WTC collapses - Layman's terms again

[stateofgrace]

Yes + friction between tyres and road. And lack of energy. Force F must be applied for quite a long time and I assume you run out of fuel. Force times distance displaced = energy.

Brilliant, thank you for telling us something every single person on the planet knows, but that is not what you said the first time around.

So why does not a ship accelerate to the speed of light when a force is applied to it? Aha! Resistance of some type. The ship acceleration is slowed down by resistance! Until equilibrium is maintained. Driving propeller force = opposite reaction resistance force = no acceleration (and some constant speed). Same with a dropping upper block. Does it meet resistance, it is slowed down. Does it meet plenty of resistance, it stops. It is arrested.

Do carry on, watching your train wreck of a thread is far more amusing that bothering with you any longer.

 

[Dumb All Over]

and i think it is a good idea you let it peerreview here by the JREFers.

Oh, I can see it now. I see it coming, plain as day. "My paper was fully peer-reviewed. It was peer-reviewed in the James Randi Educational Foundation Forum." Nope. Wrong.

But, it's no surprise that someone who lies about FDNY firemen also has no clue, like Anders Bjorkman, what a true peer-review process is. Dictator Cheney, you obviously do not have the slightest idea what it is, do you.

Heiwa's paper is a REJECT.

 

[DC]

i do know what peer reviewing is. it was detailed linked in this very topic.

and i think that is a valid critique point from your review. i think it is not peerreviewed to the standard described.

but i mean do you now stop reviewing it?
or do you continue to the other parts of his paper?
and post your critique about other points?

 

[DC]

and do you judge all ppl the same way that have missinformed you or even lied to you?

 

[Dumb All Over]

and do you judge all ppl the same way that have missinformed you or even lied to you?

People who lie to me instantly lose all credibility. With me, you have no credibility.

 

[DC]

People who lie to me instantly lose all credibility. With me, you have no credibility.

did i lie to you?

 

[Dumb All Over]

You lied to everyone.

And, no, I'm not going to dig up the fireman thread where you did it. You can do that yourself.

 

[gumboot]

The WTC collapse issue is possibly the most simple one there is. The single, and only, reason Conspiracy Theorists offer their denial of the collapse is as follows:

They are ignorant of, or in denial of, the simple fact that tall structures are inherently unstable.

The perception is of a structure that is strong and robust, quite happy to remain where it is, that requires the injection of enormous amounts of energy in order to force it to move out of its natural state and collapse.

They have it all backwards.

A building wants to collapse. On every building, at all times, there is a constant and irresistible force urging it to collapse. The fundamental effort of engineering is to fight against that urge to collapse. Disrupt the structure, even just a surprisingly small amount, and that urge takes control, and the building comes down - returning to its natural state - collapsed.

 

[DC]

I often ask this question of twoofers, without ever receiving a satisfactory answer. There are, as you've no doubt noticed, several extremely bright engineers and architects on this forum. Why don't you believe what they write? Seriously? Do you think that they're all missing something simple?

i will say this is possible, yes.

out of experiance i can say that sometimes the brigtest engineers smile and ignore a "layman's" oppinion of the source of a very complex progblem in a mechanical "process", while the "gut feeling" of the guy that "only puts together our machine" did indeed "expose" the source and solution to the problem. anyway the "ivory tower" spend 1000's of manhours of highly educated and experianced bright engineers and other experts on the corresponding fields to find the source of our problem and a solution. we cant deliver without solution.

sometimes, it is indeed possible.

 

[DC]

You lied to everyone.

And, no, I'm not going to dig up the fireman thread where you did it. You can do that yourself.

pls point out my lie in the fireman thread here or per PM.

 

[Heiwa]

Oh, I can see it now. I see it coming, plain as day. "My paper was fully peer-reviewed. It was peer-reviewed in the James Randi Educational Foundation Forum." Nope. Wrong.

But, it's no surprise that someone who lies about FDNY firemen also has no clue, like Anders Bjorkman, what a true peer-review process is. Dictator Cheney, you obviously do not have the slightest idea what it is, do you.

Heiwa's paper is a REJECT.

Actually I have never said that the 'paper' has been peer reviewed. Check back what I actually wrote. I never use words like scientific paper about an article for children.

 

[DC]

The WTC collapse issue is possibly the most simple one there is. The single, and only, reason Conspiracy Theorists offer their denial of the collapse is as follows:

They are ignorant of, or in denial of, the simple fact that tall structures are inherently unstable.

The perception is of a structure that is strong and robust, quite happy to remain where it is, that requires the injection of enormous amounts of energy in order to force it to move out of its natural state and collapse.

They have it all backwards.

A building wants to collapse. On every building, at all times, there is a constant and irresistible force urging it to collapse. The fundamental effort of engineering is to fight against that urge to collapse. Disrupt the structure, even just a surprisingly small amount, and that urge takes control, and the building comes down - returning to its natural state - collapsed.

buildings do indeed "want to collapse" thats why thay are designed to resist that "natural state" but also other things, like resisting wind, and afaik you do that with "springiness".

 

[DGM]

My text has been peer reviewed by some very clever guys that liked it - now it is up to the horrid critics of JREF to find some errors. Good luck. Praise is also welcome.

Heiwa

Actually I have never said that the 'paper' has been peer reviewed. Check back what I actually wrote. I never use words like scientific paper about an article for children.

Liar! What are you trying to dig out of your hole by splitting hairs. Pathetic.

 

[Dumb All Over]

DGM beat me to it. This is becoming comical.

 

[DGM]

DGM beat me to it. This is becoming comical.

Sorry man, Couldn't resist. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

 

[Dumb All Over]

Sorry man, Couldn't resist. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

Yeah, it's just too easy. It's so easy, even I can do it! Yippee!

 

[CHF]

So the TM's "engineers" and "scientists" either

a) have their friends "peer-review" their work

or b) lie about peer-review entirely

Pathetic doesn't begin to describe these people.

 

[X]

So you didn't read the article? The upper section disappears early in the action. And not even NIST support your old FEMA fantasy of dropping floors - the pancake theory - any longer. Now we are talking near free fall, impact, rigid/solid upper block, lack of strain energy of the lower structure (but plenty of it in the upper structure), shock waves, ... and other interesting matters (x,y,z,u,v,w). All impossible and not seen or proven. I just suggest that there cannot be any free fall and if there are local failures up top and the upper section moves down, some floors up there will be sliced up and the demolition will soon be arrested as gravity alone cannot produce what we see on the videos.

Bolding mine.

Where does it go, Heiwa?

 

[Newtons Bit]

but why dont we have that "effect" on both sides, in diffrent ratios? in the lower part/tower/spring AND in the upper part/tower/spring? why do only the impacted columns buckle and brake, but not the impacting columns?

They DO. Bazant's original analysis leaves this out because a spring with discrete levels of mass and stiffness impacting another spring with discrete levels of mass and stiffness cannot be expressed algebraically. It is an extremely difficult problem. This is why the problem has to be simplified.

 

[DC]

They DO. Bazant's original analysis leaves this out because a spring with discrete levels of mass and stiffness impacting another spring with discrete levels of mass and stiffness cannot be expressed algebraically. It is an extremely difficult problem. This is why the problem has to be simplified.

but then i cannot understand how one can stick to "Elementary Calculations".
why is the "official side" not going into FEA simulations of the collapse?
i got told they cant.
i guess Jiang Jianjing and Lu Xinzheng would heavyly disagree.
(i do not support theyr modeling, one could call it fraudelent modeling)

how come Bazant, et al. stick to "Elementary Calculations" and ignore and simplify the things they cant solve?