Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

[Tony Szamboti]

But you don't know what kind of explosives were used, how they were installed, when they were installed, how they were concealed or how they were detonated.

Do I have to if I show the collapse could not be natural due to a lack of an amplified load?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I don't understand why you think that a structure designed to support twice the static load that it is expected to handle could support the same load while it is moving.

The factors of safety were a minimum of 3.00 to 1 for the core columns and 5.00 to 1 for the perimeter columns. So you need an amplified load to overcome this reserve strength.

In order to get an amplified load the moving object has to decelerate at a rate greater than 1g.

No deceleration means no amplified load, so then you have to ask what caused these columns with all that reserve strength to fail.

The Missing Jolt paper is here http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf

 

[Grizzly Bear]

A number of engineers have now shown this to be true and that the evidence is really that these were not natural collapses at all. In spite of this, all you can do is make negative comments with no discussion of the merits of the argument.

Through neglect in precedent studies, and misrepresentation of data from a report they're trying to prove was egregiously flawed itself. Let's not forget witness cherry picking, and general logical fallacies. That's exactly the way this 22 year old architecture student wants to be educated.

You apparently can't walk and chew gum.
Why was most of the steel recycled before it was analyzed? The answer is most probably because the temperatures from heat weakening of joints by thermite were much higher than those which could be produced by fire and an analysis would have shown that.

You apparently missed all of that photographic documentation of the steel at Fresh Kills. You remember? The steel which engineers such as astaneh had the opportunity to examine before hand. Don't think I'm going to let that cherry pick of yours from the NIST report slide... that was rather unwarranted.

 

[aggle-rithm]

A number of engineers have now shown this to be true and that the evidence is really that these were not natural collapses at all.

I agree. The show Life After People showed how a natural collapse would occur. It would require one or two centuries of neglect and exposure to the elements.

On 9/11, I believe there were a couple of plane crashes.

 

[FineWine]

On the contrary, the emotional tie, as far as being wedded to a particular theory, seems to be yours, as the natural collapse theory has no solid evidence to support itself.

A number of engineers have now shown this to be true and that the evidence is really that these were not natural collapses at all. In spite of this, all you can do is make negative comments with no discussion of the merits of the argument.

The present official stories on the three building collapses are nothing more than pure unadulterated horse manure.

You keep trying to sell the preposterous notion that there is serious debate in the engineering community over the validity of the science presented in the NIST reports. As you know perfectly well, there isn't. The engineers on this forum have shown you the errors you make, that your bizarre political agenda compels you to cling to. No engineers have cast doubts on impact/fire explanation of the collapses. Your snake oil about explosives is pure nonsense, based on nothing.

 

[aggle-rithm]

The factors of safety were a minimum of 3.00 to 1 for the core columns and 5.00 to 1 for the perimeter columns. So you need an amplified load to overcome this reserve strength.

In order to get an amplified load the moving object has to decelerate at a rate greater than 1g.

No deceleration means no amplified load, so then you have to ask what caused these columns with all that reserve strength to fail.

Look at it this way: An empty beer can can easily support the weight of a sledge hammer head. In fact, you could probably stack four or five of them on a can before the weight would collapse it.

And yet...you can easily crush the can by bringing down the sledge hammer on it, even though though the sledge hammer does not noticeably decelerate.

You might say, "But it does decelerate, just at a very small rate."

The WTC towers did the same.

The Missing Jolt paper is here http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf

Wow...what did you have to do to get a paper published there? Click "send"?

 

[Heiwa]

I completely agree: the top part cannot crush the bottom part, but the top part can cause the bottom part to fail, as it did.

If the top part cuts connections that are critical, and causes the outer walls to blow out, and causes the internal core columns to be displaced sllightly leading to a failure of the stack joints, then a failure of the lower part occurs without crushing.

...

LOL. And what about the lower part cutting connections that are critical of the upper part? Anyway, the top part cannot cut connections that are critical or cause anything to blow out or displace slightly, etc. Similar structures in collision do not work like that.

 

[Heiwa]

Look at it this way: An empty beer can can easily support the weight of a sledge hammer head. In fact, you could probably stack four or five of them on a can before the weight would collapse it.

And yet...you can easily crush the can by bringing down the sledge hammer on it, even though though the sledge hammer does not noticeably decelerate.

You might say, "But it does decelerate, just at a very small rate."

The WTC towers did the same.




Wow...what did you have to do to get a paper published there? Click "send"?

Try to crush a beer can by dropping another beer can on it.
.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

You're (still) missing the point that your expectations are based on assumptions which can be argued are not the only valid set to apply, and in fact may be incorrect

and

that your sampling methods may have smoothed out the velocity changes you were looking for.

Either way, it fails to prove controlled demolition of any kind. It merely shows that you cannot find what you were looking for. That's not a big deal in science, it's just not proof of anything at this point.

If you guys didn't have a fixed conclusion (controlled demolition) you'd be far better off.

Here is where you are out of bounds.

I originally bought Dr. Bazant's theory that there was a dynamic load and it wasn't until five years afterward, upon hearing theories that the towers were demolished, that I decided to look into it myself.

Had I seen evidence of a dynamic load in any way, I would said the amplified load Dr. Bazant theorized had to occur for a natural collapse is there. That's it, and you would have never heard anything from me on this. Unfortunately, there was no dynamic load, and without it it becomes obvious that something artificial was removing the strength of the columns and that those buildings were intentionally demolished.

Sorry to break it to you but that is the reality here.

 

[Furcifer]

You apparently can't walk and chew gum.

Careful, the overly sensitive types might consider this a personal attack.

Why was most of the steel recycled before it was analyzed?

Because there was so much of it. Not that hard to figure out.

The answer is most probably because the temperatures from heat weakening of joints by thermite were much higher than those which could be produced by fire and an analysis would have shown that.

No, the weakening of joints by thermite would have been obvious to anyone. Especially the number of which you suggest was weakened. Your theory implicates everyone responsible for clean up being completely ignorant of the most obvious anomaly.

Unfortunately, for the official story they have no physical evidence of high temperatures.

lol, but it doesn't rule out the ultra high temperatures produced by thermite? That's brilliant, simply brilliant.

This theory is lame. Your deduction skills are even worse. Perhaps you should move on to something that isn't as easily shot down? There's so many gaps in the logic no one would buy it.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Look at it this way: An empty beer can can easily support the weight of a sledge hammer head. In fact, you could probably stack four or five of them on a can before the weight would collapse it.

And yet...you can easily crush the can by bringing down the sledge hammer on it, even though though the sledge hammer does not noticeably decelerate.

You might say, "But it does decelerate, just at a very small rate."

The WTC towers did the same.




Wow...what did you have to do to get a paper published there? Click "send"?

You would be surprised at how much the sledge hammer decelerates when it hits the can in order to smash it. You probably don't have the experience to understand what is happening. A sledge hammer is capable of applying hundreds of g's.

Oh, and in reference to your little dig on publishing the paper why don't you wait until to read it and then discuss the arguments, instead of prejudging it as it seems you already are.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

You keep trying to sell the preposterous notion that there is serious debate in the engineering community over the validity of the science presented in the NIST reports. As you know perfectly well, there isn't. The engineers on this forum have shown you the errors you make, that your bizarre political agenda compels you to cling to. No engineers have cast doubts on impact/fire explanation of the collapses. Your snake oil about explosives is pure nonsense, based on nothing.

There are a lot of engineers have serious doubts about how those buildings came down. Any that I know who have looked into it realize there are serious issues with what we have been told and that fire and damage did not bring those buildings down

Here is a link to a non-engineering professor who tells of a civil engineering friend who mentioned it to him and caused him to look into it for himself.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/20533

 

[Bluesky]

Would any of the real engineers here be kind enough to offer a few thoughts on my exchange with Heiwa from the previous page? Did he make any effort to address my question?

No. He never makes any attempt to answer questions about impact angles, local damage or structural design, such as to consider the effect of stack column splices, or the bar joist connection.

His theory of crushing solid bodies has no relevance to tall building design or the WTC, and he seems to have invented a new theory about progressive collapse design that tells us that we dont have to bother.

But lets face it, he has posted 2,478 eposts with the same moronic mantra, and he usually gets about 5~20 response saying how stupid it is. So I dont think you are going to convince him any time soon.!

 

[phunk]

The factors of safety were a minimum of 3.00 to 1 for the core columns and 5.00 to 1 for the perimeter columns. So you need an amplified load to overcome this reserve strength.

Unless of course the load wasn't straight down on the top of the column anymore, then you'd need much less load.

 

[Bluesky]

There are a lot of engineers have serious doubts about how those buildings came down. Any that I know who have looked into it realize there are serious issues with what we have been told and that fire and damage did not bring those buildings down

I think there are 29 who have serious doubts... and if they all write 2,700 posts each, then what fun is in store for us.!

 

[FineWine]

Try to crush a beer can by dropping another beer can on it.
.

How about dropping a 5-ton keg of beer onto a 15-ton keg?

We notice that you ran from my questions as usual.

 

[FineWine]

There are a lot of engineers have serious doubts about how those buildings came down. Any that I know who have looked into it realize there are serious issues with what we have been told and that fire and damage did not bring those buildings down

Here is a link to a non-engineering professor who tells of a civil engineering friend who mentioned it to him and caused him to look into it for himself.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/20533

Have any those "engineers" who swallow the inside job idiocy ever worked on a tall building?

 

[FineWine]

Here is where you are out of bounds.

I originally bought Dr. Bazant's theory that there was a dynamic load and it wasn't until five years afterward, upon hearing theories that the towers were demolished, that I decided to look into it myself.

Had I seen evidence of a dynamic load in any way, I would said the amplified load Dr. Bazant theorized had to occur for a natural collapse is there. That's it, and you would have never heard anything from me on this. Unfortunately, there was no dynamic load, and without it it becomes obvious that something artificial was removing the strength of the columns and that those buildings were intentionally demolished.

Sorry to break it to you but that is the reality here.

Strange that no structural engineers who work on tall buildings buy what you peddle.

 

[aggle-rithm]

You would be surprised at how much the sledge hammer decelerates when it hits the can in order to smash it. You probably don't have the experience to understand what is happening. A sledge hammer is capable of applying hundreds of g's.

So how do you know the top portion of the WTC didn't apply hundreds of g's? What specifically are you looking for? A jolt? Because there is no jolt when the sledgehammer hits the can.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Here is a link to a non-engineering professor who tells of a civil engineering friend who mentioned it to him and caused him to look into it for himself.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/20533

So...a guy who claims to be a professor tells a story supposedly told to him by someone who claims to be a civil engineer, causing the professor, working outside his area of expertise, to look into it?

Sold me!