Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

[Furcifer]

Do you mean the steel of the 48 floor pans that the concrete was poured into on each floor ? Each one 1/48th of an acre in size ? I think they must have vanished in that 9/11 way. There should be a total of 5,000 of them in each footprint but I'm darned if I can find a single one. Nah...they must have vanished...

The rest was a few bits of concrete and a fair amount of loose steel. That was about it really.

Wha? Floor pans? Vanished? Wha?

Anyways... You need only consider the area of contact between the upper and lower section at any given moment, and not their relative masses. Unless you think floors 1-85 (90%) were deformed when the upper section started to collapse, lol! Say it with me... progressive-collapse.

 

[bill smith]

Wha? Floor pans? Vanished? Wha?

Anyways... You need only consider the area of contact between the upper and lower section at any given moment, and not their relative masses. Unless you think floors 1-85 (90%) were deformed when the upper section started to collapse, lol! Say it with me... progressive-collapse.

Lol...that sounds like WTC7. Instant progressive collapse.

 

[Furcifer]

bill never wins at the derby...

bill what would happen at a crash up derby with two identical cars? assume on remains stationary and the other smashes the heck out of the other one? just curious...

 

[bill smith]

bill what would happen at a crash up derby with two identical cars? assume on remains stationary and the other smashes the heck out of the other one? just curious...

If one car was braced against a wall this would be relevent. For the rest have a look at Heiwa's egg analogy a bit further back.

 

[Furcifer]

If one car was braced against a wall this would be relevent. For the rest have a look at Heiwa's egg analogy a bit further back.

Ok then, we will say the stationary one is braced against the wall

What happens then?

 

[bill smith]

Ok then, we will say the stationary one is braced against the wall

What happens then?

They would destroy each other in equal measure.

But imagine that each car had six speced large steel poles welded lengthways through them. Then you can imagine what hapens if the poles meet head on, or pass each other. Might be a fair analogy.

Maybe a VW bug and a school bus might even be closer .

 

[leftysergeant]

Sorry - in my model there is only parts C and A. Anything between parts C and A disappears to enable a free fall drop C on A. No part D!

And with that, your whole conception of what happened ran right down the sewer and out to sea.

Actually there is nothing between C and A except virtual columns that disappear due to FIRE!

There was air to be compressed, there were dangling floor slabs, there were broken pieces of core columns, there were falling desks, chairs, bodies, that sort of thing. There was no cvacuum, no utter lack of material that could be energized by that moving mass coming down on it. Even air has substance. (Witness dust being forced down stairwells and elevator shafts to emerge many floors below as fountains ejected horizontally.

So you suggest part D is compacted between C and A, and then that this part D impacts part A.

Obviously.

Doesn't part D also impact part C?

PartD is not projecting energy upward. It is being pullewd downward, by gravity, along with part C, slamming Part A.

And ... part D is damaging part A before part C gets there???!!!???

Not as seriously as does Part C when it gets there.

... all the way down!!!!

Effectively, no, because it has become a part of Part C once the first floor of Part A has slowed it's descent enough for Part C to catch up with it.

Please, do you suggest that part A is one-way crushed down by a part D of the building that was between A and C before impact? But it was only air? Nothing![/QUOTE]

Air is not nothing. It is something. Put 100 PSI of air into your motorcycle tires and come back and tell me whether it creatres any energetic objects that can damage surriounding. Put your ear to the tire and you can hear it working, even.

[QUOTEAnd please - gravity does not pull in one direction! Gravity is a force of attraction between two masses. Both masses are attracted. It is not like love![/QUOTE]

And Part D found Part A a hell of a lot more arttractive than it did Part C.

 

[Furcifer]

Maybe a VW bug and a school bus might even be closer .

Oh god, please don't tell me your that guy on youtube? Are you? lol, he was priceless. He was friends with "net force=0" boy. Those were the days...

So if I brace a Chevette to the wall then smash the heck out of it and manage to crack up the stationary one worse than the one I'm driving, will you acknowledge the lower section may have been damamged more by the collision(s) than the upper section?

Again, I'm just curious what kind of demonstration would be required to get you to drop your non-sense.

 

[OneRedEye]

However, the one-way crush down process is not possible under any circumstances.

 

[FineWine]

Something like that. But let's be fair! C is not damaged before impact but will be after impact. And get stuck on top of A.

I have been trying to follow this discussion, but I'm getting stuck. A group of floors of the building all fall on top of the ceiling of one floor. You say that they don't immediately smash through and do the same to the floor below and the floor below that. What stops them? I don't get it. How can the ceiling of one floor stop the combined weight of the floors falling on it?

 

[leftysergeant]

That was actually brilliant, ORE. The forces were not being all applied in an orderly fashion. The flexibility that allowed the towers to withstand the winds sort of demanded that evertything move in unison.

The chaos of the falling floor slabs put unpredictable stresses on all other components, making them move in directions in which they were not meant to move.

I think twoofers are twoofers because they just cannot hold two concepts in their field of vision of their minds' eyes at the same time, nor imagine two processes combining to produce the same end result.

 

[Mr.D]

Welcome to the Forum, FineWine,

How can the ceiling of one floor stop the combined weight of the floors falling on it?

Heiwa's theory has the rather dubious advantage of being unconstrained by either reality or a fundamental grasp of physics.

Search around and find his claim that jumping on a scale will not change its reading, then decide for yourself if continuing to attempt understanding Heiwa is worth the time.

 

[FineWine]

Welcome to the Forum, FineWine,



Heiwa's theory has the rather dubious advantage of being unconstrained by either reality or a fundamental grasp of physics.

Search around and find his claim that jumping on a scale will not change its reading, then decide for yourself if continuing to attempt understanding Heiwa is worth the time.

I'm not an engineer or anything. I can't argue with someone who claims to be an engineer. Can't he visualize what happens when all those floors fall at once on the ceiling of one floor? What does he think stops them?

 

[stateofgrace]

I have been trying to follow this discussion, but I'm getting stuck. A group of floors of the building all fall on top of the ceiling of one floor. You say that they don't immediately smash through and do the same to the floor below and the floor below that. What stops them? I don't get it. How can the ceiling of one floor stop the combined weight of the floors falling on it?

It cannot, the floors braced the outside of the building (the external perimeters) to the inner core. Basically the floors simply held two of the massive support elements together, the inner core and the external columns, they braced the towers together. This was actually reinforced by a massive steel structure at the top of each tower, the top hat.

The floors simply held their own weight and another weight that they were designed to take; they were not designed to take massive dynamic weights falling on top of them. The very simple action ,removed one floor, and the next and the next will and did continue all the way down. Simply remove the bracing, quickly and violently, and the entire building will collapse.

What is being suggested and promoted here is that the upper weight didn’t hit the floors but actually fell square onto of the support elements, the columns and core, rather than the bracing elements. What you are being asked to disprove is something that did not happen.Welcome to the forum, welcome to the world of the truthers

 

[FineWine]

It cannot, the floors braced the outside of the building (the external perimeters) to the inner core. Basically the floors simply held two of the massive support elements together, the inner core and the external columns, they braced the towers together. This was actually reinforced by a massive steel structure at the top of each tower, the top hat.

The floors simply held their own weight and another weight that they were designed to take; they were not designed to take massive dynamic weights falling on top of them. The very simple action removed one floor, and the next and the next. It continued all the way down. Simply remove the bracing, quickly and violently, and the entire building will collapse.

What is being suggested and promoted here is that the upper weight didn’t hit the floors but actually fell square onto of the support elements, the columns and core, rather than the bracing elements. What you are being asked to disprove is something that did not happen.Welcome to the forum, welcome to the world of the truthers

Thank you. I'm here to learn. I feel strange disagreeing with an engineer, but what Heiwa says doesn't seem possible.

 

[Shalamar]

Thank you. I'm here to learn. I feel strange disagreeing with an engineer, but what Heiwa says doesn't seem possible.

The proper question to ask is:

What is the load capacity of one of the floors in WTC 1 and 2?

What is the total weight of those buildings above the aircraft impacts?

 

[A W Smith]

As someone brought up before in another thread, once the top fails the next floor it impacts, It does not arrest. This is the point where truthers throw out gravity and attempt to make their survivability case by using a model of impact on a horizontal plane. (VW bugs and school bus for example) But both the top and the floors it collects are constantly gaining momentum due to gravity and have now passed the initial floor of acceleration. They continue to gain momentum as they impact the second and third floor and fail them. The very fact that it failed the first floor during the first 12 feet of acceleration makes global collapse inevitable. Otherwise that first floor would not have failed to begin with because at that point it had the best case scenario for survivability. Once the event moves past that threshold and gathers the mass of that floor collapse arrest becomes impossible. If you notice with every one of heiwas models. the first unit (lemon, sponge, pizza box, whatever) always survives. That behavior alone tells us his modeling examples are meaningless.

 

[stateofgrace]

Thank you. I'm here to learn. I feel strange disagreeing with an engineer, but what Heiwa says doesn't seem possible.

Rest assured what he is suggesting is more than possible; unfortunately it bears zero resemblance to what actually happened to the towers.

Truthers like to play up this imaginary scenario whereby the section above the plane crash simply fell and crushed the rest of the building. In crazytown they will compare the towers to pizza boxes, lemons, eggs and match boxes and it all makes perfect sense, in reality it is simply laughable.

 

[thewholesoul]

Many persons take for granted that steel structures of certain types, e.g. WTC Twin Towers, collapse from top down - one-way crush down - if you start a fire up top. The fire is supposed to weaken support steel structure up top and then the structure above displaces down and one-way crushes the complete steel structure below.
Bazant and Zhou explained this already 2 days after 911.
However, the one-way crush down process is not possible under any circumstances. I explain why at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/mac5.htm .

hey heiwa

i'm a truther and i used to reject the notion of "one crush down collapse" until someone could provide me a demonstration.

dave rogers went a long way to that end when he sent me the following link.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x17lks_demolition-tour-abc-balzac-vitry_news

its the Blzac Vitry demolition. it clearly shows 6 floors above "one way crushing" the rest of the building below (6 floors). one could imagine it would have crushed further floors below (not sure how many or if theres a limit) if further floors existed below.

what are you thoughts on the video link and why does it not support the notion of "one way crush down"?

peace

 

[stateofgrace]

hey heiwa

i'm a truther and i used to reject the notion of "one crush down collapse" until someone could provide me a demonstration.

dave rogers went a long way to that end when he sent me the following link.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x17lks_demolition-tour-abc-balzac-vitry_news

its the Blzac Vitry demolition. it clearly shows 6 floors above "one way crushing" the rest of the building below (6 floors). one could imagine it would have crushed further floors below (not sure how many or if theres a limit) if further floors existed below.

what are you thoughts on the video link and why does it not support the notion of "one way crush down"?

peace

Well ,TWS, I am truly impressed and tip my hat to you. You are finally applying a bit of critical thinking to your posts and asked reasonable questions from the other side of the fence.Keep asking, rational, sane questions like you have just done and maybe, just maybe you will realise, from the answers you get, that you really are being lead down the garden path

Congratulations, welcome back to the real world.