Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

[Grizzly Bear]

No, the WTC towers completely collapsed due to controlled demolition. That much is known and Heiwa is correct that the present official story is nonsense as part C would be destroyed before it ever accomplished the complete destruction of part A.

This argument is about as effective as saying 15% cannot destroy 85%. It's irrelevant. You and Heiwa are treating the global failure as a single failure. The nature of the collapse was progressive, meaning individual parts of the system that made up the structural integrity of the entire lower section failed in rapid succession. If the individual components of the structure could hold up against the mass, then maybe this argument would have some weight, but as it happened, this is not the case. Heiwa compares the towers to lemons and pizza boxes. I'll take it that you see nothing wrong with such comparisons, in which case you've lost any credibility you might have had with me. That's ignorance.

Were you in NYC that day? If so, it would explain a lot about your intransigent behavior towards those investigating this gigantic crime.

I don't condone Beach's approach to arguing... but frankly speaking I saw nothing surprising about the collapse of the towers when it happened, and I see nothing surprising about it now. The fact that architects & engineers who support this fantasy can't even do proper case studies when they choose their precedents, or in this case where Heiwa sees it fit to start comparing fruits to buildings frankly sad in my opinion. I would think professionals working in this field trying to expose a crime with percieved government complicity should have higher standards for the studies they perform. It doesn't look good when they make far simpler mistakes than the intentional cover up they accuse others of creating.

 

[alienentity]

ASDES (Attention Seeking Dead-Ender Syndrome)

You must then think that the only mousetraps which should have gone off in this video are the ones that were initially hit by the first ball. One ball sets off one trap...

..but what happens with the ball from the 2nd trap? It joins the first and continues to bounce and set off additional traps...

Disclaimer to truthers: I'm not saying that the WTC towers were like mousetraps or ping-pong balls....I'm simply illustrating a CONCEPT which you seem to be unable to grasp.

The video link doesn't seem to work!

ps, that's why I call this type of behavior ASDES (Attention Seeking Dead-Ender Syndrome)

 

[Heiwa]

This argument is about as effective as saying 15% cannot destroy 85%. It's irrelevant. You and Heiwa are treating the global failure as a single failure. The nature of the collapse was progressive, meaning individual parts of the system that made up the structural integrity of the entire lower section failed in rapid succession.

Single failure? Collision! Elastic compression of structural upper part C and lower part A, plastic deformation of elements in parts C and A, first failure of elements in either part C or part A - probably C, displacement of part C further down, modified contact between parts C and A, renewed local elastic compression, further plastic deformation and failures, probably in C with weakest elements and joints, &c, is my treatment of the start of the matter, if there is collision.

You see, it is very unlikely that the result would be that only individual elements of the entire lower section part A would fail in rapid succession, while the hero escapes to the upper part ... and then jumps out to tell the world. It only happens in Hollywood type action movies to impress the viewers.

 

[alienentity]

Junk science and ASDES

Single failure? Collision! Elastic compression of structural upper part C and lower part A, plastic deformation of elements in parts C and A, first failure of elements in either part C or part A - blah blah blah,

Full blown case of ASDES and endless repetition of bad ideas....that's Heiwa in a nutshell.

It's 2009, time to move on and let those people R.I.P.

Time to find another claim to fame buddy. Your nonsense is helping no one.

 

[WildCat]

Hmm.... you've "forgotten" about this, already?



Seems to work pretty well. Just my non-engineers opinion, but I'd guess that the reason that collapse looks remarkably to the WTC collapses is that it was remarkably similar: weakened columns were pulled out of the way, and gravity did the rest. And neither seems to be very similar to a stack of pizza boxes.

Heiwa? Heiwa? Heiwa?

Is this thing working?

 

[Heiwa]

Full blown case of ASDES and endless repetition of bad ideas....that's Heiwa in a nutshell.

It's 2009, time to move on and let those people R.I.P.

Time to find another claim to fame buddy. Your nonsense is helping no one.

Topic is Why a one-way Crush down is not possible. It is not a bad idea to know why.

 

[beachnut]

No, the WTC towers completely collapsed due to controlled demolition. That much is known and Heiwa is correct that the present official story is nonsense as part C would be destroyed before it ever accomplished the complete destruction of part A.

The only thing that isn't known for sure right now is exactly how it was done. We do know many of the possible methods and I think your mouth could certainly be a candidate. Were you in NYC that day? If so, it would explain a lot about your intransigent behavior towards those investigating this gigantic crime.

You are a liar without evidence.

Fire destroyed the WTC after aircraft impacts 7 and 11 times greater in kinetic energy than the design impact kinetic energy of 187 pounds of TNT. You can't do the physics or the research to figure out 911. You produce delusional papers. Good job pushing lies, hearsay, and fantasy.

The best you can do is fail at even insults. Your position on 911 is a lie proved wrong on 911. You don't understand structures and physics so you are off in super thermite land with the biased Jone made up scam or you need explosives. 19 terrorist did 911 and you fail when you try to apologize for them and blame others without one piece of evidence in 7 years. Welcome to Bigfoot status where pure faith in your failed opinions rules. You can't do the math, you can't do the physics but you can spew out the delusion.

For the new kids watching a CT as big as what Tony has would be bigger than Watergate; Watergate was solved and a Pulitzer Prize was in less than two years; it is year 7 and Tony and 911Truth have no viable story, no evidence, and no Pulitzer Prize. Poor Heiwa can't even get published with his scam and will also fail to earn the Pulitzer.

 

[alienentity]

Topic is Why a one-way Crush down is not possible. It is not a bad idea to know why.

Enough of these red herring concepts already. It doesn't matter if the upper block collapses and compresses also, which it does eventually. The density and velocity of the collapse wave increases with time, only adding to the destruction.

Perhaps you've never seen the effects of a landslide. Where I come from the most famous one it the Hope slide. In spite of the fact that the mass of material was not a single block, it had mind-boggling destructive energy, thanks to its mass and the gravitational acceleration.

Once the mass of the upper block of the WTC tower starts to accelerate, there is no need for additional explosives to obliterate the rest of the structure. There is also no need to endlessly explain this concept to the world - it's long past time to move on and let the dead rest in peace.

If you wish to make your name, perhaps you can find something more constructive and worthwhile besides dredging up a false theory that your own government blew up the WTC buildings. You clearly have no respect for the truth, nor respect for the judgments of people with far more qualifications and knowledge than yourself, and are little more than a quasi-academic low life.

You sir, do not deserve respect. You are a disgrace to to scientific inquiry and a disingenuous charlatan.

 

[alienentity]

Honestly, I don't know why anybody gives these idiots the time of day. They are self-appointed 'experts' who have in no way earned the right to become world authorities on the subjects at hand.
They have absolutely NOT gone thru the careful and necessary training in the fields they are now involved with, have not mentored with the relevant experts to hone their skills, have not started their current inquiries by publishing in respected, peer reviewed publications. (Sorry Tony S., the Journal of 9/11 Studies doesn't qualify as a respected, peer reviewed journal - we know who the editorial board are. You're not fooling anyone but the ignorant and gullible)

In short, they have bypassed all the academic checks and balances which are there to establish some quality control, some basic scientific standard, and instead are presenting themselves as world-leading experts.

This is a fraudulent, shallow, and blatantly dishonest approach. There is no point in mincing words about it. It is pseudo-science masquerading as legitimate research, because it has already reached the doctrinal conclusion of:
Controlled demolition
Vast government conspiracy

and is now setting out to skew any analysis in favour of the desired conclusion.

It would be fair to term these efforts as 'anti-science', for their success would mean the adoption of false conclusions, faulty reasoning and ignorance over enlightenment and wisdom. The triumph of the modern witch hunt over fair and rational inquiry.

The 9/11 'truth' movement is an oxymoronic title for a modern-day witch hunt. The henchmen of this witch hunt, posting on this thread, should be vilified accordingly.

 

[alienentity]

The Controlled Demolition theory put forward by the likes of Heiwa and Tony S. is an outright falsehood.
Two of the most qualified demolition experts in America, Mark Loiseaux and Brent Blanchard have dismissed this idea as completely implausible. They are of course ignored by the witch-hunt specialists who are now haunting the internet with their morbid conspiracy myths and pseudo-science.

 

[Heiwa]

Once the mass of the upper block of the WTC tower starts to accelerate, there is no need for additional explosives to obliterate the rest of the structure. There is also no need to endlessly explain this concept to the world - it's long past time to move on and let the dead rest in peace.

One reason Why a one-way Crush down is not possible (Topic) is that the upper part C has no chance to accelerate, because part A structure acts as a very effective damper. Unless it is obliterated by, e.g. explosives, of course, which would make the dead turn in their graves.

 

[Heiwa]

The Controlled Demolition theory put forward by the likes of Heiwa ... is an outright falsehood.

Topic is Why a one-way Crush down is not possible! Controlled demolition experts know this very well and thus uses other methods to demolish structures.

 

[AndrewIlluminatus]

Sorry, Andrew. Again, you do not have a grasp of the facts. Simply observe one of my videos, for example
http://tinyurl.com/ctgt5z
and you can see this for yourself. If you're going to purport to deal in facts, shouldn't you have a few? So far you're batting a pretty poor average, dude.

I have never "purported to be dealing" in "facts". Quite the opposite, I have no idea what the "facts" are and I suspect that there is a lot of bogus information out there. Which would be why we should really talk of competing theories, rather than "facts" IMO. Thank you for your interesting video but the problem is, of course, that video is open to manipulation in computers that could easily change the timing and frame rate. Unless we have actually taken the video ourselves then we cannot be certain that the video source that we are using or seeing has not been corrupted in some way to try to make a propaganda point either for the Thesis or Antithesis in the Hegelian Dialectic conflict. Yes, I was aware that the penthouse had apparently fallen first and that the rapid western parapet drop time did not take that part of the collapse into account. The implosion theory was of course that the centre of the building should drop first, to pull the exterior walls inwards to fall on top of the pile, to protect Verizon and the Post Office from damage. Because unlike WTC1 & 2 that had usefully exploded to create fallout to damage to 3, 4, 5 and 6, WTC7 should not explode to cause damage outside the WTC complex. The WTC complex that was scheduled for redevelopment and for the necessary human sacrifice to act as a "Casus belli" pretext for war.

Now whether or not this kind of stuff is aired on TV in the USA or not (I would not know), this is the kind of video stuff that Europeans get to see on the WTC7 event.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58h0LjdMry0

Indira Singh was a volunteer civilian Emergency Medical Technician at the World Trade Centre on September 11th. She was a Senior Consultant for JP Morgan Chase in Information Technology and Risk Management. Singh was responsible for setting up triage sites for the seriously injured and walking wounded. These sites were closed down and consolidated one by one as the day wore on. Appearing on the Pacifica show Guns and Butter, Singh describes her experience to host Bonnie Faulkner.
http://prisonplanet.com/audio/090207groundzero1.mp3

SINGH: "After midday on 9/11 we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down. If you had been there, not being able to see very much just flames everywhere and dark smoke - it is entirely possible - I do believe that they brought Building 7 down because I heard that they were going to bring it down because it was unstable because of the collateral damage. That I don't know I can't attest to the validity of that all I can attest to is that by noon or one o'clock they told us we had to move from that triage site up to Pace University a little further away because Building 7 was going to come down or be brought down."

HOST: "Did they actually use the word "brought down" and who was it that was telling you this?"

SINGH: "The fire department. The fire department. And they did use the words 'we're gonna have to bring it down' and for us there, um, observing the nature of the devastation it was, it made, total sense to us that this was indeed a possibility, given the subsequent controversy over it I don't know."

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/090207broughtdown.htm
"The following video from CNN clearly shows fire fighters and police telling the public to get back because Building 7 was about to come down and in the words of the cameraman was about to "blow up.""

 

[alienentity]

Topic is Why a one-way Crush down is not possible! Controlled demolition experts know this very well and thus uses other methods to demolish structures.

Heiwa - again, you are not learning. There were no explosives detonated to destroy the perimeter columns. Your theory fails instantly. It is bogus.

Stop the madness and move on. Do it now.

 

[alienentity]

Heiwa's current red herring is based on the false premise that the outer columns didn't bow and fail as seen on the video evidence.

As it is based on a false assumption, easily demonstrated as such, it must be discarded as nonsense.

There were no explosive detonations, Heiwa. We know this. You cannot dissemble your way out of the facts except on a truther site, where 'facts' are fit to the conspiracy doctrine.

You fail. You have lost.

 

[beachnut]

I have never "purported to be dealing" in "facts". ...

You make up the dumbest posts on 911 and we know you have no fact or evidence to support the idiotic ideas you have on 911. This is a skeptic forum and you bring lies, hearsay, and delusions. Good job.
You are off topic and using prisonplanet claptrap as your source for failed stupid delusions.

Please post on topic and help Heiwa's failed ideas on 911, not random posting of junk. I know you have not fact you use hearsay, cherry-picked junk, and fantasy to weave your half-baked tripe.

Topic is - Big clue time -

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 .

Can you help the pizza box engineer? He needs some.

 

[bill smith]

Heiwa's current red herring is based on the false premise that the outer columns didn't bow and fail as seen on the video evidence.

As it is based on a false assumption, easily demonstrated as such, it must be discarded as nonsense.

There were no explosive detonations, Heiwa. We know this. You cannot dissemble your way out of the facts except on a truther site, where 'facts' are fit to the conspiracy doctrine.

You fail. You have lost.

Alien entity csn you explain how the 250-odd columns that till remained connecting the upper 10% of WTC1 to the lower 90% failed ? They represented about 85% of the original supporting columns after the plane had destroyed the other 15% . Did they kneel or did they squash down in a concertina fashion ? It's just that people say the top 10% 'dropped' but I can't see how.

 

[Seymour Butz]

One reason Why a one-way Crush down is not possible (Topic) is that the upper part C has no chance to accelerate, because part A structure acts as a very effective damper. Unless it is obliterated by, e.g. explosives, of course, which would make the dead turn in their graves.

Do you agree with Tony's figure that the lower block must resist a 31G hit in order to halt the collapse? This is what your "bounce" statement is based on, correct?

So to use Tony's model of the 30 legged/100lb table with a FOS of 3, you are saying that the table would be able to take 3100lbs without breaking/buckling the legs.

I guess this is where your belief that if you dropped the upper block from 2 miles up, the lower block would survive comes from, eh?

Also, can you explain to us why you say that the upper block would bounce, and not progress, and yet still claim on your website that entanglement would halt the collapse? Aren't they contradictory models?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I have never "purported to be dealing" in "facts". Quite the opposite, I have no idea what the "facts" are and I suspect that there is a lot of bogus information out there.

Apparently the video you posted is no exception. Commission report not covering the building, the first time in history canard, Jowenko's impression without being given any of the context, misleadingly leaving out the first 8 seconds of the collapse of bldg 7, upper corner damage being confused with squibs... that's the way to convince people....


and not really part of this thread that I am aware of

Indira Singh was a volunteer civilian Emergency Medical Technician at the World Trade Centre on September 11th. She was a Senior Consultant for JP Morgan Chase in Information Technology and Risk Management. Singh was responsible for setting up triage sites for the seriously injured and walking wounded. These sites were closed down and consolidated one by one as the day wore on. Appearing on the Pacifica show Guns and Butter, Singh describes her experience to host Bonnie Faulkner.
http://prisonplanet.com/audio/090207groundzero1.mp3

SINGH: "After midday on 9/11 we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down. If you had been there, not being able to see very much just flames everywhere and dark smoke - it is entirely possible - I do believe that they brought Building 7 down because I heard that they were going to bring it down because it was unstable because of the collateral damage. That I don't know I can't attest to the validity of that all I can attest to is that by noon or one o'clock they told us we had to move from that triage site up to Pace University a little further away because Building 7 was going to come down or be brought down."

HOST: "Did they actually use the word "brought down" and who was it that was telling you this?"

SINGH: "The fire department. The fire department. And they did use the words 'we're gonna have to bring it down' and for us there, um, observing the nature of the devastation it was, it made, total sense to us that this was indeed a possibility, given the subsequent controversy over it I don't know."

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/090207broughtdown.htm
"The following video from CNN clearly shows fire fighters and police telling the public to get back because Building 7 was about to come down and in the words of the cameraman was about to "blow up.""

Well you tell me... I've seen prisonplanet's articles before that deal with the fires, and claiming that other examples confirm that the towers should not have collapsed. What I found was that they just show whatever examples they think are worthy and don't even pay attention to whether not their examples had any design differences that would lead to variant performance. They also have a nasty habit of taking every statement that has the word "explosion" in it as meaning that it was absolutely demolition. Context didn't seem to make any difference to them. I read these articles.... can you tell me where they changed these mannerisms that would qualify them for my undivided attention and trust?

 

[alienentity]

Heiwa misrepresents Bazant. I have the pdf 'What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse
of WTC Twin Towers in New York ' published in the 'Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE , Vol. 134 (2008), May 27, 2007
Revised June 22, December 15, 2007, and March 31, 2008

It's not two days after 9/11.

And Heiwa misrepresents the main thesis of the paper, which clearly states on page 3 'The gravity-driven progressive collapse of a tower consists of two phases—the crush-down, followed by crush-up (Fig. 2 bottom).'

Crush-down AND crush-up. Well established and covered in Bazant and Verdure 2007, pp. 312-313.

Again, not two days after 9/11, as Heiwa insists. By my reckoning, 2007 and 2008 are some 6 and 7 years after the event.

And Heiwa still is at a loss to account for the video offered in post 485 by WildCat.

Heiwa, you're busted bad, dude! Your theories are epic fails contradicted by the most basic evidence from 9/11.

Stop flogging this dead horse already. You've lost.