Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

Status
Not open for further replies.
This whacky theory of charges placed in the lower levels to cause an evacuation is even more stupid when you consider that there had to have been huge containers of Class A accelerants of some sort placed in the elevator shafts to produce the effects observed, such as the massive burns to most of the victims in that area.
 
Heiwa said:
Suggest this thread is being Moderated to get back to topic!
Click to expand...
Why, the OP is dirt dumb and makes no sense? WTC1 and WTC2 fell due to impacts, fire and gravity. You make up stupid statements and fail to prove me wrong and even deny aircraft were involved. The OP is a failure like all your work on 911. You can't get published in a journal with the tripe you peddle.

You are proved wrong twice 7 years, 7 months and 21 days ago. That is failure before the fact.
 
TheRedWorm said:
That doesn't address the issue of scale. Think about it this way: If I throw a bullet at a watermelon, what happens? Now what happens when I fire a bullet at the same melon? Remember, the only difference in my example is scale.
Click to expand...
TheRedWorm said:
Is scale important in the way physical reality operates, "heiwa," yes or no?
Click to expand...

Maybe KreeL could take a shot at this, too.
 
WildCat said:
What does that link have to do with the shafts?
Click to expand...

Dogtown - "Probably, with an assist from a falling elevator car!"

If you thought I was replying to you, I can only take your ilk one at a time.

As for shafts, there were only 3 that went from the impact zone all the way to the bottom.

What you should explain is a roaring fireball traveling downward through a shaft for apx. 1/4 mile not snuffing itself out from lack of oxygen and retaining enough energy to blow up the sublevel and damage the lobby.

I'll wait for your reply, wildcat.

As this thread got off topic while Heiwa was gone, I will resume it in another thread so his can continue on topic.
 
Last edited:
KreeL said:
Dogtown - "Probably, with an assist from a falling elevator car!"

If you thought I was replying to you, I can only take your ilk one at a time.
Click to expand...
I thought you were replying to me because you quoted me. :rolleyes:

As for shafts, there were only 3 that went from the impact zone all the way to the bottom.
Click to expand...
There were actually 6 that went from the 78th floor to the ground level, and those were quite big and multiple elevators used them.

Glad to see you acknowledge that there was a way for fuel to get from the impact zone to the lobby and basement.

What you should explain is a roaring fireball traveling downward through a shaft for apx. 1/4 mile not snuffing itself out from lack of oxygen and retaining enough energy to blow up the sublevel and damage the lobby.
Click to expand...
So close, and yet so far you are.

The fireball used up all the oxygen shortly after impact. This left a lot of fuel - most of it in fact - unburned and free to flow down the elevator shafts. It didn't just go down one shaft either, but multiple ones. It then ignited in the shafts, and quite explosively. Multiple people reported smelling fuel in the lobby and basement levels.

This is understood by every actual expert on the planet and most lay people as well. Truthers, OTOH, are unable to comprehend such basic things such as the fact that fuel needs oxygen to ignite.
 
Last edited:
Heiwa,

Do you mean to say that you don't think the building would have fallen straight down, but would have fallen over?

I apologize if you have already explained this, I didn't read the entire thread and I couldn't figure it out from the link in your OP.
 
Typicallucas said:
Heiwa,

Do you mean to say that you don't think the building would have fallen straight down, but would have fallen over?

I apologize if you have already explained this, I didn't read the entire thread and I couldn't figure it out from the link in your OP.
Click to expand...

Please read tha title of this thread and post #1.
 
Typicallucas said:
Heiwa,

Do you mean to say that you don't think the building would have fallen straight down, but would have fallen over?

I apologize if you have already explained this, I didn't read the entire thread and I couldn't figure it out from the link in your OP.
Click to expand...
He is saying the buildings can't fall even if you drop the top section from 2 miles up onto the bottom section.

He is saying the WTC can't fall down due to impacts, fire and gravity unlike the chief structural engineer who built the towers says they did.

He has zero ability to understand gravity, he welds ships and has a delusional web page.

He can't explain his delusions he will tell you to read the OP; which makes no sense anyway, but he has no clue.
 
Typicallucas said:
Heiwa,

Do you mean to say that you don't think the building would have fallen straight down, but would have fallen over?

I apologize if you have already explained this, I didn't read the entire thread and I couldn't figure it out from the link in your OP.
Click to expand...

The Topic Title is undefined as to what it means.
The key phrase in the OP is:
...However, the one-way crush down process is not possible under any circumstances...
Click to expand...

Now you have to choose whether or not you want to apply this to the collapses at the WTC on 9/11 because there are two (at least) possible contexts for Heiwa's poorly defined topic.

Context One: Global Context
If you take the statement as being global with no limit to WTC only it is a false claim. Such has been demonstrated many times. It is not GLOBALLY true and Heiwa has made multiple qualifications, limitations and equivocations on that scope in an attempt to limit the statement to situations where it may be true OR to avoid debate of the flaws in the statement.

Context Two: Limited to WTC Collapses on 9/11.
The use of the word "crush" is misleading and ambiguous. The WTC collapses were not "crush down" in any rational meaning of the word. They all occurred by selective removal of structural elements out of load bearing roles OR of weakening of those elements. The mechanisms overall were not "crush down" at the overall structural level though some component parts would have been subjected to crushing.

So the OP title and OP itself are ambiguous or undefined.

We can only surmise as to the reason - the posting member Heiwa has many times been advised of the true situation and the many faults in his suggestions whether global or related to WTC 9/11.
 
Last edited:
My question was not answered, Heiwa. I didn't read the whole thread, but I did read the first few pages including the title and the OP.

Do you mean to say that you don't think the building would have fallen straight down, but would have fallen over?
 
Typicallucas said:
My question was not answered, Heiwa. I didn't read the whole thread, but I did read the first few pages including the title and the OP.

Do you mean to say that you don't think the building would have fallen straight down, but would have fallen over?
Click to expand...

If you read the link in post #1 you see that I don't think the building would have fallen down ... or over for that matter. The lower part of the building will simply damage the part above dropping down on it and arrest it. It happens every time.

Just go up to the top of any building and drop something on it. It is quite safe! The building will not collapse.
 
Heiwa said:
If you read the link in post #1 you see that I don't think the building would have fallen down ... or over for that matter. The lower part of the building will simply damage the part above dropping down on it and arrest it. It happens every time.

Just go up to the top of any building and drop something on it. It is quite safe! The building will not collapse.
Click to expand...


It's amazing that you never move past square one. Is dropping a bag of potato chips on the building the same as dropping a smaller building one-third as big as the first one? In both cases, the crush-up equals the crush-down.

The bag of chips will not cause a collapse. The smaller building will.
 
Bolding mine
Heiwa said:
If you read the link in post #1 you see that I don't think the building would have fallen down ... or over for that matter. The lower part of the building will simply damage the part above dropping down on it and arrest it. It happens every time.

Just go up to the top of any building and drop something on it. It is quite safe! The building will not collapse.
Click to expand...

Live and dead loads will flatten any building provided the force is large enough. Examples: Royal Plaza Hotel, Thailand 1993 / Sampoong Department Store, S. Korea 1995 / 11-story apt bldg, Konya Turkey 2004 / 12-story building, Alexandria Egypt 2007. All of them collapsed under their own weight. If you dropped a bowl of cereal on these buildings just before their collapse that might have triggered the failure.

I work with the engineering and construction industry and I can tell you that for every high-rise building there needs to be a lot of structural engineering using advanced software to make sure that the building will be able to withstand the dead-load, live-load, seismic, sheer, wind, roof loads, and other forces.

These buildings are engineered to withstand a certain percentage over the maximum forces they are expected to be subjected to and meant to have redundant support systems in case part of the building fails. But any building will be destroyed if subjected to enough force.

Buildings aren't special things that can withstand any force applied in a downward direction. I think you should revise your position to state "a building won't fall unless it is bearing a load greater than it has the capacity to support."

Then show that the force exerted by the sagging structure on the weakened structural members in the WTC towers wasn't great enough to cause a collapse. I think that you have jumped to an unfounded conclusion here, I don't see adequate evidence to support your claim.
 
Typicallucas said:
Buildings aren't special things that can withstand any force applied in a downward direction. I think you should revise your position to state "a building won't fall unless it is bearing a load greater than it has the capacity to support."

Then show that the force exerted by the sagging structure on the weakened structural members in the WTC towers wasn't great enough to cause a collapse. I think that you have jumped to an unfounded conclusion here, I don't see adequate evidence to support your claim.
Click to expand...

Topic is a one-way crush down - small part C of structure crushing big part A below and if that can destroy a composite steel structure from top down. In my view it is not possible. A will destroy C! That flimsy buildings collapse for other reasons is not the topic.
 
You seem to approach this like it is as simple as A is bigger and stronger than C so it will win in a fight.

Regardless of your view. Tens of thousands of tons of C dropping 3.7m had more than enough energy to overwhelm and defeat the integrity of A. Until you or someone else can provide credible evidence that there is a different cause for the collapse this remains the case.

In my view you should be more prudent when espousing opinions about something that has been covered by many competent engineers in applicable fields. Your defiant stance against the expert consensus while not having much to back it up except for musings and intuition is unflattering.

The other collapses are related to this topic. They failed because the load on the structure was greater than it could support. They all failed suddenly and completely. When the load (in the case of the WTC the uneven distribution of thousands of kg falling onto bent and broken supports) became greater than the structure could bear there was a chain of failures throughout the whole structure leading to complete collapse.

If you dropped a pack of playing cards from 3.7m onto a house of cards made out of 5 decks of playing cards. Do you think the "crush-down" would be equal to the "crush-up?" (4/5 of the house would remain standing.)

If you dropped 50 jenga blocks from 3.7m on a replica of the tower of pisa made out of jenga blocks. Do you think the "crush-down" would be equal to the "crush-up?" (all but 50 blocks still standing.)

If you dropped an aquarium from 3.7m onto the roof of the Empire State Building, the aquarium would be infinitely more "crushed" than the building. You could drop aquariums on the roof at a rate of 1000 per minute for the next 100 years and you would never see an equal amount of crushing of the building.

If we dropped a 1 story house on my 3 story house from 3.7m would you feel safe on the 2nd floor of my house during the experiment?

This whole idea of "crush-down = crush-up" is totally made up nonsense and doesn't apply to collapsing buildings.
 
Typicallucas said:
1. You seem to approach this like it is as simple as A is bigger and stronger than C so it will win in a fight.

2. Regardless of your view. Tens of thousands of tons of C dropping 3.7m had more than enough energy to overwhelm and defeat the integrity of A. Until you or someone else can provide credible evidence that there is a different cause for the collapse this remains the case.

3. This whole idea of "crush-down = crush-up" is totally made up nonsense and doesn't apply to collapsing buildings.
Click to expand...

1. Well, having investigated 100+ ship collisions it seems the bigger object A always wins. Compare little Titanic (C) with the big iceberg (A), etc.

2. No, hundred thousands of tons of A structure easily overwhelm and defeat the integrity of C structure. Iceberg (A) defeating (C) is a good example.

3. Pls inform Prof. Bazant & Co, and NIST. I fully agree.

Thanks for your comments.
 
Heiwa said:
2. No, hundred thousands of tons of A structure easily overwhelm and defeat the integrity of C structure. Iceberg (A) defeating (C) is a good example.

Thanks for your comments.
Click to expand...

The difference is that the falling portion of the building (C) only needs to retain its mass and velocity to continue to destroy the larger undamaged portion of the building (A). It is unimportant whether (C) remains as an intact and usable office space. It progressively destroys (A) while becoming more massive and gaining more velocity. C need not destroy A in one instant, just floor by floor.

Alignment with gravity is an important distinction between falling buildings and ship/icebergs collisions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom