WTC collapses - Layman's terms again

gumboot said:
Where would the people go?

This is a ridiculous statement. No one thinks any part of the WTC was a "solid steel block".
Click to expand...

fraud pomeroo did compare it with a solid steel block droping on me......

it seems that he belives that it was a solid steel block.
 
Dictator Cheney said:
fraud pomeroo did compare it with a solid steel block droping on me......

it seems that he belives that it was a solid steel block.
Click to expand...


You mean, the same way Heiwa believes there was a 204,000 kW engine lifting the upper sections of the buildings back into place?

Sure are a lot of people believing a lot of strange things around here.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Dictator Cheney said:
fraud pomeroo did compare it with a solid steel block droping on me......

it seems that he belives that it was a solid steel block.
Click to expand...


You totally missed the point of his post.

If object A impacts object B all of the mass of object A contributes to the momentum and therefore impact force of object A, regardless of how much of object A actually comes into direct contact with object B.

This is incredibly simple.
 
gumboot said:
You totally missed the point of his post.

If object A impacts object B all of the mass of object A contributes to the momentum and therefore impact force of object A, regardless of how much of object A actually comes into direct contact with object B.

This is incredibly simple.
Click to expand...

only when the impacting object is Solid, and does not deforn on impact.

why was the falling part, the part with THINNER steel , able to crush all the floor under it, with THICKER steel. without the falling part beeing destroyed untill the crushup phase?

when you assume the upper part to be solid, also assume the lower part beeing solid.
 
btw did that mark guy, when he had the stuff in his hands that came out of the tower. why the hell didnt NIST analyse it? why doe they have to GUESS what it was, while Mark KNOWS what it was?

is Mark a liar?`or why did NIST have to guess? why didnt he contact NIST and told them where they can find that "aluminium"?
 
Dictator Cheney said:
only when the impacting object is Solid, and does not deforn on impact.
Click to expand...

This is incorrect.


Dictator Cheney said:
why was the falling part, the part with THINNER steel , able to crush all the floor under it, with THICKER steel. without the falling part beeing destroyed untill the crushup phase?
Click to expand...

Because the falling part is at least ten stories whereas the floor underneath it is only one story (also the variation in column steel thickness from floor to floor is very small).

It's worth nothing that only the floor contents and floor trusses were crushed, I've never seen any evidence that any of the columns were crushed - the exterior columns peeled away from the building intact and the core columns were largely intact after the floors had all collapsed.


Dictator Cheney said:
when you assume the upper part to be solid, also assume the lower part beeing solid.
Click to expand...

No one assumes the upper part to be solid. As I said earlier, this notion is ridiculous.
 
Heiwa said:
Yes, only 0.13% of the footprint of the building is load bearing = columns. The rest is floor! You know - to walk on!
If a massive weight falls on the floor there might be a hole in the floor or the floor is deformed. All explained in the article, actually.
Click to expand...

It makes “holes” in the floors? How many floors have “holes “ in them ?The floors that brace the internal columns to the external perimeters? What size “holes”? What impact did these “holes” have on the stability of the building?

You said the massive dynamic weight would have become entangled, bounced off, slide off, stopped; now you are reversing what you have claimed all along and saying it would make "holes". Explain fully these "holes".Explain fully the leap you make from claiming that the non load bearing floors that you walk on can suddenly and majestically stop a massive dynamic weight that is falling onto them. Explain how they suddenly become so strong that this massive weight will make “holes” in the non load bearing floor trusses.
The peer reviewers of my article for children have requested to not to be named. You don't know them anyway.
Click to expand...
Drop you belittling condescending attitude, pal, you are fooling nobody with your pathetic attempts to pore scorn on anybody. For somebody who claims to be a qualified engineer with a peer reviewed paper, you come across as nothing more than a spoilt brat, who is desperate for attention. You will get the attention and maybe ever some respect if you stop acting so pompous and arrogant and pretending that everybody should be is the slightest bit impressed with you or your paper.

Whether I know who peer reviewed your paper is irreverent to the question, equally so is your childish and pathetic attempt to dodge the questions. You were asked who they were and what qualifies them to review your paper. You were also asked which journal it is to appear in. Answer the questions professionally and with courtesy. Can you do that?

Are we to assume that since your papaer was written for children it was peer reviewed by children? Will it appear in a childrens magazine?
 
Last edited:
stateofgrace said:
It makes “holes” in the floors? How many floors have “holes “ in them ?The floors that brace the internal columns to the external perimeters? What size “holes”? What impact did these “holes” have on the stability of the building?

You said the massive dynamic weight would have become entangled, bounced off, slide off, stopped; now you are reversing what you have claimed all along and saying it would make "holes". Explain fully these "holes".

Drop you belittling condescending attitude, pal, you are fooling nobody with your pathetic attempts to pore scorn on anybody. For somebody who claims to be a qualified engineer with a peer reviewed paper, you come across as nothing more than a spoilt brat, who is desperate for attention. You will get the attention and maybe ever some respect if you stop acting so pompous and arrogant and pretending that everybody should be is the slightest bit impressed with you or your paper.

Whether I know who peer reviewed your paper is irreverent to the question, equally so is you’re childish and pathetic attempt to dodge the question. You were asked who they were and what qualifies them to review thou paper. You were also asked which journal it is to appear in. Answer the questions professionally and with courtesy. Can you do that?
Click to expand...

You asked a question about dropping a weight on a floor and got an answer. A hole (or just deformation). If you drop of series of weights, e.g. columns with spandrels, on a floor, or, if you drop a floor on a line of columns with spandrels, you get a line of holes or a long slice in the floor - as described in the article. The columns are 100 times stronger than the floor and pierces the floor, up or down.

The article is written with courtesy, the NIST has been informed about it, NIST has actually replied (and not complained about the style) and referred to its FAQs Dec 2007 that raises more questions than answers. NIST first, as you know, maintained the upper block was solid acting as a hammer (not being destroyed) destroying the columns below like spaghetti (KE>SE), then it was 6 or 11 floors dropping down (the upper block suddenly lost 6 or 11 floors) and why the columns then would be destroyed is not clarified (KE was suddenly much less and did not impact the columns = the SE). NIST does not consider that misalignment of the two colliding parts means something completely different - unsymmetric local failures of the two parts that will cause transverse movement ... and eventually collapse arrest.

If I come across as a spoilt brat in your mind
Edited by chillzero: 
Edited for Civility


This is a forum for critical thinking in a lively and friendly way
Edited by chillzero: 
Edited for Civility
.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
gumboot said:
This is incorrect.




Because the falling part is at least ten stories whereas the floor underneath it is only one story (also the variation in column steel thickness from floor to floor is very small).

It's worth nothing that only the floor contents and floor trusses were crushed, I've never seen any evidence that any of the columns were crushed - the exterior columns peeled away from the building intact and the core columns were largely intact after the floors had all collapsed.




No one assumes the upper part to be solid. As I said earlier, this notion is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Are you trying to tell me that all the energy is only affecting the most upper storey?`

i hope that is a misstake by you, and not a lie.

the energy is "applyed" degressively among all the floors of the lower part.

or do you belive that the most opper storey will be affected by the impacting energy, but the floor under it wil not experiance any of that energy?

the most upper column will buckle, but the 2nd most upper column, where the most upper one is resting on will not be affected?

and how come the lowest columns of the falling tower part is also not affected by that impact energy?

thats cartoon physics, sorry.....
 
Last edited:
Heiwa said:
You asked a question about dropping a weight on a floor and got an answer. A hole (or just deformation). If you drop of series of weights, e.g. columns with spandrels, on a floor, or, if you drop a floor on a line of columns with spandrels, you get a line of holes or a long slice in the floor - as described in the article. The columns are 100 times stronger than the floor and pierces the floor, up or down.

The article is written with courtesy, the NIST has been informed about it, NIST has actually replied (and not complained about the style) and referred to its FAQs Dec 2007 that raises more questions than answers. NIST first, as you know, maintained the upper block was solid acting as a hammer (not being destroyed) destroying the columns below like spaghetti (KE>SE), then it was 6 or 11 floors dropping down (the upper block suddenly lost 6 or 11 floors) and why the columns then would be destroyed is not clarified (KE was suddenly much less and did not impact the columns = the SE). NIST does not consider that misalignment of the two colliding parts means something completely different - unsymmetric local failures of the two parts that will cause transverse movement ... and eventually collapse arrest.

If I come across as a spoilt brat in your mind I recommend that you consult a brain surgeon. Goes for many other participants on this thread.

This is a forum for critical thinking in a lively and friendly way but seems to attract many people with serious brain damages .
Click to expand...

Excuse me?

Who on earth do you think you are ? Your dodge is noted and so is your once again belittling atitude.Your post is reported.

The columns are 100 times stronger than the floor and pierces the floor, up or down.
Click to expand...
It did not fall on the columns it fell onto the floors, the non load bearing floors, so what happens when the non loading bearing floors that brace the external columns to the inner cores is subject to massive violent damage?

Where will your " peer reveiewed" paper appear?Which journal ?

Explain fully the " holes".
 
Last edited:
Heiwa said:
The article is written with courtesy, the NIST has been informed about it, NIST has actually replied (and not complained about the style) and referred to its FAQs Dec 2007 that raises more questions than answers. NIST first, as you know, maintained the upper block was solid acting as a hammer (not being destroyed) destroying the columns below like spaghetti (KE>SE), then it was 6 or 11 floors dropping down (the upper block suddenly lost 6 or 11 floors) and why the columns then would be destroyed is not clarified (KE was suddenly much less and did not impact the columns = the SE). NIST does not consider that misalignment of the two colliding parts means something completely different - unsymmetric local failures of the two parts that will cause transverse movement ... and eventually collapse arrest.
Click to expand...

How did the 99.87% non load bearing part of the building arrrest the collapse?

Answer the question.
 
stateofgrace said:
It did not fall on the columns it fell onto the floors, the non load bearing floors, so what happens when the non loading bearing floors that brace the external columns to the inner cores is subject to massive violent damage?
Click to expand...

Heiwa doesn't believe that the floors provided any bracing function. He cannot believe it because if he did he wouldn't believe the rest of his nonsense.

Heiwa doesn't understand the design of the wtc towers and, like all good 'truthers', his ego (and pocket) won't allow him to go and actually speak with someone who does.

I ask again, to all the 'truthers' who think they know why the towers couldn't have collapsed due to impact damage and fire, please, the deaths of 3000 people is worth you stumping up the cost of a 2 hour consultation with a qualified and experienced structural engineer. Then you will be able to speak on the subject with a solid understanding of the principles involved.

But you won't, because you don't want to.
 
how come the lowest floor and the lowest columns of the upper, falling, tower part, are able to crush all the floors of the lower intact tower part, without beeing destroyed untill the crush up phase started?

Dr. Bazant's Collapse fantasy is total nonsence.
even Haiwa's comparing to the bbq party table collapse is more accurate.
 
Last edited:
Dictator Cheney said:
how come the lowest floor and the lowest columns of the upper, falling, tower part, are able to crush all the floors of the lower intact tower part, without beeing destroyed untill the crush up phase started?

Dr. Bazant's Collapse fantasy is total nonsence.
even Haiwa's comparing to the bbq party table collapse is more accurate.
Click to expand...

Matthew 7:15
 
Dictator Cheney said:
sorry, i really dont feel like taking a look at the bible fantasy book to lookup what you want to say :)

amen
Click to expand...
you should. Even a fantasy can have relevent knowledge.

"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." -Matthew 7:15-

This is a verse that inspired centuries of writtings. Remember even if you don't believe in the Bible that is not an excuse never to read it. Given that it is the basis for much of our most famous literature. Feel stupid yet?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom