Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

[tfk]

That's a well written and thought out response, and it is utter nonsense. Your belief that it is valid does not make it valid, regardless of how momentous an event it is.

.
A major part of my response was telling you
a) what I would do if I found an egregious engineering error in the NIST report, and
b) what I would do if I heard that some other engineer (or anyone) found a significant flaw in NIST's arguments.

This is NOT "belief". It is not "speculation".

In this case you are simplifying a complex issue into what you believe people would do in a certain situation.

.
Once again, you are wrong. I am not speculating about what others would do under those circumstances. I am TELLING you what I would do.

And my extrapolation (what you disparagingly call "belief") is NOT "baseless speculation".

It is based on my 35 years interactions with other engineers.

In that time, I found out that engineers are curious, as patriotic as any other profession, diverse in their political persuasions, and, above all, LOVE finding mistakes in other engineers' work.

And especially because engineers are ornery contrarians, and NOBODY is gonna censor our commentary, especially not some pencil-neck bureaucrat, politician or lawyer.

Finally, MY job is easy. I've got to point out just a few engineers who will point out any existent flaws.
Your job is indefensible. You are suggesting that engineers who love justice & this country would remain silent.

Finally, as proof that the scientist & engineers will NOT stay silent, and that the gov't can NOT silence them:

The Global Warming debate.
The evolution debates (100s of them).
The evolution vs. creations debate.
The sociobiology debate.
Genetics debates.
Nuclear winter debates.
etc. etc. etc.

Sorry. Your proposition simply fails.

NOT from speculation. From experiment & experience.

But it's nice to know you are another one who believes that an absence of voiced dissent means they consent.

.
I believe that an absence of voiced dissent means an absence of unvoiced dissent.
I believe that the existence of real, unvoiced dissent lead INEXORABLY to the existence of voiced dissent.

There is NO informed, voiced dissent.
There is amateur, incompetent, voiced dissent. This is NOT the same thing.

This can discredit your critical thinking or that is your lack thereof.
The more of you who speak up like this the more people will see how very many of you here have skewed beliefs

.
A cornerstone of your contention is that there are thousands of engineers who know that the NIST report contains KNOWN gross errors or outright fraud.

The only "skewed belief" on display in that contention, Steve, is the snot-nosed, wet-behind-the-ears, acne enhanced, Young&Stupid but unshakable conviction that "WE (in this case, "truthers") are the only honest, honorable people on the planet".

Most folks grow out of this delusion long about the time the acne clears up.
.
.
As respectfully as I can muster at the moment,

Tom

 

[FineWine]

So you go from "every demolition expert in the world" to "many". You lurkers notice how "truthers" are always being called liars even when the proof we were telling the truth is right there in front of your face. You see you are not supposed to scroll back up and look, you are simply supposed to believe what he says.

Now it seems like you are jumping back to "every". Can't make up your mind?

Someone listed 1 demolition expert that endorses the Official Conspiracy Theory, you have any others? I mean 1 is still a far cry from "every demolition expert in the world".

YOU MADE THE CLAIM, YOU NEED TO BACK IT UP

You don't think very well, do you?

"Every expert accepts Theory A."
"Many of those experts have expressed their support for Theory A."

YOU see a contradiction here. Homeland Insurgency sees a contradiction when Stacey Loizeaux asserts that all demolition companies strive to use the minimum amount of explosives necessary to do the job, while she simultaneously asserts that "many tons" of explosives would have been necessary to bring down the towers.

It's really quite simple. There are no contradictions. Sorry.

Perhaps you really are stupid enough to be unable to reproduce the list of demolition companies that reject the "truther" lies that I posted after copying it from an old thread. That's your problem

Your biggest problem, however, is the one you are painfully aware of. It's finding ONE demolition expert who swallows your snake oil about the colllapses of the towers.

I suggest that you keep tap dancing. You will never produce that single elusive expert.

 

[FineWine]

I hope everyone is paying attention, because this is the attitude from the vast majority of "debunkers" here. They are so convinced that "truthers" are ALWAYS wrong that they will always claim "truthers" are wrong no matter what.

This attitude. This stance does not allow for free debate, how can you debate with someone who comes into the debate saying you are wrong and you are always wrong.

They don't care about evidence, or facts, or science... "truthers are wrong and they are always wrong" is enough for them.



That is completely different than what you said up above, here let's get those 2 statements together so everyone can see it plainly...




You see, they are not the same thing. You are having a very difficult time trying to defend your absurd statement that an absence of voiced disagreement indicates consensus.

Why do you "debunkers" have to always be right at all costs even when it's so obvious you are wrong? I know, because that would allow that crack to appear and cast doubt in the eyes of some, and you cannot have anyone think you could be wrong about anything right? Problem for you is your tactic backfires, your defiant refusal to admit the obvious here shows people that if you do it for this obvious one then what else are you defiantly refusing to admit that might not be so obvious to some!!!





Everyone again notice the constant slurs and insults? It's all part of the tactics, smear your opponent at every turn (this has the effect of scaring people off...usually subliminally...scaring people away from the topics and by default accepting the Official Conspiracy Theory, because most people are afraid to be labelled in this fashion)

OK so you again make a claim that you could not know is true. Tell me finewine, what is this the 5th time I ask you to provide proof of your claims here (not to mention deep44's and Bill's as well), are you ever going to prove that "every demolition expert in the world" endorses the Official Conspiracy Theory? Or are you simply going to repeat your statement like a mantra and hope that people will buy it?

As recognition of the dimensions of your defeat slowly creeps past the brick wall that encompasses your mind, you give away your game. You always do your best (and I gotta tell ya, it's real poor) to disguise the brute fact (as William James put it) that YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

When "truthers" devoid of critical thinking skills dishonestly fling around the label "absurd," we all know enough to prick up our ears. Those so-called absurdities will invariably prove to be inconvenient truths.

The assertion that the total absence of voiced disagreement indicates consensus is, of course, very far from being absurd: it is a truism. There are thousands of people in the demolition industry. Surely ONE of them could be expected to dissent from the consensus view. Where is that the solitary champion? Find him.

It is comical that you, a highly irrational person wedded to nonsense-beliefs for purely emotional reasons, should invoke science. The sane side has all the real science. Your side has bogus fabrications and outright falsehoods. Brent Blanchard's paper presents demolition science. With what do you oppose it? The mouth-breathing "truthers" here never get beyond calling Blanchard names. Show us your "science." In almost eight years, you have given us cynical theologians hustling drooling morons, failed architects earning a living by conning ignorant suckers, and obtuse, agenda-driven fools peddling pseudo-scientific crackpottery to true believers.

SHOW US ONE CLAIM MADE BY YOUR INSANE MOVEMENT THAT CAN STAND SCRUTINY.

 

[Gamolon]

Thanks for copy/paste my figure from section 1.3 of may paper at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm about Help understanding the Destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Debunking the Conspiracy Theory of Prof. Bazant. It is quite simple! A piece cannot crush a bigger part of itself.

All your questions are answered in the paper. Please read it first ... and then we can discuss.

No they are not. I am questioning your diagram and the captions beneath a couple of the figures. I am trying to understand your paper/website, but there are contradictions and wrong information contained in them that need to be corrected in order to make sense of it.

Why are you sidestepping my questions when all you have to do is answer them?

In your diagram, you show WTC1. You claim that the concrete floors "hinged" around the connections on the columns? Are you claiming that the "L" shaped truss connections of the floors were strong enough to cause the concrete floor slab to "hinge" around them when the 2 walls of perimeter columns, containing 60 square box columns per wall, came down upon 2 edges of the concrete floors?

It says right there in figure C. You are claiming that the concrete floors would have hinged around the undamaged truss connections.

Explain how that is possible.

 

[FineWine]

You guys are all very good at that little game. I have made no claim, I have asked finewine to prove HIS claim.

So NO, it is not MY argument. Nice try to deflect this back onto me however. Maybe next time it will even work.

BTW, you might want to talk to your buddy finewine and get him to realize what his 2 claims really are.

My claim is that members of the demolition industry are united in rejecting the baseless lies about the collapses of the towers promoted by ignorant, agenda-driven "truthers."

Spare us your disingenuous prattle and find the demolition expert who disagrees.

 

[FineWine]

This is the official government position regarding the demolitions of the Twin Towers and Building seven. Somebody should write up a motivated tebuttal to most oftheir reasoning. It's sure nice to have it under their signature as of may 5th 2009.

'' Numerous unfounded conspiracy theories about the September 11 attacks continue to circulate, especially on the Internet. Some of the most popular myths are:

1) The World Trade Center (WTC) twin towers were destroyed by controlled demolitions.

This is how the collapses may have appeared to non-experts, but demolition experts point out many differences:

• Demolition professionals always blow the bottom floors of a structure first, but the WTC tower collapses began at the upper levels, where the planes hit the buildings.

• Non-experts claim that debris seen blowing out of windows was evidence of explosive charges, but experts identify this as air and light office contents (paper, pulverized concrete, etc.) being forced out of windows as floors collapsed on each other.

• Demolition firms had very sensitive seismographs operating at other sites in Manhattan on September 11. None recorded signs of any explosions prior to the tower collapses. Instead, seismic spikes were noted when debris began hitting the ground.

• Cutting away walls, insulation, plumbing, and electrical conduits to place numerous charges on the towers’ structural columns in advance would not have gone unnoticed.

• Clean-up crews found none of the telltale signs of controlled demolitions that would have existed if explosive charges had been used.

• For more information, see ImplosionWorld’s article (PDF, 56 K) on the WTC collapses, the March 2005 Popular Mechanics, parts 4 and 5, “The Attack on the World Trade Center Towers,” and the video 9/11 Debunked: Controlled Demolition Not Possible.''
http://www.america.gov/st/webchat-english/2009/May/20060828133846esnamfuaK0.2676355.html

Yeah, one of the frauds who lead you by the nose really should attempt to rebut those terribly inconvenient FACTS that you posted.

 

[FineWine]

Active changes in building codes aren't valid indications?

No, too reality-based, too indicative of the way real people think.

 

[alienentity]

Steve, I think you've made your point, which is that the phrase 'every demolitions expert' is an exaggeration, since we can't possibly know what every expert thinks (either way).

However, since you chose to bring up the example of Mr. Jowenko as an expert who believes that WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition, but who agrees with (as you put it) the 'official conspiracy theory' when it comes to the WTC towers, you still are missing any demolition expert who thinks otherwise!!

Here's a simple question for you then - since you apparently believe that the WTC tower collapses were due to explosive demolition, can you provide at least one leading or significant demolitions expert who backs up this claim?

If not, your theory is not supported by industry experts, which weakens it considerably.

You are in a paradoxical situation at the moment regarding demolition experts - you do realize this I hope... If you are going to take Mr. Jowenko at his word, then you must accept that the WTC towers did not collapse due to CD. It's that simple.
Otherwise you must reject his testimony altogether as useless.

You can't have it both ways and remain credible. Sorry.

 

[FineWine]

Deep44, they all understand it perfectly, but finewine got himself into a fine pickle and the only way everyone sees to get out of it is to dodge and weave and try and turn everything around onto us "truthers"

They do this ALL THE TIME.

Edit:


See what I mean. That's a perfect example.

My "pickle" stands rock-solid (call it, intellectual Viagra). Here comes that flounder across your face again:

NO ONE IN THE DEMOLITION INDUSTRY HAS DISSENTED FROM THE CONSENSUS THAT HOLDS THAT THE COLLAPSES OF THE TOWERS DID NOT RESEMBLE CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS.

Show us your elusive exception.

 

[alienentity]

To put it another way, using only part of Mr. Jowenko's testimony (quote mining) and ignoring or dismissing the other is not only intellectually dishonest, it is very foolish.

If scientific consensus says 'the moon is not made of cheese', but expert A says, 'the moon is not made of cheese, but Mars IS made of cheese' do you really want to go with expert A?

Your call, it's your choice if you want to be that stupid. I wouldn't recommend it.

And btw, it is not a conspiracy theory to hold that the towers collapsed due to plane impacts and fires. I think you are confusing the issues (perhaps deliberately).

 

[FineWine]

.

I believe that an absence of voiced dissent means an absence of unvoiced dissent.
I believe that the existence of real, unvoiced dissent lead INEXORABLY to the existence of voiced dissent.

There is NO informed, voiced dissent.
There is amateur, incompetent, voiced dissent. This is NOT the same thing.
.
A cornerstone of your contention is that there are thousands of engineers who know that the NIST report contains KNOWN gross errors or outright fraud.

The only "skewed belief" on display in that contention, Steve, is the snot-nosed, wet-behind-the-ears, acne enhanced, Young&Stupid but unshakable conviction that "WE (in this case, "truthers") are the only honest, honorable people on the planet".

Most folks grow out of this delusion long about the time the acne clears up.

As respectfully as I can muster at the moment,

Tom

Superb. Aggressive stupidity coupled with agenda-driven ignorance can't compete with respect for reason and long professional experience.

 

[FineWine]

Again your beliefs on what others would or would not do is totally irrelevant. No one has shown that "every demolition expert in the world" supports the Official Conspiracy Theory, and no one can. So you are left with trying to convince people that your beliefs that people would speak up if they didn't believe is actually true. IT'S NOT WORKING.



That's a lie and you know it Tom. Check out www.ae911truth.org and www.patriotsquestion911.com

Both of those sites lists hundreds of relevant experts (not just engineers) that have found many flaws in the Official Conspiracy Theory and are speaking out and are bringing this information to the attention of others. And it is growing.

The fact you try to make this claim pins you quite firmly in the camp of people who know the truth but are purposely trying to hide the facts so others do not see it.

Thank you Tom.

Gage's frauds, as you have been told countless times, are not experts. They are agenda-driven cranks. Gage is a failed architect who has never worked on a building larger than a gymnasium. Pegelow, a guy who works on oil rigs, believes that the towers were nuked. Rice is in his late eighties and has never read anything on 9/11 not written by a conspiracy nut. Bjorkman is, well, Bjorkman. These idiots have not found any flaws in the real science of the sane side.

 

[FineWine]

Thanks for copy/paste my figure from section 1.3 of may paper at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm about Help understanding the Destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Debunking the Conspiracy Theory of Prof. Bazant. It is quite simple! A piece cannot crush a bigger part of itself.

All your questions are answered in the paper. Please read it first ... and then we can discuss.

Your paper is incompetent garbage. Answer his question!

 

[alienentity]

Heiwa wrote '... the Destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Debunking the Conspiracy Theory of Prof. Bazant.'

What conspiracy theory? Since when is Crush Down/ Crush Up a conspiracy theory?

 

[tfk]

Steve,

Tell ya what. I believe that at least 90% of all engineers, if they found something grossly wrong in their field, would scream bloody murder.

Again your beliefs on what others would or would not do is totally irrelevant. No one has shown that "every demolition expert in the world" supports the Official Conspiracy Theory, and no one can. So you are left with trying to convince people that your beliefs that people would speak up if they didn't believe is actually true. IT'S NOT WORKING.

.
It is A FACT, not a belief, that I would disclose any fraud or significant error that I might find in the NIST report. Publicly & persistently.

It is A FACT, not a belief, that 90+% of the 150 or so engineers & scientists that I have known very well would do the same.

It is my strong & constantly supported experience that the same rules of behavior that I see in myself & in the world around me apply to the world at large. That the vast majority of people are honest & honorable. And that virtually ZERO professionals (engineers, scientists, doctors, etc) are intimidated by any public official to the extent that we will censor our opinions.

And I do NOT need "people to speak up". I need 0.001% of competent engineers, or 0.1% of competent engineers, or 1% of competent engineers - or just ONE competent engineer - to speak up. Since there are several million of them in the US alone (about 90% of them competent), this would produce a sizable army of dissent.

Your suggestion, that thousands of competent engineers would know of gross errors and/or fraud and would keep silent, is an adolescent fantasy.

Proven by the very public debate of all manner of controversies by competent scientists & engineers in our culture.

There are many hundreds to low thousands of engineers pouring thru the analysis. If even a few of them found something flawed, they would bring others' attention to that particular issue. And an growing mass would recognize the flaw, and an uproar would gather.

That hasn't happened.

That's a lie and you know it Tom.

I strongly suspect that you are a kid. (At my age, this is anyone under 30.) I recognize that, in the day of the internet, it is quite common to call someone "a liar". My generation considered that to be rude & insulting. In previous generations, it'd get you shot. As I get more annoyed at such childish antics, I find myself more & more convinced by Robert Heinlein's observation that "An armed society is a polite society." And wishing that I lived in a more polite society.

It is not a lie. I do not "know that it is".

Check out www.ae911truth.org and www.patriotsquestion911.com

Both of those sites lists hundreds of relevant experts (not just engineers) that have found many flaws in the Official Conspiracy Theory...

A portion of my statement is my defensible opinion. A second portion is self-evident FACT.

My opinions include:
Looking thru the list of backgrounds of the people listed, very few (perhaps 10%) of them have backgrounds that are directly relevant.

The undeniable facts include:

a) A large percent of the members are self-acknowledged baby engineers (within 6 years of graduation.) They are not yet sufficiently experienced.

b) ANYONE who says "I knew the day I saw those towers collapse that ..." is incompetent. Any competent professional knows enough to wait for a competent, professional analysis. The number of people at ae911t who said "I knew immediately it was a demo" proves that those folks are amateurs.

c) The folks at ae911t are PROVABLY incompetent. If they were competent, they would have published AT LEAST 100 peer reviewed papers by now pointing out exactly where NIST made errors. The FACT that they have not done so PROVES WITHOUT QUESTION that they are incompetent. Or perhaps lazy. But productivity is an essential component of "competence".

The only product that they have produced are a couple of nonsense papers that have been published in a nonsense journal (J. 911 Studies) that was set up for the express purpose of circumventing a real peer review process.

And the next fact, below, is critical to this point.

Both of those sites lists hundreds of relevant experts (not just engineers) that have found many flaws in the Official Conspiracy Theory and are speaking out and are bringing this information to the attention of others.

And here, Steve, is an example of YOUR incompetence in these matters.

Publishing is the official form of communication in science & engineering. There are formalities to be observed.

The fact that some scientist or engineer publishes some claim or even test results in a paper is NOT a proof that what they are claiming is true.

That STARTS the process. Independent verification of the theory and the experimental results are required to pull all conclusions out of "provisional limbo". Thus far, not one single truther claim (AFAIK) has stood up to the slightest scrutiny or been independently confirmed.

Non-published claims are just noise.

And it is growing.

Sorry, you're simply wrong. Your movement is on life support with a DNR tag on its toe. It just hasn't had the common courtesy to die yet.

The fact you try to make this claim pins you quite firmly in the camp of people who know the truth but are purposely trying to hide the facts so others do not see it.

Thank you Tom.

Hmmm, once more with the "you're all liars", eh Steve.
.
You DO realize that this will get you sent to your room without dinner, grounded and stripped of your weekly allowance, don't you...

Tom

 

[Gamolon]

Here is Heiwa's diagram of WTC1 again:

Here is my picture of the two walls that he says are offset over the concrete floor.

How do the concrete floors of the lower floor "hinge" around the floor truss connections on the perimeter columns with a full length row of perimeter columns pushing down on the floor on two sides?

 

[Heiwa]

No they are not. I am questioning your diagram and the captions beneath a couple of the figures. I am trying to understand your paper/website, but there are contradictions and wrong information contained in them that need to be corrected in order to make sense of it.

Why are you sidestepping my questions when all you have to do is answer them?

In your diagram, you show WTC1. You claim that the concrete floors "hinged" around the connections on the columns? Are you claiming that the "L" shaped truss connections of the floors were strong enough to cause the concrete floor slab to "hinge" around them when the 2 walls of perimeter columns, containing 60 square box columns per wall, came down upon 2 edges of the concrete floors?
[qimg]http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/WTC1slicea.gif[/qimg]

It says right there in figure C. You are claiming that the concrete floors would have hinged around the undamaged truss connections.

Explain how that is possible.

The figure is just an introductary example of what could happen when/if upper part C collides with lower part A. Evidently various elements come into contact with one another and the weakest element in contact is then assumed to be damaged. E.g, a vertical, strong column of A will punch through a horizontal, weak floor/truss of C. I hope you agree that it is reasonable?
So the C floor/truss is damaged/cut into two parts, each of which is only supported at its end (the bolted connection to a C column) and it is suggested that the damaged C element rotates (hinges) around that support. Is that too difficult to understand?
According various OCTs of the destructions it is however assumed that many part C floors either remain intact and drop down on A (the floor connections to the columns fail = the pan cake theory!) or that the bottom C floor becomes superstrong and like a snow plough crushes anything below it, i.e. complete part A - the famous one-way crush down of A by C.
My introductury example is just to show that the OCTs are false. Evidently elements of upper part C are immediately locally damaged at contact, energy is absorbed ... and part C, or what remains of it, should be stopped or arrested. If you really read the whole paper, that's pretty obvious, n'est pas?

 

[Gamolon]

The figure is just an introductary example of what could happen when/if upper part C collides with lower part A. Evidently various elements come into contact with one another and the weakest element in contact is then assumed to be damaged. E.g, a vertical, strong column of A will punch through a horizontal, weak floor/truss of C. I hope you agree that it is reasonable?

No it's NOT reasonable. Especially when there were two walls of 60, 13" square columns spaced at 3'-4". How do the perimeter columns "PUNCH" through the concrete floor with other columns that closely spaced? Not going to happen. The perimeter wall will act as a "WHOLE" and push down upon the edge of the concrete floor as a "WHOLE", bending or shearing the "L"shaped truss support downward. See my picture above.

So the C floor/truss is damaged/cut into two parts, each of which is only supported at its end (the bolted connection to a C column) and it is suggested that the damaged C element rotates (hinges) around that support. Is that too difficult to understand?

Horsecrap. Seems like I'm the only one willing to show what hey are talking about with drawings/and pictures. What is causing the hinging? The "L" shaped floor truss connections?

 

[tfk]

Bill,

You really are amazing.

I don't think that I've ever run across anyone who was more consistently wrong. At every step.

The relative lack of insults ...

.
What are you talking about...?

There were COPIOUS amounts of insults in my posts.

I stated that the Chihuahua knows more about engineering than you. While this is completely accurate, it is STILL an insult.

... and the complete lack of any technical rebuttal ...

.
There was an abbreviated, but comprehensive, technical rebuttal in that post.

I pointed out where you got just about every statement wrong.

Just like here.

... makes your reply look weak T.

.
Not weak. Concise & to the point.

As we all know you are a great believer in the power of perceptiion as are most propagandists.

.
Batting 1,000, bill.

"We all..." ?? You speak for nobody but yourself. Your adolescent attempts to recruit the opinions of your imaginary friends may well have worked in the 9th grade. But your utter clumsiness in the attempt convinces me that even angst-ridden teenagers saw thru you, even back then.

"... you are a great believer in the power of perceptiion ..." I'm an engineer, bill. I could not possibly give a rat's butt about anybody's "perception". Least of all, yours.

"... propagandist ...". Sure, bill. That's why I invoke conservation of energy & momentum. Work & energy principles. Impulse / change of momentum equivalence. Stress, strain, calculus, etc. Nothing but "propaganda" here...

Perception is working against you here.

.
I am perfectly comfortable with the public perception of BOTH of us, bill.

Tom

 

[Heiwa]

Here is Heiwa's diagram of WTC1 again:
[qimg]http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/WTC1slicea.gif[/qimg]

Here is my picture of the two walls that he says are offset over the concrete floor.
[qimg]http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/perimetercolumns3.jpg[/qimg]

How do the concrete floors of the lower floor "hinge" around the floor truss connections on the perimeter columns with a full length row of perimeter columns pushing down on the floor on two sides?

Good picture! Thus the upper or lower outside wall slices the floor it comes into contact with into two parts. One floor part is very short (the one connected to the wall) and the other is very long - connected to the core. Evidently the latter floor section rotates around the undamaged core connections and the free floor end drops down on a floor below.
This evidently happens in both parts C and A. After impact you have first two damaged floors, sections of which have rotated and free end dropped down as outlined above, later, if more floors are sliced you have four, six or eight damaged floors rubbing against each other. Note that equal numbers of A and C floors are damaged as the A and C structures are similar.

You can in fact calculate the energy required to slice a floor in two bits. It is quite substantial and after cutting say 6 floors (3 in A and 3 in C), WTC 1 further local failures should have been arrested.