Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

Status
Not open for further replies.
Gamolon said:
You mean there were explosives used on those perimeter columns that made them DEFORM and BUCKLE?
Click to expand...

No, just some sort of controlled demolition. Reason being that a one-way crush down of any structure is not possible = topic.
 
Wasn't Robertson only an undrstudy of Skiling ? I think I woud prefer tohear what the organ-grinder had to say rather than the monkey.

This is what Skilling said:

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Saturday, February 27, 1993 - Page updated at 12:00 AM

Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision

By Eric Nalder

Engineers had to consider every peril they could imagine when they designed the World Trade Center three decades ago because, at the time, the twin towers were of unprecedented size for structures made of steel and glass.

"We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," said John Skilling, head structural engineer. "However, back in those days people didn't think about terrorists very much."

Skilling, based in Seattle, is among the world's top structural engineers. He is responsible for much of Seattle's downtown skyline and for several of the world's tallest structures, including the Trade Center.

Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

Skilling - a recognized expert in tall buildings - doesn't think a single 200-pound car bomb would topple or do major structural damage to a Trade Center tower. The supporting columns are closely spaced and even if several were disabled, the others would carry the load.

"However," he added, "I'm not saying that properly applied explosives - shaped explosives - of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage."

He took note of the fact that smoke and fire spread throughout the building yesterday. He said that is possibly because the pressurizing system that stops the spread of smoke didn't work when the electric power went off. Skilling, 72, was not involved in the design of the building mechanics.

Although Skilling is not an explosives expert, he says there are people who do know enough about building demolition to bring a structure like the Trade Center down.

"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."

Copyright (c) 1993 Seattle Times Company, All Rights Reserved.
 
Heiwa said:
No, just some sort of controlled demolition. Reason being that a one-way crush down of any structure is not possible = topic.
Click to expand...

See this is the problem Heiwa....

"Some sort" of controlled demolition is so ambiguous it's meaningless...
 
Gamolon said:
Tony, Heiwa, Bill.

Since you all seem to think that you are adept at discrediting the official collapse explanation and have provided ample proof that the story is bogus, I have a proposition.

How about you come up with YOUR theory of how the towers were brought down by explosives/thermite. Step by step. From the collapse initiation all the way to the end. Complete with calculations and diagrams. Make sure that your explanations match all the videos that we have on hand.

Show us what you think DID happen and how it worked.

Or has this been done already and I just missed it?
Click to expand...

How the criminals did it - destroyed WTC 1, 2 and 7 on 911 - can be clarified by proper forensic investigation of the remains of the structures and structural damage analysis of the destruction itself by qualified people. There are apparently plenty of innovative and new devices available to destroy anything. I have mentioned one possibility in one of my papers.

But destruction of steel structures is not my business.

I work with maintenance and inspections and repairs of steel structures to avoid failures. Very proactive. Some of these structures I actually participated designing and constructing >30 years ago in a minor, junior way then.

Anyway, don't tell me that a part C of a structure A can one-way crush down A. It doesn't work like that ... even if the spin doctors of the criminals that destroyed WTC 1, 2 and 7 tell you so. Not very convincing in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Heiwa said:
No, just some sort of controlled demolition. Reason being that a one-way crush down of any structure is not possible = topic.
Click to expand...

I am asking you to explain how the perimeter columns bowed inward due to a controlled demolition. How did a controlled demolition produce deformed/buckled perimeter columns.

you seem to have detailed explanations for everything else, why can you not explain in detail what I asked above?

Please explain yourself. You made the statement.
 
bill smith said:
Wasn't Robertson only an undrstudy of Skiling ? I think I woud prefer tohear what the organ-grinder had to say rather than the monkey.

This is what Skilling said:

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Saturday, February 27, 1993 - Page updated at 12:00 AM

Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision

By Eric Nalder

Engineers had to consider every peril they could imagine when they designed the World Trade Center three decades ago because, at the time, the twin towers were of unprecedented size for structures made of steel and glass.

"We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," said John Skilling, head structural engineer. "However, back in those days people didn't think about terrorists very much."

Skilling, based in Seattle, is among the world's top structural engineers. He is responsible for much of Seattle's downtown skyline and for several of the world's tallest structures, including the Trade Center.

Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

Skilling - a recognized expert in tall buildings - doesn't think a single 200-pound car bomb would topple or do major structural damage to a Trade Center tower. The supporting columns are closely spaced and even if several were disabled, the others would carry the load.

"However," he added, "I'm not saying that properly applied explosives - shaped explosives - of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage."

He took note of the fact that smoke and fire spread throughout the building yesterday. He said that is possibly because the pressurizing system that stops the spread of smoke didn't work when the electric power went off. Skilling, 72, was not involved in the design of the building mechanics.

Although Skilling is not an explosives expert, he says there are people who do know enough about building demolition to bring a structure like the Trade Center down.

"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."

Copyright (c) 1993 Seattle Times Company, All Rights Reserved.
Click to expand...

Yeah we know the article...it's the same one already linked to there quiz kid...
 
Heiwa said:
It is suggested that in WTC 1 280+ columns separating parts C and A failed and allowed part C to first free fall and then impact part A. Or that 4 exterior walls and an assembly of core columns between parts C and A suddenly failed. Same thing! This suggestion confirms that the structure was mostly air and by removing the elements between C and A, C could free fall through the air and BANG impact A.

Evidently the suggestion that 280 local elements suddenly fail is not really confirmed. They could all sag, buckle, deform, etc, allowing a more slow displacement of C down towards A = no free fall ... and no impact.
Click to expand...

so you think all those connections failed at the exact moment in time
you can take 1 second and break it down almost infinitely
a few milliseconds apart is not the same as "simultaneously"
esp when youre talking about objects of this size

the top listed
it didnt move uniformly

you fail
 
bill smith said:
Wasn't Robertson only an undrstudy of Skiling ? I think I woud prefer tohear what the organ-grinder had to say rather than the monkey.

This is what Skilling said:

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Saturday, February 27, 1993 - Page updated at 12:00 AM

Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision

By Eric Nalder

Engineers had to consider every peril they could imagine when they designed the World Trade Center three decades ago because, at the time, the twin towers were of unprecedented size for structures made of steel and glass.

"We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," said John Skilling, head structural engineer. "However, back in those days people didn't think about terrorists very much."

Skilling, based in Seattle, is among the world's top structural engineers. He is responsible for much of Seattle's downtown skyline and for several of the world's tallest structures, including the Trade Center.

Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

Skilling - a recognized expert in tall buildings - doesn't think a single 200-pound car bomb would topple or do major structural damage to a Trade Center tower. The supporting columns are closely spaced and even if several were disabled, the others would carry the load.

"However," he added, "I'm not saying that properly applied explosives - shaped explosives - of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage."

He took note of the fact that smoke and fire spread throughout the building yesterday. He said that is possibly because the pressurizing system that stops the spread of smoke didn't work when the electric power went off. Skilling, 72, was not involved in the design of the building mechanics.

Although Skilling is not an explosives expert, he says there are people who do know enough about building demolition to bring a structure like the Trade Center down.

"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."

Copyright (c) 1993 Seattle Times Company, All Rights Reserved.
Click to expand...

Show me where Skilling says that he and his people did analysis concerning what an office fire would do to structural steel.

Is this really that hard?
 
Gamolon said:
Then how are you qualified to make the claim that is was a controlled demolition?
Click to expand...

Sherlock Holmes logic. The only remaining answer.

But if you can explain how a little part C of a structure A can one-way crush down A, please be my guest on this thread.
 
Heiwa. 'no free fall ... and no impact. '

Incorrect. no freefall doesn't mean no impact.

Actually, strictly speaking, freefall means no impact. ;)
 
Last edited:
Justin39640 said:
so you think all those connections failed at the exact moment in time
you can take 1 second and break it down almost infinitely
a few milliseconds apart is not the same as "simultaneously"
esp when youre talking about objects of this size

the top listed
it didnt move uniformly

you fail
Click to expand...

Of course not. Just look at any video of the WTC 1 destruction and you see that upper part C is destroyed first and lower part A later! All described in my papers. I recommend the David Chandler video analysises.
 
Heiwa said:
Anyway, don't tell me that a part C of a structure A can one-way crush down A. It doesn't work like that ... even if the spin doctors of the criminals that destroyed WTC 1, 2 and 7 tell you so. Not very convincing in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Well, I would expect that from you because your evidence and calculations are fraught with mistakes and incorrect diagrams.

Of course it doesn't work for you.

If you input crap, you get crap as the result.

Simple.

:D
 
Heiwa said:
Sherlock Holmes logic. The only remaining answer.

But if you can explain how a little part C of a structure A can one-way crush down A, please be my guest on this thread.
Click to expand...

you know shelock holmes was a fictional character created by a physician
not by a real detective

dont you?
 
Gamolon said:
Well, I would expect that from you because your evidence and calculations are fraught with mistakes and incorrect diagrams.
Click to expand...

Please copy paste anything from my papers and show any mistake, etc. I look forward to it.
 
Heiwa said:
Of course not. Just look at any video of the WTC 1 destruction and you see that upper part C is destroyed first and lower part A later! All described in my papers. I recommend the David Chandler video analysises.
Click to expand...

you describe a perfectly uniform collapse
that isnt what happened

FAIL!
 
Justin39640 said:
you know shelock holmes was a fictional character created by a physician
not by a real detective

dont you?
Click to expand...

Of course. MD's work like that. And me, too, as an engineer. Actually one of my daughters is an MD and she diagnoses using latest scientific methods of all kinds. Sometimes she detects mistakes by her peers. The patients are quite happy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom