Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

[Furcifer]

There's a 90% chance that those who use probabilities in an argument just made them up. I know this because I have sampled 0% of the samples and we all know that 1/0=infinity therefore I am right 100% of the time.

You know, I've even been guilty of that. And probably 10% of the time. But at least I can support them when challenged.

lol, and probably one of the reasons I did so poorly in stats is because I just felt they were right. What are the chances of picking a pair of blue socks out of a drawer of socks containing 37 blue and 53 black? 0, i'll grab two socks and put them on no matter what colour they are. What are my chances of winning the lottery? 0. I don't play.

 

[alienentity]

No one has ever heard me blame any ethnic group for perpetrating the collapses of the three buildings in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001. All I have ever said is that there needs to be an open and transparent investigation, which we have not yet had. For starters I would like those who made the decisions to scrap over 99.5% of the steel from the towers and 100% of it from WTC 7, before the NIST could do a forensic analysis on it, to testify publicly.

It is just as ignorant and ridiculous to blame those of us, who are showing the very serious problems with the current official explanation, for enflaming things concerning any specific group, as it is for anyone to blame a specific group without evidence for it. Even if those who perpetrated the events of 911 were overwhelmingly of a specific nationality it would not mean anything about others of that nationality. Italian members of the mafia have never represented others of Italian heritage. Those who commit crimes do so as individuals not nationalities. Americans in general are not guilty of endorsing the Bush administration's now known torture policy.

Tony, I appreciate your reply. I have only time for a very short comment, which is that you are contributing to disinformation in the following way:
Instead of leaving gaps in understanding as question marks or blanks, you guys are filling it all in with a doctrine of Controlled Demolition, which is a totally different kettle of fish.
'We don't know' is perfectly fine. 'Vast conspiracy' is not. It's irresponsible, as you are now aware (if you weren't before) because the scapegoats have now been identified and they are Jews.

At best you are irresponsible to make accusations without proper evidence. Thus far, as a person who doesn't have extensive training in the area you are involved in, and without the proper consulting with truly qualified structural engineers to guide you, you are taking amateurish potshots at unknown targets - you are bound to hit innocents as collateral damage if you continue to be so careless.

Don't like how it feels to be characterized? Imagine how it feels to have an angry mob who believes you destroyed your own building for insurance claims, and participated in murdering 3000 people.

Be careful. At least run your work by a qualified person before you publish. People are going to get hurt by this demonization, this NWO hysteria you guys are feeding.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony, I appreciate your reply. I have only time for a very short comment, which is that you are contributing to disinformation in the following way:
Instead of leaving gaps in understanding as question marks or blanks, you guys are filling it all in with a doctrine of Controlled Demolition, which is a totally different kettle of fish.
'We don't know' is perfectly fine. 'Vast conspiracy' is not. It's irresponsible, as you are now aware (if you weren't before) because the scapegoats have now been identified and they are Jews.

At best you are irresponsible to make accusations without proper evidence. Thus far, as a person who doesn't have extensive training in the area you are involved in, and without the proper consulting with truly qualified structural engineers to guide you, you are taking amateurish potshots at unknown targets - you are bound to hit innocents as collateral damage if you continue to be so careless.

Don't like how it feels to be characterized? Imagine how it feels to have an angry mob who believes you destroyed your own building for insurance claims, and participated in murdering 3000 people.

Be careful. At least run your work by a qualified person before you publish. People are going to get hurt by this demonization, this NWO hysteria you guys are feeding.

I am a 52 year old mechanical engineer who does structural design work in the Aerospace industry. I would also hope you are aware that mechanical and civil engineers have exactly the same training when it comes to structural design. I also have extensive experience in dynamic environments. So I am not out of my area of expertise when discussing these collapses.

However, any papers I have done have been reviewed by people qualified to comment, including a retired civil engineering professor.

What is really irresponsible is to not initiate a new investigation, given the huge number of problems with the present official explanation for the collapses of those three buildings. In addition to getting to the bottom of things and identifying the actual perpetrators, a new legitimate investigation would quell any scapegoating of innocent parties. If anyone is adding to the hysteria it is those insisting we don't need a new investigation. The gig is up and it is time to come clean and prevent potential innocents from being hurt by hysteria.

Personally, I don't think it was a "Vast" Conspiracy and believe the actual number of perpetrators to be quite small but powerful enough to have had control over any investigations.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

With all do respect as far as I'm concerned the authority within a particular field is patently irrelevant when the material the individual is providing or advocating doesn't reflect the knowledge that accompanies it...

 

[ozeco41]

With all do respect as far as I'm concerned the authority within a particular field is patently irrelevant when the material the individual is providing or advocating is patently inaccurate or false

Spot on GB - the "authority" of the posting member/claimant only serves as an indication that he/she is likely to know what they are talking about. When they get it wrong the result does not automatically self adjust to comply with their "authority".

They get it wrong. It stays wrong till they correct it. It usually takes another uninvolved part to spot the error. Well known phenomenon, once you write something you tend to read what you intended to write not what you did right. Similarly once you start off from a wrong premise you tend to check the detail on re-reading but never go back to the premises. And, if you do, you still tend to track the same error of discernment/judgement/analysis or whatever you did wrong the first time.

Done it myself many times in all sorts of situations.

So, in my experience working with and managing fellow engineers one of the commonest errors is to start off with wrong premises or assumptions.

From there all the detailed calculations can be accurate to the umpteenth decimal. It can even occur that the answer comes out looking reasonable. BUT....

Any number of commentators on 9/11 including engineers prominent in commenting on the topic make the same false assumption.

It is the false assumption that underpins Heiwa's false claims.

That is the assumption that when the top blocks of the towers fell the two parts of the tower met as if they were homogeneous single entities OR the equivalent that they met column to columns floor to floor with all the like parts aligned.

Reality was totally different. The two parts met "component element on component element" "beam on beam" "column on column" in different combinations. A lot of those in quick succession. Some coinciding, some overlapping, some with time between them. But never "one block" meeting "one block".

So it was one little single piece contacting another BUT with potentially the whole weight of the top block behind the impact (first order - yes the elasticities and time overlaps make it less that 100% so there are second order issues)

- my premise is different it matches what really happened because my aim is to explain what really happened. And the key features of what really happened include:

The outer columns played only a minor part before they were peeled off to fall uncrushed in axial load.

The core, already damaged, could not support its design load NOR fall with column on column alignment. So, at the most it offered little more than a token resistance.

And the floors took most of the "Jolt" (TM Szamboti, T 2009) before they were sheared off the core and outer tube columns.

Sadly the "Check Design" process in practical usage AND the "peer review" process in academic are not a 100% guarantee of correctness. Errors do still get through. So they are simply another layer of "more likely to be right".

And Tony's error in his latest effort as with the one I looked at nearly two years back both make the same type of error. They start from a wrong premise which does not fit WTC 9/11 events. From there the plethora of detailed calculations may be accurate to many decimals. They lead to precise results.


Which are wrong.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

There's a 90% chance that those who use probabilities in an argument just made them up. I know this because I have sampled 0% of the samples and we all know that 1/0=infinity therefore I am right 100% of the time.

1/0 is undefined not equal to infinity.

 

[boloboffin]

1/0 is undefined not equal to infinity.

No one really knows why the chicken crossed the road, either. People should stop mindreading poultry.

 

[Heiwa]

It is the false assumption that underpins Heiwa's false claims.

That is the assumption that when the top blocks of the towers fell the two parts of the tower met as if they were homogeneous single entities OR the equivalent that they met column to columns floor to floor with all the like parts aligned.

Reality was totally different. The two parts met "component element on component element" "beam on beam" "column on column" in different combinations. A lot of those in quick succession. Some coinciding, some overlapping, some with time between them. But never "one block" meeting "one block".

So it was one little single piece contacting another BUT with potentially the whole weight of the top block behind the impact (first order - yes the elasticities and time overlaps make it less that 100% so there are second order issues)

Top blocks? Homogeneous single entities? Parts aligned? Sorry, not my type of language.
A single piece contacting another with potentially the whole weight of the top block (?) behind the impact?

What kind of hammer block is that?

The vertical collision of WTC1 upper section C and lower section A is just like a horizontal ship or for that matter any vehicle (car) collision; both sections get damaged, stronger elements damage weaker elements in both sections due to temporary local overload (high pressure between the elements) and ... arrest of destruction soon follows, when all applied energy is absorbed as deformation, failures and heat in both sections or transmitted to the environment. You see, you cannot one-way crush down with gravity a structure A with a part C of it, where C<1/10A!
No such structures exist (I am glad to conclude). And that's the answer Why a one-way Crush down is not possible!
Thanks for your contribution to this thread.

 

[tsig]

1/0 is undefined not equal to infinity.

I see you've never studied transfinite math. It starts where finite math stops.

1/0 = infinity and -1/0 = minus infinity so as we move the number line from 1 to -1 we we also move thru the full range of possible numbers.

 

[alienentity]

I am a 52 year old mechanical engineer who does structural design work in the Aerospace industry....etc..
Personally, I don't think it was a "Vast" Conspiracy and believe the actual number of perpetrators to be quite small but powerful enough to have had control over any investigations.

Tony, I read thru your paper a couple of times. I have no problem if you wish to criticize the exact mechanics of Bazant's papers.

Again, what I object to is your illogical leap into the realm of woo, which is to assign the 'We don't know' to 'Controlled Demolition'. Controlled Demolition doesn't fit the collapses for a number of reasons, which you are ignoring.

I propose that you accept your understanding, and/or Bazant's might be incomplete or incorrect, and that the imposition of CD doctrine doesn't help your problem solving.

The core columns cannot have been destroyed by giant explosive charges, since that would have been detected in seismic recordings, and probably recorded on video as well.
The perimeter columns WERE the outer surface of the towers. There is zero probability that they were destroyed by explosives, as it would have been easy to see. That didn't happen.

The thermite option is a pathetically wild guess, and because it would have been slow, it wouldn't make any difference to the observed collapse, so it is redundant.

A number of assumptions in your paper could be wrong, but the biggest is the rush to commit to the controlled demolition mantra - your biggest mistake.

That's where your inquiry is irresponsible. It is not neutral. It is clearly driven by a doctrinal belief in CD. The fact that you are clinging to your colleagues at the Journal, which is in NO WAY neutral to CD theory, NO WAY impartial to the doctrine, is further evidence that you are not exposing your ideas to independent, impartial people of the necessary qualifications.

I simply suggest you identify the top experts in the areas you are covering (as far removed from the 9/11 truth movement as possible to avoid conflict of interest) and consult with them, before committing further grave miscalculations.

I have obtained a list of some of the peers who have been reviewing for JONES. Too many of them are far too closely tied with the 9/11 movement itself. Get some distance from this clique and you might be doing some good science.

That's just a start. As for your other comments I will return to them later.

I have to strongly disagree with the idea that you guys are interested in a new, open investigation. That's a fascinating topic, and virtually guaranteed to be a futile pursuit, given the intractable position the 9/11 truth movement is taking regarding controlled demolition of WTC 1,2 and 7 as well as the various insane no plane theories.

The 9/11 truth movement isn't ready for the truth yet, whatever it is, and not ready for another investigation. It is far too hysterical, ideologically driven and irrational to be a responsible partner in such a pursuit, IMHO.

 

[tsig]

Actually people who believe in mind-programmed hoax rubbish like patriotism and invisible gods literally do believe in nonsense, because their beliefs are not based on empirical data but nonsensical data.

Can you give us examples of empirical data versus nonsensical data?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I see you've never studied transfinite math. It starts where finite math stops.

1/0 = infinity and -1/0 = minus infinity so as we move the number line from 1 to -1 we we also move thru the full range of possible numbers.

I think you are we weing here a little. But it's okay if this transfinite math does something for you.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

The core columns cannot have been destroyed by giant explosive charges, since that would have been detected in seismic recordings, and probably recorded on video as well.

The thermite option is a pathetically wild guess, and because it would have been slow, it wouldn't make any difference to the observed collapse, so it is redundant.

A number of assumptions in your paper could be wrong, but the biggest is the rush to commit to the controlled demolition mantra - your biggest mistake.

Why would explosive charges on core columns have to be so big that they would be picked up by seismic recordings? I have shown that just 2 lbs. of RDX could take out most of the core column sizes in the twin towers. No seismic instrument would pick that up and since the charges would be well inside the building, and hidden by the perimeter wall, they would not be picked up by video either.

The perimeter columns would only need to be weakened at their corners and they would then be pushed outward by the collapsing debris. Thermite could certainly be used there and we seem to have some evidence for it at a corner on video, with the molten metal pouring out of the damaged corner of WTC 2 just before it collapsed.

You don't seem to be able to identify any assumptions as being wrong in the paper. It seems to me you just have a hard time swallowing the fact that devices were used in those buildings to cause them to collapse. I didn't rush to embrace controlled demolition as a cause for the collapses. I believed Dr. Bazant's theory for five years until I started looking into it more deeply myself. Unfortunately, controlled demolition is the only hypothesis that I have found to adequately explain the details and observations.

I simply suggest you identify the top experts in the areas you are covering (as far removed from the 9/11 truth movement as possible to avoid conflict of interest) and consult with them, before committing further grave miscalculations.

For the Missing Jolt paper I did this with two Ph.D dynamicists at work. They didn't want to believe it at first but took an objective look at the details and they both wound up agreeing with what I was saying. What is said in that paper is not just a potshot. It has a legitimate basis and it shows that the Bazant hypothesis has none in explaining what actually occurred, and by extension that the NIST report on the twin towers is also baseless since they depend on Bazant for the continuation of the collapse.

I have to strongly disagree with the idea that you guys are interested in a new, open investigation. That's a fascinating topic, and virtually guaranteed to be a futile pursuit, given the intractable position the 9/11 truth movement is taking regarding controlled demolition of WTC 1,2 and 7 as well as the various insane no plane theories.

There are very very few people who subscribe to the ridiculous notion that no planes hit the twin towers. I know of no scientist or engineer who is questioning the present official explanation for the collapses of the NYC high rises who advocates a position that no planes hit the towers. This argument is a strawman when used to try and discredit the 911 truth movement in general.

The 9/11 truth movement isn't ready for the truth yet, whatever it is, and not ready for another investigation. It is far too hysterical, ideologically driven and irrational to be a responsible partner in such a pursuit, IMHO.

You provide no basis for what you say here but you do say it is just your opinion. My opinion is that it isn't just the 911 Truth movement but the American people as a whole who are ready for and can handle the truth. I would venture to say it is only those who committed the 911 atrocities and those involved in it's cover-up who might not want it.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Even a 17 second time would still not be possible in a natural collapse of the North Tower due to conservation of momentum, so it still presents problems for the current official explanation.

I get 12-13 seconds from conservation of momentum and column deformation. ISTR Frank Greening and Gregory Urich get about the same. Care to show the working that gives you >17 from conservation of momentum alone?

Dave

 

[ozeco41]

.....The vertical collision of WTC1 upper section C and lower section A is just like a horizontal ship or for that matter any vehicle (car) collision; both sections get damaged, stronger elements damage weaker elements in both sections due to temporary local overload (high pressure between the elements) and.

Not too bad so far Heiwa (I'll let "pressure" slip through.)

But look where you agree with me:

• "...both sections get damaged ...
• stronger elements damage weaker elements..." - where the key point is "elements" so you depart from your model and stay true to my explanations of what actually damaged what at WTC on 9/11;
• "...due to temporary local overload (high pressure between the elements)..." again correct (begging the small detail of "pressure")

Now here is where you start to depart from WTC9/11 reality:

... arrest of destruction soon follows, when all applied energy is absorbed....

..so you presume "when all energy is absorbed" which at this stage should be "if" not the presumptive "when"

Because - when all the energy is not absorbed, the WTC 9/11 situation , the destruction process continues.

So there is no basis for your multi quantum leap into fantasy with:

... You see, you cannot one-way crush down with gravity a structure A with a part C of it, where C<1/10A! ...

with the presumption of "you see,..." because I actually do see very clearly. The problem you face is that I don't and wont see your false outcomes from false reasoning...

So your next two are baseless wishful thinking

that
No such structures exist (I am glad to conclude). And that's the answer Why a one-way Crush down is not possible!

However thank you for your final comment:

...Thanks for your contribution to this thread.

MY real target is those who are genuinely interested. It would be pleasing if you learned from these exchanges but I don't expect that.

I would prefer that you bring some new conjectures into play. The oner false premise you constantly re-use has been adequately dealt with unless some new enquirers need it explained once again.

 

[Dave Rogers]

If the terrorists had PLANNED the total destruction of the WTC complex, using only two hijacked aircraft, is there any way they could have achieved it more efficiently?

What are the odds against two plane crashes resulting in such a perfect outcome for the terrorist by sheer chance? It sounds like something that could only happen to the accident-prone Inspector Clouseau!

That's known as the a priori - a posteriori fallacy, isn't it? We know, in any scenario, that some outcome must have occurred. Claiming that the actual outcome was low-probability is simply a pointless observation, as in a highly complex scenario with a very large range of possible outcomes, every outcome is low-probability. It would only be cause for suspicion if you could demonstrate that that specific outcome had been predicted or intended, and on that you have nothing more than speculation. There's no evidence that - for example - al-Qaeda specifically set out to destroy WTC7, but leave the entire WFC still standing. How do you account for the failure to destroy any of the World Financial Centre, when the clear aim of the attack was the financial centre of the USA? Clearly, the attack could have been more successful than it was.

Dave

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I get 12-13 seconds from conservation of momentum and column deformation. ISTR Frank Greening and Gregory Urich get about the same. Care to show the working that gives you >17 from conservation of momentum alone?

Dave

There have been several people who have shown that due to conservation of momentum alone that natural collapses would have taken much longer than 17 seconds. I would think you would know who they are and where to find their discussions on it.

Where can I find your work on this?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Are you sure that wasn't the only way they could persuade you to go away, stop bothering them and let them get on with some real work?

Dave

This is quite an assumption you make so I am inclined to believe you are projecting here. With that said you might take that advice and do some real work yourself instead of badgering those who are with your inanities.

 

[Heiwa]

Not too bad so far Heiwa (I'll let "pressure" slip through.)

But look where you agree with me:

• "...both sections get damaged ...
• stronger elements damage weaker elements..." - where the key point is "elements" so you depart from your model and stay true to my explanations of what actually damaged what at WTC on 9/11;
• "...due to temporary local overload (high pressure between the elements)..." again correct (begging the small detail of "pressure")

Now here is where you start to depart from WTC9/11 reality: ..so you presume "when all energy is absorbed" which at this stage should be "if" not the presumptive "when"

Because - when all the energy is not absorbed, the WTC 9/11 situation , the destruction process continues.

But before failures occur, something else must happen: elastic compression and applied energy is transformed into compression.

So if you apply forces 4F to above structure (it is the lower part A) and it deforms d, I hope you agree that energy E stored in the structure is E = 4 F d?

OK. This is the process that Tony Szamboti connects with the famous jolt that cannot be spotted. Compression/damping takes time and whatever applies the 4F (the moving upper part C - not shown - in this case) must slow down.

Now if more force/energy is applied - destruction process starts, what element fails first in above structure?

And how are the forces applied after this first failure?

And how does the structure deform then? How does the destruction process continue? What element fails then?

 

[bill smith]

But before failures occur, something else must happen: elastic compression and applied energy is transformed into compression.

[qimg]http://heiwaco.tripod.com/WTCFlex.JPG[/qimg]

So if you apply forces 4F to above structure (it is the lower part A) and it deforms d, I hope you agree that energy E stored in the structure is E = 4 F d?

OK. This is the process that Tony Szamboti connects with the famous jolt that cannot be spotted. Compression/damping takes time and whatever applies the 4F (the moving upper part C - not shown - in this case) must slow down.

Now if more force/energy is applied - destruction process starts, what element fails first in above structure?

And how are the forces applied after this first failure?

And how does the structure deform then? How does the destruction process continue? What element fails then?

The floors of C and A. There is no question of the upright columns failing at this point so C must become impaled on A like a cocktail sausage on a stick.