Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

Status
Not open for further replies.
bill smith said:
Well I would say that we have empirical proof of nanothermite in the form of an 8-man 2-year peer eviewed scientific study . Of course nanothermite being so versatile it can be used as an incendiary compound OR as an explosive accordng to need. Then we have hundreds of reports of explosions- with over a hundred coming from firefighters alone. I could go on and on and on.....
Click to expand...

Oi. How dense do you have to be...
 
Heiwa said:
Prove me wrong for any structure, e.g. with splices. See The Heiwa Challenge thread for details.
Click to expand...

But I dont get it.....you have seen my pizza box solution that won the Stupid Heiwa Challenge... Its easy... And I have seen a bunch of other solutions.

Now you want me to build the WTC with splices... but Pizza boxes are much chaeper.

What was wrong with the pizza box ... it complied with every line of your first posting... its easy
 
aggle-rithm said:
These absolutist statements such as "Mass cannot fluctuate" will be the death of you some day.

I'll try to make it simple for you: You have two buckets half-filled with sand. Bucket A and Bucket B.

You pour twenty grams of sand from A to B. The mass within A and the mass within B have now FLUCTUATED. Like it or not. One has been reduced by twenty grams, the other has increased by twenty grams.

You may reply, "But the original mass didn't fluctuate! It just moved from one place to another!"

I never claimed that it did otherwise. When I talk about the moving portion of the building, I am not talking about a portion that has always and will always be moving. I am talking about the parts of the building that are in motion at a particular moment in time.

Follow me so far?
Click to expand...


NO, HE DOES NOT FOLLOW YOU. You will save time and spare yourself much frustration if you accept the immutable FACT that he does not, can not, WILL NOT follow you.


aggle-rithm said:
When I talk about the stationary portion of the building, I am talking about that portion of the building that is still intact and is not moving. I am not talking about the section that was intact at the moment the upper section became mobile.

Get it? It's a process.
Click to expand...


HE DOES NOT GET IT. HE WILL NEVER GET IT. AFTER IT IS EXPLAINED TO HIM BY THE ENGINEERS AT THE ASCE JOURNAL, HE WILL DENOUNCE THEM AS RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISTS, BUT HE WILL NOT GET IT!


aggle-rithm said:
When I say that the mass of each fluctuates, I am saying that as time progresses, some of the mass that was formerly in the stationary category moves into the mobile category, and vice versa. Clearly, in the case of the WTC towers, most of this switching of categories occured in one direction: the mobile mass tended to grow larger with time, while the stationary mass grew smaller, until equilibrium was reached.

There! Was that so hard? Now you can't pretend that you don't understand what I'm talking about.
Click to expand...


He will CERTAINLY act as though he doesn't understand what you're talking about. How much of it is genuine stupidity and how much is stupidity's first-cousin, agenda-driven blindness, remains unclear.

I have stated, oh, maybe a thousand times that the thirteen falling floors crush the floor below. Then the fourteen falling floors do the same. And then the fifteen falling floors... It is a process, as you point out, but Heiwa doesn't relate well to processes.

Thanks for your lucid effort. I enjoyed it, but Heiwa learned nothing.





aggle-rithm said:
I agree. At some point the moving mass encounters debris that is so compacted that it cannot continue to fall. By the time the WTC towers reached that point, they had completely collapsed.
Click to expand...


Yes, the towers did indeed collapse totally.
 
Last edited:
Sir, I believe you should use saltine crackers, or maybe wheat thins instead of playing cards. Playing cards ajust don't resemble the WTC construction like saltines and wheat thins do.
 
bill smith said:
It feels so stupid to have to argue the reason why the top item in a stack of 20 identical items will never crush the other 19 down flat with the ground using gravity alone. Just the fact that nobody can design any structure to demonstrate that it can happen or the fact that it has never happened in the entire history of worldwide construction either before or after 9/11 should be enough to end any debate.

So when somebody (or apparently almost everybody on the jref ) says it can happen without providing example or precedent you can guess what that tells me. That fact is just as self-evident as the fact that the top item in a stack of 20 identical items will never crush the other 19 down to the ground by gravity alone..
Click to expand...


Seriously, what prevents you, apart from agenda-driven obtuseness, from grasping the point that everyone is making? The falling floors GAIN mass and acceleration, while the portion of the building remaining to be crushed LOSES mass, i.e., IT GETS SMALLER.

Have you no self-respect at all?
 
Last edited:
aggle-rithm said:
Nope. I'm sure this has been explained to you, but I will try again.

The top item crushes the item below it.

There are now two items in motion.

Then the top two items crush the item below them.

There are now three items in motion.

Then the top three items crush the item below them.

There are now four items in motion.

Then the top four items crush the item below them.

...should I go on? Or can you figure it out from here?
Click to expand...


At the risk of being as boring as a "truther," NO, HE CANNOT FIGURE IT OUT!
 
bill smith said:
Is that not the famous 'pancake collapse' that NIST dismissed ? Are you saying that NIST made an error ? If not we are back to my original statement of 'the top 5% of a building can never crush the other identically constructed 95% of the building down to the ground by gravity alone'.
Click to expand...


No, it is not the "famous pancake collapse that NIST dismissed." You were unable to read any of the NIST Report, so I'll make it brief. NIST determined that pancaking did not EXPLAIN the collapse mechanism, although pancaking obviously occurred when the global collapse was initiated.

Your fictitious top 5% quickly--very quickly--becomes 10%, 15%, 25%, 40%, 60%, 80%--until 100% of the building has collapsed.
 
bill smith said:
Yes,,,very iteresting. Would you care to answer the same question I asked Gamelon regarding the spaghetti model ? I won't be upset or surprised if you don't. lol
Click to expand...


And nothing Mackey, Newton's Bit, tfk, or any real engineer tries to explain about the problems associated with scaling will ever make the slightest impression on you? When thousands of tons of falling debris hit the floor immediately below, it ain't soft cardboard pizza boxes or spaghetti falling on spaghetti.

You have to make an effort to appear this dense.
 
bill smith said:
It's not necessary to be degreed engineer to have a fair idea how materials will respond under different stresses. Given that, and the gross anomalies of 9/11 I am as able as any other to isolate faults in the official story. If you don't think so you ae free to educate me as we go along. Or ignore me at your discretion.
Click to expand...


You have NEVER pointed out a single "anomaly."
 
bill smith said:
I still say that I think MILES of core columns are missing. I will get to that when I am in the mood again. I saw no explanation or photo from you or anyone else that has changed my position yet.
Click to expand...


You say all sorts of utter nonsense. It has been proved, however, that no steel was missing. All of it was recovered.
 
bill smith said:
Well I would say that we have empirical proof of nanothermite in the form of an 8-man 2-year peer eviewed scientific study . Of course nanothermite being so versatile it can be used as an incendiary compound OR as an explosive accordng to need. Then we have hundreds of reports of explosions- with over a hundred coming from firefighters alone. I could go on and on and on.....
Click to expand...


Yes, quasi-imaginary substances are extremely versatile. They can do, quite literally, anything. Unfortunately for your insane movement, Jones and his accomplices discovered red paint. That's why it's now July and stupid rubes are still parroting the debunked party line, while the frauds continue to refuse to cooperate with independent labs.
 
Last edited:
In the last 50 posts: Cracker Jacks, saltines, pizza, take out Chinese, spahgetti, powdered sugar, mushrooms and of course pancakes.

I suggest this thread be moved to the FoodTV network.
 
triforcharity said:
Phunk,

I was thinking the same thing. Somewhere near the earth would be my guess. But, it could have been at the first floor, im not certain.
Click to expand...

There were survivors in one of the North Tower stairways, so the collapse didn't proceed clear to ground (plaza level) over the entire footprint, and in general it didn't proceed to the basement. Without knowing what, exactly, brought it to a halt, however, it's hard to say where a 200-story building would stop.
 
Gamolon said:
How about this model.

Let's take a 25lb weight used for weight lifting. The round weights with a hole in the middle that can be slipped onto a weight lifting bar. Lets get 6, 1" diameter wooden dowels and pound them into the ground around the perimeter of the weight mentioned above. Let's take a single 1" diameter wooden dowel and pound it into the ground in the center of the ring we just created.

Now let's slip one of the 25lb weights mentioned onto the center wooden dowel down to about an inch from the ground. We'll put one thumbtack (the kind with the plastic head on them, not the flat heads) in each of the perimeter wooden dowels right below the weight and put two thumbtacks, opposite one another on the center wooden dowel.

We'll build our tower up 40 feet high with a "floor" weight every foot.

We'll then created a seperate section the same way, but only 1/10th the size, which would be 4 weights (or 100lbs). We will then position the 1/10th section above the 40 foot tower we created using a dowel to center it above.

We then drop the 1/10th section down the centering dowel from a height of 10 feet above.

What do you think would happen? Are the "thumbtack" connections going to arrest the upper part and stop it from bringing everything down the the ground?
Click to expand...

This has to be the best example of a model for comparison that I've seen. Can we raise a few bucks for Gamolon to construct this thing and video the test results?
 
Gamolon said:
The building graphic conatined here is completely bogus.

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/mac5.htm

The columns were not BELOW the floors supporting them. There were connections ATTACHED to the inside face of the perimeter columns and core columns.
Click to expand...


For the record, the graphics he uses are a bastardization of visual aids that I created for my discussion on Hardfire. The original is here and the associated discussion (Part III) can be viewed here.

As I clearly described, the model was one-dimensional, and not intended to be particularly accurate. Indeed, it was the absolute simplest model I could come up with that remained relevant (if you include the equations, that is; by itself, the diagram is not of much use). The intent of that model was to motivate scaling, not accurately predict behavior of the World Trade Center. I think the scaling laws in that model would be similar, at least with respect to the collapse.

Heiwa, and apparently the others participating in this Romper Room version of uneducated speculation, simply do not understand scaling. That's all there is to it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom