Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

[Furcifer]

@AI- No one has claimed that the collapse acclerated at 1g. There was a negative acceleration due to restistence. This point has been made again and again yet some such as yourself remain willfully ignorant of it. Either show how the deceleration should have been greater than was observed or move on. There isn't one single person here that believes the collapse accelerated at 1g, making analogies to show how this isn't possible is quite boring and useless.

 

[FineWine]

Pretty clearly the 1 and 2 towers were very literally speaking "demolished" and they fell out of the sky in a ripple down explosive manner. Either by low resistance gravity fed kinetic energy explosiveness (gravity weirdly doing two things simultaneously without apparently converting much energy in creating the kinetic explosiveness) or by explosiveness by some other energy input means and gravity only really had the job of getting the already explosively disassembled buildings to the ground.

Speaking of trains, this is where I get off.

 

[AndrewIlluminatus]

You cannot in any way, expect the twin towers to function the same way during a collapse scenario.
TAM

They did not "collapse" they blew up. They blew up so aggressively that they broke windows hundreds of feet away with blast overpressure. They blew up so aggressively they disassembled human bodies and explosively ejected human bone fragments onto surrounding rooftops.

 

[Heiwa]

Moving a number of post over to AAH for bickering. Most were off topic too, but that topic might be okay for another thread in Politics or Social Events if you can manage to do it without bickering. I apologize if some on-topic stuff got moved with this, but there were simply too many posts to try to edit each one. If a point of yours was lost, make it again and leave out the personal attacks.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

Thanks a lot. There are more to remove!
Heiwa!

 

[T.A.M.]

They did not "collapse" they blew up. They blew up so aggressively that they broke windows hundreds of feet away with blast overpressure. They blew up so aggressively they disassembled human bodies and explosively ejected human bone fragments onto surrounding rooftops.

sorry, they collapsed. You can sputter and spew irrelevant nonsense all you want...they collapsed.

TAM

 

[GlennB]

Well, yeah, apart from that one. I mean it could have been just a coincidence, or just lucky, or something....

 

[Ragnarok]

I suppose that video has been doctored then, and all the explosive 'flashes' and 'booms' edited out?

 

[A W Smith]

There was a jolt in WTC 7's collapse after the eight story freefall. It seems the towers were demolished continuously or at least no jolt was evident for the first nine stories. Without a jolt there is no mechanism for natural collapse. You don't seem to understand what Dr. Bazant obviously did when trying to explain it in a natural way.

Apples and Oranges Tony. You are not seriously comparing the collapse of the twin towers to building 7? are you? Top down VS bottom up. The initiating event in building 7 began approximately at floor 13. While in the towers it was in the high nineties north tower And between 80-82 south tower.

 

[Furcifer]

They did not "collapse" they blew up. They blew up so aggressively that they broke windows hundreds of feet away with blast overpressure. They blew up so aggressively they disassembled human bodies and explosively ejected human bone fragments onto surrounding rooftops.

The New World Hotel Collapse: A 6 story hotel collapses and 33 people were killed. One of the 17 rescued was a woman found naked in the debris pile. The force of the wind in the collapse was strong enough to rip the clothes off her body. No explosives were used.

In cased you missed it the point is the air being compressed by the falling floors is strong enough to rip clothes from peoples bodies and eject material great distances.

And FYI, no windows were broke hundreds of feet away due to blast pressure. You made that up.

 

[leftysergeant]

Imagine if you can then, rotating a WTC 1 or 2 by 90 degrees and laying it down horizontally.

And you have instantaneously thrown reality out the window. In your train example, or Heiwa's colliding ships, the energy expended is a single shot. The engines cease to drive the two objects together.

Gravity continued to act about an accumulating mass of debris, resulting in a hiugher release of energy far beyond what trhe towers could absorb.

You do not like this idea simply because it is horizontal and you want the "gathering snowball" effect back?

The gathering snowball is a fact and you are stuck with it. Colliding trains, boats and buses have nothing to do with what we are seeing.

Even though perhaps 40% of the exploded material was ejected sideways and even upwards so was not added to the "weight" (mass X gravity) of the mass of broiling disassembled matter "falling" under the distortion of space called "gravity".

You have nop source for the assumprtion that there was a 40% loss of mass. Even if you did, you still have that 60% gathering speed and over loading the next floor truss, picking up 60% of the mass of the next floor truss and creating that much more kinetic energy with each floor staved in.

The energy is not going away. It is propogating itself.

. OK try the thought experiment again at 45 degrees and then back up to vertical again, deceleration during the impact event will still occur.[/QUOTE]

Why?

The official theory of two objects impacting, and exploding, without any really significant deceleration, is quite simply an impossible hoax concept and a pre-impact acceleration rate of 9.8m/s/s over a short distance is not even that impressively large. Compared to the kinds of very highly energetic collisions that we all know all about from our everyday experience.

You have a constant input of new energy from the breaking of the floors. Why would there be a deceleration?

What color is the night sky in your time/space continuum?

 

[beachnut]

They did not "collapse" they blew up. They blew up so aggressively that they broke windows hundreds of feet away with blast overpressure. They blew up so aggressively they disassembled human bodies and explosively ejected human bone fragments onto surrounding rooftops.

You opinions fall short when it comes to physics. They did not blow up there were no explosives in the WTC on 911.

The gravity collapse did have the energy of over 130 TONS of TNT in each tower. This is what did the damage after the impacts and fires initiated the fall. No need to tell this to me, I can figure it out using physics, properties of steel, study of the WTC design and engineering. But I checked with the chief structural engineer of the WTC who says the OP is hogwash and the WTC fell due to gravity collapse after impact and fires much greater than designed for.

Go get Robertson to explain why Heiwa is wrong and your ideas are wrong too. You can read some of his work on-line if you google effectively.

 

[leftysergeant]

As for windows being blown out of nearby buildings, this was not an indication of explosives, since it occurred only on the path taken by falling debris or that blown about by the turbidity flow at the bottom of the structures, which reached about ten storeys high. Look at the structures with broken windows. You will see dust residues on the facades. The broken windows are all at or below the top of the dust residues. Explosives would have blown out all the facing windows to the height of the towers.

The human body parts were chopped up in the whirling debris of the collapse and expelled under air pressure, or were ejected in the initial impact and explosion of the airplanes.

 

[tsig]

Beachnut, it is not necessary to see the actual jolt.

I would hope you realize that a deceleration would cause a velocity drop and that it would then take the upper block time to regain it's pre-impact velocity. This time turns out to be nearly a second, during which we have taken five measurements since we take them every 167 milliseconds. There is no indication of any velocity drop having taken place, where the velocity was lower than just before impact, it just kept increasing.

Beachnut, you say you are an engineer, although I have yet to see any legitimate calculations or basis for the things you say. I would also mention that calling other engineers delusional is not very becoming of an engineer especially when you make posts like the above.

Anyone who expects the top of the building to fall and then come to rest nestled in the arms of the rest of the building is experiencing a complete disconnect from reality.

 

[beachnut]

That proves one way crush down works.

6 floors take out 6 floors using hydraulic displacement. The 6 lower floors gave up! Just like the WTC when 11 to 20 floors fell down and took out the lower 11 to 20 floors and then the next 11 to 20 floors until they reached the ground ruble pile.

If Heiwa's not possible crush dumbed down engineer was true the lower 6 floors would stop the measly 6 upper floors. Gee the WTC 11 and 20 plus floors were not stopped, why did these 6 floors destroy the lower floors? What is Heiwa trying to say?

What would happen if you dropped that 2 miles first? Two miles?

 

[bill smith]

Now I know what Tony S. meant by 'ever more tortured explanations'. lol

 

[tsig]

Wiki on Axiom:

Sir, me thinks your Axiom is broken.

At the very least it needs sharpening.

 

[beachnut]

Now I know what Tony S. meant by 'ever more tortured explanations'. lol

By now Tony could have earned a Pulitzer Prize for his work on 911, but it is all garbage like your ideas on 911; failed opinions based on idiotic ideas, hearsay, lies and delusions.

Heiwa's failed OP ideas are too easy to understand and this is why the chief structural engineer of the WTC thinks your ideas, Tony's failed work, and Heiwa's ideas are ridiculous. With just high school physics, or some cause and effect from first grade, you would stop supporting failed ideas like the OP and start to make rational ideas on 911.

 

[bill smith]

By now Tony could have earned a Pulitzer Prize for his work on 911, but it is all garbage like your ideas on 911; failed opinions based on idiotic ideas, hearsay, lies and delusions.

Heiwa's failed OP ideas are too easy to understand and this is why the chief structural engineer of the WTC thinks your ideas, Tony's failed work, and Heiwa's ideas are ridiculous. With just high school physics, or some cause and effect from first grade, you would stop supporting failed ideas like the OP and start to make rational ideas on 911.

Can you fix it for Les Robertson to pop in for a chat with us ?

 

[beachnut]

Can you fix it for Les Robertson to pop in for a chat with us ?

I bet you have sourced the debate with Jones. You failed to listen?
He said the CD claims are ridiculous. You can research it but you are not looking for truth about 911, you are spewing delusions like Heiwa's failed OP.

It was funny listening to Jones with Robertson talking about 911. Jones had delusions, Robertson had reality. You have delusions, and you fail to seek out knowledge to correct your failed ideas.

Robertson clearly makes the OP a failed delusion. Google it and try to use some sound judgment before your believe the idiotic ideas you support.

So what is your engineering and physics background that makes you an expert to support Heiwa's ideas instead of believing Robertson who said the gravity collapse of his towers was how they would fall after failure due to impact and fire?

Robertson would speak you would ignore. His work is on the internet, there is an interview done with Jones, and you like Jones' lies you will not accept the truth from Robertson (the chief structural engineer for the Towers). You prefer the lies from 911Truth; Robertson's work refutes the OP and you can't present any evidence to support your failed 911Truth ideas. You have never presented evidence you may have evidence to support your ideas on 911. That sums up your failed posts on 911; you are a follower, not an action oriented go get the Pulitzer Prize will all your evidence guy.

 

[bill smith]

I bet you have sourced the debate with Jones. You failed to listen?
He said the CD claims are ridiculous. You can research it but you are not looking for truth about 911, you are spewing delusions like Heiwa's failed OP.

It was funny listening to Jones with Robertson talking about 911. Jones had delusions, Robertson had reality. You have delusions, and you fail to seek out knowledge to correct your failed ideas.

Robertson clearly makes the OP a failed delusion. Google it and try to use some sound judgment before your believe the idiotic ideas you support.

So what is your engineering and physics background that makes you an expert to support Heiwa's ideas instead of believing Robertson who said the gravity collapse of his towers was how they would fall after failure due to impact and fire?

The plane was one half of one tenth of one percent of the building's weight. The fires were small. The two quarter-nile high half-million ton buildings both collapsed straight down at close to freefall speed within an hour of being struck.
And you ask me to believe Robertson ?