Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

[Heiwa]

Ok, so now you've got the beginnings of proving your theory. Now prove it with maths. What would be the loads seen by the lower columns? Given a FOS of 3, are they strong enough to resist buckling?

Loads seen? Read paper on my website where lower part A columns with FOS 3 do not buckle, if you drop part C on them. If anything breaks, it is weaker elements in upper part C! And nothing ever drops by gravity on the tops of the lower part A columns. They are too small = little cross area!! Any forces just misses them.

See figure above.

 

[Seymour Butz]

Loads seen? Read paper on my website where lower part A columns with FOS 3 do not buckle, if you drop part C on them. If anything breaks, it is weaker elements in upper part C! And nothing ever drops by gravity on the tops of the lower part A columns. They are too small = little cross area!! Any forces just misses them.

See figure above.

So why are you arguing that they will bounce if the columns don't "meet"?

Isn't it contradictory to argue that they will "bounce" AND miss?

You need to pick a scenario.

You can't argue both.

BTW, you also just rendered Tony's paper moot. Congratulations.

 

[Heiwa]

So why are you arguing that they will bounce if the columns don't "meet"?

Isn't it contradictory to argue that they will "bounce" AND miss?

You need to pick a scenario.

You can't argue both.

BTW, you also just rendered Tony's paper moot. Congratulations.

Sometimes the tennis ball contacts the racket frame and goes off in a non-winning direction. But there is always a bounce. Sorry,now I put you on ignore.

 

[Seymour Butz]

Sometimes the tennis ball contacts the racket frame and goes off in a non-winning direction. But there is always a bounce. Sorry,now I put you on ignore.

Good.

Now I can show just how contradictory your statements are without having you reply with the usual rubbish.

Notice what Heiwa is claiming-

That it will bounce, but not off the lower columns since they will miss. That means that they will bounce off the floors, which he in another thread - and critical to his entanglement/friction argument - said that they would fail.

How can that be?

How can the upper block bounce off the lower floors when they also fail at impact?

The answer is - only those without knowledge think this.

 

[tsig]

Sometimes the tennis ball contacts the racket frame and goes off in a non-winning direction. But there is always a bounce. Sorry,now I put you on ignore.

So a tennis racket swatted the towers down?

 

[bill smith]

Didn't Heiwa already do that yesterday when he educated you about how it doesn't take "magic" for the upper block to fit inside the lower block if it's tilted? And again when he corrected your absolutely positive belief that the upper columns had to hit squarely on the lower columns?

Are you a masochist?

As I see it I have two same-size square box units in front of me. I will not get both lower corners of one into he other without distorting the shapes. Feel free to show me where I'm wrong. Use two square pieces of paper to try. Did Heiwa correct me about the column-on-column theory ? Or are you tryng the old 'divide and rule' caper ? lol

 

[Seymour Butz]

Did Heiwa correct me about the column-on-column theory ? Or are you tryng the old 'divide and rule' caper ? lol

I guess you missed this on the top of the page.

Heiwa's post #521

And nothing ever drops by gravity on the tops of the lower part A columns. They are too small = little cross area!! Any forces just misses them.

Yep, you're a masochist.

 

[beachnut]

As I see it I have two same-size square box units in front of me. I will not get both lower corners of one into he other without distorting the shapes. Feel free to show me where I'm wrong. Use two square pieces of paper to try. Did Heiwa correct me about the column-on-column theory ? Or are you tryng the old 'divide and rule' caper ? lol

The columns buckled. Oops, there goes Heiwa's pizza box kids bouncing on beds engineering voodoo.

no explosives no thermite. impact, fire, gravity

 

[bill smith]

I guess you missed this on the top of the page.

Heiwa's post #521

And nothing ever drops by gravity on the tops of the lower part A columns. They are too small = little cross area!! Any forces just misses them.

Yep, you're a masochist.

If the two pieces remained perfectly aligned they WOULD strike. And they looked like they stayed perfectly aligned.

If hey were not perfectly aligned then the columns would miss each other in most cases. So it would depend on whether the pieces ever really seperated which is open to dispute.

 

[bardamu]

Some of the engineers here seem to believe that global crush-down was inevitable after the towers were allegedly hit by planes or at least after iniciation of collapse. Do you think the terrorists were aware of that and the destruction of the towers was intentional, or do you think they only planned to fly planes into the towers and the collapses were unintended icing on the cake?

 

[Seymour Butz]

the towers were allegedly hit by planes

Uh oh, no-planer alert.

 

[Seymour Butz]

If the two pieces remained perfectly aligned they WOULD strike.

This is true, Bill.

But even someone as wrong-headed as Heiwa recognizes that this is impossible.

Are you saying that you have doubts?

Are you admitting to being even more wrong than Senor Heiwa?

 

[ozeco41]

As I see it I have two same-size square box units in front of me.

Good start.

I will not get both lower corners of one into [t]he other without distorting the shapes.

Correct

Feel free to show me where I'm wrong.

You are not wrong . so keep going - PUSH! Then see what happens. Better still try two ways.

1) First Fit the upper box inside the lower one first THEN push. What happens?

2) Second Fit the lower box inside the upper one first THEN push. What happens?

If , both times you start with only two corners inside the other box AND a slight "Tilt", what happens?

bill this is now another example where you ask the right question(s), start down a track which could lead to understanding, then you STOP.

You displayed the video clip which clearly shows that the top block falls inside the lower block. Then, after I pointed that key fact out for everyone to see, Heiwa posted some blurry pictures to "repair the damage "you had done to your "sides" case.

You did not object to Heiwa's "cover up" showing that your loyalty to the cause will win even though yo start to see the truth.

Now your boxes do not have the same balance of strengths that WTC had. So make it OR imagine it as two plywood sided boxes joined at the corners by thin nails - panel pins - or thin staples.

What happens when you push? THe nails or staples will pull out and the outside box will spread.

And, if you do it properly with the top box slightly tilted the first example - top box inside lower box - the two tilted ends will fit inside because the tilted dimension is already less than the untilted lower box AND it readily slips inside even without any "wedging".

Do that and you are well on the way towards modeling what happened with both towers - only the tilt differed.

(And, if your co-Truthers realise you are once again starting to see what really happened and again seek to confuse your clear thinking..... why follow them?)

At the next stage we can put some timber cross pieces into both halves of the box each fixed by one nail or one staple through the plywood side of the box and into the end of the cross member.

Lo and behold we have "Floor Joists" and their "connections to the outer walls" will fail by the wedging alone - in basic English the nails or staples will pull out. And that could be before any "falling load" acts on those "floors.

Don't take that model any further. It proves the start of the collapse.

Use two square pieces of paper to try. Did Heiwa correct me about the column-on-column theory ? Or are you tryng the old 'divide and rule' caper ? lol

...see how you lost the advantage by this drift off the path.

So "Well Done" so far - keep going.

 

[Furcifer]

Some of the engineers here seem to believe that global crush-down was inevitable after the towers were allegedly hit by planes or at least after iniciation of collapse.

No planer? What do you mean by allegedly?

 

[twinstead]

Some of the engineers here seem to believe that global crush-down was inevitable after the towers were allegedly hit by planes or at least after iniciation of collapse.

Actually, most of the engineers both here and in the real world think so.

Do you think the terrorists were aware of that and the destruction of the towers was intentional, or do you think they only planned to fly planes into the towers and the collapses were unintended icing on the cake?

Bin Laden is an engineer. I'm sure he was familiar with how the buildings were constructed and the possibility of collapse, but who knows? He has said he hoped they would collapse, IIRC.

 

[bill smith]

This is true, Bill.

But even someone as wrong-headed as Heiwa recognizes that this is impossible.

Are you saying that you have doubts?

Are you admitting to being even more wrong than Senor Heiwa?

Not at all. Heiwa is busy with proving that one piece of a structure cannot crush another larger piece of an identical structure by gravity alone. For that you have to theorise a drop as Bazant does. Remember that for the government Bazant is the only game in town. Without Bazant there is only controlled demolition.

 

[ozeco41]

Some of the engineers here seem to believe that global crush-down was inevitable after the towers were allegedly hit by planes or at least after iniciation of collapse....

It is true and has been shown numerous times that the collapse once started would inevitably run to completion. That is why you see such a variety of "truther tactics" to evade clear discussion of that simple fact. Even Jones and his thermate is a distraction which stops people forcing him to explain what his thermate was supposed to do - which bits did it "cut". It wasn't needed in the "Global Collapse"

.... Do you think the terrorists were aware of that and the destruction of the towers was intentional, or do you think they only planned to fly planes into the towers and the collapses were unintended icing on the cake?

...as close to 100% certain that nobody foresaw the collapse. It was months after the fall before even the better engineers commenting started to get the explanations "right". And that is true of both sides of the debate - there are still many and from both sides who do not understand "how" the global collapse worked.

 

[alienentity]

[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/Sag1.jpg[/qimg]
The columns buckled. Oops, there goes Heiwa's pizza box kids bouncing on beds engineering voodoo.

no explosives no thermite. impact, fire, gravity

Thanks for posting that. I have been away at rehearsal.

Yes indeed. The problem with Heiwa's irrelevant musings and Tony S.' missing jolt is that they require the exclusion of several easily-verifiable pieces of info, such as the one your picture presents.

The obvious and unmistakable bending of the perimeter columns leading to failure, without a single explosion seen renders both Heiwa's and Tony's self-aggrandizing efforts null and void.
Since it is a fact the columns failed thru increased distortion, since it is a fact that there were no observed explosions to initiate the collapse, the theories are in direct conflict with the best evidence.
They are worse than useless - they are anti-knowledge, disinformation. They do not illuminate, they obfuscate. They do not inform, they indoctrinate.

They are against good science, good judgment, and the evidence.

There can be no happy outcome from the success of such efforts, since they both
a) attempt to remove the focus on the actual perpetrators of the mass murder, in other words AIDING the terrorists who are attacking the US and other nations
b) attempt to find some kind of scapegoat within American society to pin the blame on. This is extremely dangerous, since CD didn't happen at the WTC (there's no good evidence to support that idea) that means there are NO perpetrators to seek out.
So ergo, anybody who becomes a target of this modern witch hunt is then unjustly attacked for something they couldn't have done.

No amount of Heiwa's mangled logic, of truther-inspired investigation, will ever uncover the origin and organization of the alleged conspiracy if it never existed.

This is the kind of thing anti-knowledge will bring to the USA if it persists. It is an unfounded and paranoid attack on fellow citizens and will only succeed in causing misery and harm. There can be no justice in such an enterprise - that is certain.

However Heiwa may choose to dress up this awful scheme, it still fundamentally relies on a paranoid belief in a giant conspiracy to murder American citizens. Dress it up with a few equations to give it the superficial feel of a rational scientific inquiry, it don't matter. We all know where these guys are headed - the next modern witch hunt in America.

Send these idiots back to the dark ages from whence they came.

 

[ozeco41]

Not at all. Heiwa is busy with proving that one piece of a structure cannot crush another larger piece of an identical structure by gravity alone. For that you have to theorise a drop as Bazant does. Remember that for the government Bazant is the only game in town. Without Bazant there is only controlled demolition.

Utter rubbish bill. And you know your claim is untrue - unless you have been posting blind. You have responded to others on this forum.

Bazant is not the only pro government.

AND your opposition is not the government claims - it is the "No Demolition" claims.

At the very least you have my claims against you and I am one who have done my own thinking. And there are others here who have also "worked it out for themselves" would rapidly add their names to the list plus the many who have supported the work of other members.

 

[Seymour Butz]

Not at all.

Not at all... what? Are you convinced that the columns couldn't meet or not? Simple question.

For that you have to theorise a drop as Bazant does.

Are you saying that the upper block didn't drop? Are they still there or is the "drop" accepted as true?Or do you theorize that the upper block should have "eased" down? I ask cuz I've seen this before. Here's why it won't ease.

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf

The energy dissipation, particularly that due to the inelastic
deformation of columns during the initial drop of the upper
part, may be neglected, i.e., the upper part may be assumed to
move through distance h almost in a free fall ~indeed, the energy
dissipated in the columns during the fall is at most equal to 2p3
the yield moment of columns, 3 the number of columns, which is
found to be only about 12% of the gravitational potential energy
release if the columns were cold....


In layman's terms, what that means is that once they fail, they do so all of a sudden.

Remember that for the government Bazant is the only game in town. Without Bazant there is only controlled demolition.

I don't think so.

Here's a link to prolly a hundred or so papers from authors other than Bazant that agree with NIST's overall findings. Go learn something.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/nist,femareports,911structuralengineerin