to bring the undeniable "truth" behind the collapses to the world. What a crock.

Your Ae91truth.org is a sham. They know it. You know it. That's the reason why after almost 8 years you folks are still debating on relatively obscure internet forums, blogs, and YouTube. You can rationalize "WHY" all you want, but the reason why most experts in the world aren't paying attention to you is because you're WRONG.

It can't get more simple than that.

Why not call loudly for a new independent investigation and prove what you say beyond a doubt ? That'sall we are looking for. It's not too much to ask.

 

[bill smith]

OK then. Your statement that "''Yes, Iam sayng hat 1/4'' steel box columns cannot be flexed enough to store sufficient potential energy to throw themselves even 200 feet away from the building let alone three four or five hundred feet away" is incorrect.

Now, on to the next stage in this charade. Please prove that your statement is correct.

Dave

I'm glad to see you adopt a solid position. I cannot perform the mathematical calculations myself but I know somebody who can. With your permission I will paste this answer and a link into a file and ask Heiwa to perform the calculation when he gets back from skiing. I will wait for Teddy to commit so he can be included.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Heiwa??

Credibility terminated by user. Welcome to ignore.

 

[bill smith]

bill,



Even if you are blissfully unaware, you are getting well & truly hammered while stating your OWN opinions.

Attempting to invoke a consensus of some imaginary legion supporters will simply subject you to ridicule.

Not that I'd mind the spectacle...



For your edification, no they are not.

Even if you are incapable of performing the calculations, why don't you see if you can take the first little baby step & at least provide an accurate description of the external supports that were thrown X distance.

This should be good...

tk

Maybe it was the thicker 3/8'' thick steel. Even more amazing hat the plane cpould fly through 33 of those wasn't it ?

 

[tfk]

bill,

It's elementary my dear Teddy

You can refute my aruments all you want but until you refute them CONVINCINGLY I will not be persuaded. At that point I will modify my position accordingly but not until then.

Your demonstrated and consistent pattern of

1. invoking inane arguments,
2. having your arguments proven wrong, and then
3. resurrecting the very same inane argument at a later date

strongly suggests that you will NOT modify you position under any circumstances.

500 feet for the 4-ton section is accurate. 73 mph has ben measured for ejecta. That covers all distances and speeds in between so you can withdraw your scurrilous insinuations that I made up these figures.

Once again, bill, YOU don't understand. You stated an UPPER bound (~ 70 mph) at which spring back

If you understood the discussion, you should have stated a LOWER bound. e.g., "above X mph, spring back cannot be considered a significant contributor to the mechanism that hurls the objects ... etc"

I didn't insinuate that "you made these figures up".

I state clearly and without equivocation that you don't comprehend the fundamentals of the discussion.

I state clearly and without equivocation that you don't care that you don't understand the fundamentals of the discussion.

So can we say that the springing out of columns by the potential energy stored in flexed perimeter box columns has been ruled out for any more than marginal distances of (say 75 feet ? Then we can move on to tiddley-winks.

Please show me your CALCULATIONS that support this assertion (now for distances over 75 feet).

tk

 

[Dave Rogers]

With your permission I will paste this answer and a link into a file and ask Heiwa to perform the calculation when he gets back from skiing.

To be honest, I don't much care whether your statement is correct or not. As I've pointed out, it's irrelevant, because (a) nobody's claiming it was the mechanism for ejection, and (b) it wasn't 1/4" box columns that were ejected. I've chosen to claim it's incorrect purely to see what your response will be. The response is interesting; you've claimed that you know less about engineering than the proven liar and incompetent engineer Heiwa. Having found out what you were planning all along, I withdraw my denial.

If you want to continue to represent this as my position, please note that you do so without my permission.

Dave

 

[tfk]

OK then. Your implied statement that "1/4'' steel box columns cannot be flexed enough to store sufficient potential energy to throw themselves even 200 feet away from the building" is incorrect.

Dave

Dave,

Did you do the calc? I've been holding off, but I've been sitting here kinda curious about what the results will be.

tom

 

[bill smith]

OK then. Your implied statement that "1/4'' steel box columns cannot be flexed enough to store sufficient potential energy to throw themselves even 200 feet away from the building" is incorrect.

Now, on to the next stage in this charade. Please prove that your statement is correct.

Dave

That's interesting Dave- you deleted the 300,400 or 500 feet. Whay did yyou do that ? Imust include this information in the file.

 

[bill smith]

To be honest, I don't much care whether your statement is correct or not. As I've pointed out, it's irrelevant, because (a) nobody's claiming it was the mechanism for ejection, and (b) it wasn't 1/4" box columns that were ejected. I've chosen to claim it's incorrect purely to see what your response will be. The response is interesting; you've claimed that you know less about engineering than the proven liar and incompetent engineer Heiwa. Having found out what you were planning all along, I withdraw my denial.

If you want to continue to represent this as my position, please note that you do so without my permission.

Dave

Well, as Teddy knows I'm not one to rub salt in the wounds. Your withdrawal and implied apology iis accepted and we'll say no more about it.

So box-column-springing is ruled out- Anyone for tiddley-winks ?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Your withdrawal and implied apology iis accepted and we'll say no more about it.

There is no implied apology. You've made it perfectly clear that you're arguing from a basis of utter ignorance of any engineering principles, and that your response to being called upon to justify your statements is to refer them to an incompetent liar. Any statement you make that turns out to be correct is therefore only so by coincidence, just as a stopped watch is right twice a day. You're a fraud, and not worth anyone's attention.

Dave

 

[tfk]

bill,

I cannot perform the mathematical calculations myself ...

What a non-surprise.

Thank you for admitting that the ENTIRE last several pages of your discussion have been a LONG litany of dishonesty. You were asked a several pages ago to state the basis for your assertion.

Several people have asked you - repeatedly - the same question since then. TRUST ME, bill. They were not asking because they wanted to find out for themselves. They asked as an oblique way to point out TO YOU that your assertion was based on nothing more than your gut feeling.

Instead of answering honestly "It's simply my gut feeling", you attempted to BS your way thru the discussion, wasting everyone's time and effort.

but I know somebody who can. With your permission I will paste this answer and a link into a file and ask Heiwa to perform the calculation when he gets back from skiing.

Ahhhh, imagining that you calling on the "heavy hitters", are you, billy?

I will wait for Teddy to commit so he can be included.

Commit to what?

I know how to do this calculation. It'll take about 15 minutes, including looking up dimensions, to do the static analysis (based on conservation of energy principles).

It'd take another 20 minutes (since I'd have to go look up the specific derivations) to go back and do the dynamic analysis, i.e., calculating what the fundamental resonant frequency of the assembly would be. (You haven't the SLIGHTEST clue what I'm talking about, do you, bill?)

tk

 

[bill smith]

bill,



Your demonstrated and consistent pattern of

1. invoking inane arguments,
2. having your arguments proven wrong, and then
3. resurrecting the very same inane argument at a later date

strongly suggests that you will NOT modify you position under any circumstances.



Once again, bill, YOU don't understand. You stated an UPPER bound (~ 70 mph) at which spring back

If you understood the discussion, you should have stated a LOWER bound. e.g., "above X mph, spring back cannot be considered a significant contributor to the mechanism that hurls the objects ... etc"

I didn't insinuate that "you made these figures up".

I state clearly and without equivocation that you don't comprehend the fundamentals of the discussion.

I state clearly and without equivocation that you don't care that you don't understand the fundamentals of the discussion.




Please show me your CALCULATIONS that support this assertion (now for distances over 75 feet).

tk

I don't need the calculations Teddy. I KNOW that you cannot flex a box-column and make it sping out upto (say)400 feet.I doubt it would go 75 feet either. If you can do it then show me how ? Or maybe an example ? I won't hold my breath as Gravy might say.

 

[bill smith]

bill,



What a non-surprise.

Thank you for admitting that the ENTIRE last several pages of your discussion have been a LONG litany of dishonesty. You were asked a several pages ago to state the basis for your assertion.

Several people have asked you - repeatedly - the same question since then. TRUST ME, bill. They were not asking because they wanted to find out for themselves. They asked as an oblique way to point out TO YOU that your assertion was based on nothing more than your gut feeling.

Instead of answering honestly "It's simply my gut feeling", you attempted to BS your way thru the discussion, wasting everyone's time and effort.



Ahhhh, imagining that you calling on the "heavy hitters", are you, billy?



Commit to what?

I know how to do this calculation. It'll take about 15 minutes, including looking up dimensions, to do the static analysis (based on conservation of energy principles).

It'd take another 20 minutes (since I'd have to go look up the specific derivations) to go back and do the dynamic analysis, i.e., calculating what the fundamental resonant frequency of the assembly would be. (You haven't the SLIGHTEST clue what I'm talking about, do you, bill?)

tk

So- see you bck here in an hour or so ?