Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

Status
Not open for further replies.
Heiwa, the smart thing to do at this point is put your papers aside, take a deep breath, and stop defending the woo.

You're on the wrong track, and all you're doing is stubbornly defending a narrow, irrelevant position. Is that really how you want to spend your time?

Surely there are more productive things to do. Let it go.
 
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...

But part C did NOT crush down Part A. If that was the case then we would have "accordianed" columns. You keep saying that Part C as one entity fell symmetrically on top of Part A as one unit.

The correct terminology is that Part C fell in such a way that it systematically sheared/broke/bent many local connections of Part A leading to total failure.

Easy!

Much like what we are doing to your theory here. We are exposing each weak link in your claim which brings the whole thing crashing down.

:D

See! A one way crush down IS possible! Even a verbal one!
 
Gamolon said:
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?
Click to expand...

'' There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

This was a fire from jet-fuel that he was talking about. No office fire could be hotter than that.
 
bill smith said:
'' There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

This was a fire from jet-fuel that he was talking about. No office fire could be hotter than that.
Click to expand...

he was mistaken
there was no event to compare it to
now we know

your world isnt that safe bill
 
Gamolon said:
But part C did NOT crush down Part A.
Click to expand...

Good! We agree! Pls tell Bazant, Mackey, Seffen, NIST & Co that suggest the opposite.

Please copy paste anything from my papers and show any mistake, etc. I look forward to it.
 
Justin39640 said:
whats the sum of 400 local failures?
global collapse

FAIL
Click to expand...

You need 1 000 000+ structural failures for global collapse of WTC 1. 400 are easily arrested as shown in my papers. Pls, copy paste anything from my papers and show any mistake, etc. I look forward to it.
 
Heiwa said:
Please copy paste anything from my papers and show any mistake, etc. I look forward to it.
Click to expand...

My pleasure! :D

On your site, you show a diagram of what should have happened:
WTC1slicea.gif


Those 4 vertical black lines represent perimeter columns. Look at Figure D. I agree that the furthest right columns represents the row of perimeter columns along the side of the tower. I can agree that that row of column would indeed hit the concrete floor as show. What I have a problem with is the two middle verticle black lines.

The perimeter columns along that face are OUTSIDE the concrete concrete floors.

So how would those perimeter columns, represented by the two middle verticle black lines, spear the floor above when the said perimeter columns along that face ARE NOT BELOW THE FLOOR? They are OUTSIDE the floor on the edge.

Have at it my friend.
 
bill smith said:
'' There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

This was a fire from jet-fuel that he was talking about. No office fire could be hotter than that.
Click to expand...

And the designers of HMS Titanic said it was unsinkable. When asked hypothetical questions, even experts say things that turn out to be wrong when tested by reality.

We have this quote from someone else with frist-hand expertise in the WTC structure:


Recently, Henry Guthard, 70, one of Yamasaki's original partners who also worked as the project manager at the [WTC] site, said, "To hit the building, to disappear, to have pieces come out the other side, it was amazing the building stood. To defend against 5,000 (sic) gallons of ignited fuel in a building of 1350 feet is just not possible.


(Bottom of page 188)
​
 
Gamolon said:
My pleasure! :D

On your site, you show a diagram of what should have happened:
[qimg]http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/WTC1slicea.gif[/qimg]

Those 4 vertical black lines represent perimeter columns. Look at Figure D. I agree that the furthest right columns represents the row of perimeter columns along the side of the tower. I can agree that that row of column would indeed hit the concrete floor as show. What I have a problem with is the two middle verticle black lines.

The perimeter columns along that face are OUTSIDE the concrete concrete floors.

So how would those perimeter columns, represented by the two middle verticle black lines, spear the floor above when the said perimeter columns along that face ARE NOT BELOW THE FLOOR? They are OUTSIDE the floor on the edge.

Have at it my friend.
Click to expand...

i pointed this out to him several times and hand drew a 3D representation of his "illustration"

see this post

he just ignores that an entire side of a building and part of the roof sheared off

no to mention thats a very deceptive pic as you pointed out

based on the
h man = FAIL!!! lol
 
Heiwa said:
Please copy paste anything from my papers and show any mistake, etc. I look forward to it.
Click to expand...

Contradiction time!

You said this:
Heiwa said:
Is it? I clearly say that the intact floors are just hanging on the columns; like pictures on a wall. Or a pin for a bird to sit on in a cage.

And if a picture drops from the wall it doesn't one-way crush down the wall. Same for the pin! The bird has no pin to sit on. And the cage does not collapse.
Click to expand...


But on your site you say this:
Heiwa's site said:
Section C consists of 14 horizontal elements/floors, each with mass m as section A, stacked on top of each other with vertical support elements in between of height h. Total mass of C is 14 m. It is 52 meters tall.
Click to expand...



Shall I break them out so you can clearly see?
Heiwa said:
I clearly say that the intact floors are just hanging on the columns;
Click to expand...


and
Heiwa's site said:
stacked on top of each other with vertical support elements in between
Click to expand...

:D
 
Justin39640 said:
i pointed this out to him several times and hand drew a 3D representation of his "illustration"

see this post

he just ignores that an entire side of a building and part of the roof sheared off

no to mention thats a very deceptive pic as you pointed out

based on the
h man = FAIL!!! lol
Click to expand...

his response then was this
Heiwa said:
You are wrong everywhere. My illustrations are 2-D to start with. Purpose is only to demonstrate how local structural failures are arrested, e.g. strong elements damage weak elements. Not the other way around. Do you belong to some religious sect believing something else? If yes, join The Heiwa Challenge thread! There you have your chance!
Click to expand...

i responded with this and he never answered

Justin39640 said:
yeah but that has nothing to do with the collapse of the towers which you are trying to illustrate
the core columns dont extend from the core to the walls

you put the TV mast on there too so that is how you view WTC1 apparently
there is no way for the floors to arrest that way in the towers
it had open floor spaces
Click to expand...

id still like to have that answer Heiwa
 
bill smith said:
'' There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

This was a fire from jet-fuel that he was talking about. No office fire could be hotter than that.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

Read S L O W L Y....

Point me to the quote that says Skilling said that he and his people did an analysis of how an office fire or jet fuel fire would affect the structural steel as claimed by Tony. Here is Tony's quote to help you out:

Tony Szamboti said:
His comment that as far as he knows they didn't consider the fuel from the aircraft in the analysis. Skilling says they did.
Click to expand...

Show me where it says he said that.
 
Last edited:
Heiwa said:
Good! We agree! Pls tell Bazant, Mackey, Seffen, NIST & Co that suggest the opposite.
Click to expand...

Nope. It's not the same as they way you try and make it out to be. I don't agree with you in the least.

I'm flattered you value my opinion though.

Thanks!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom