WTC collapses - Layman's terms again

stateofgrace said:
Why?

Why are you incapable of believing that individuals are quite capable of self determination, they are quite capable of making there own decisions and quite capable of carrying out acts of evil unless being ordered to do so by the USG?

Does it comfort you in some way? Do you seek some form of comfort in believing that nothing can happen on this planet unless the big, bad, nasty USG is behind it?

Is it beyond your scope of understanding that individuals whose perception is that they have been subject to years and years of oppression by a super power can actually take matters into their own hands and actually act unilaterally?

Is that prospect too frightening for you?
Click to expand...

oc i know that ppl are indeed capable without the USG. but when it comes to 9/11. im not so sure the alleged ones acted alone.

oc it can be. where did i say nothing can happen without the US gov?
 
Dictator Cheney said:
oc i know that ppl are indeed capable without the USG. but when it comes to 9/11. im not so sure the alleged ones acted alone.
Click to expand...

Why? Why are you not sure?

Again

Why are you incapable of believing that individuals are quite capable of self determination, they are quite capable of making there own decisions and quite capable of carrying out acts of evil unless being ordered to do so by the USG?

Does it comfort you in some way? Do you seek some form of comfort in believing that nothing can happen on this planet unless the big, bad, nasty USG is behind it?

Is it beyond your scope of understanding that individuals whose perception is that they have been subject to years and years of oppression by a super power can actually take matters into their own hands and actually act unilaterally?

Is that prospect too frightening for you?
Click to expand...


oc it can be. where did i say nothing can happen without the US gov?
Click to expand...
I did not say you said that, I asked you if you were incapable of accepting it, are you?

Stop avoiding my questions, trying to reply with questions and for the first time since you have joined this forum man up and offer an opinion.

Your own opinion.
 
Last edited:
Dictator Cheney said:
in the first place i would not be so sure that we get the same result.
Click to expand...

Prove it. Do the analysis yourself. Look up what Bazant has published (both research and textbooks). I think he is more than qualified to make that decision. You need to bring evidence of otherwise to show he's wrong.
 
Newtons Bit said:
Prove it. Do the analysis yourself. Look up what Bazant has published (both research and textbooks). I think he is more than qualified to make that decision. You need to bring evidence of otherwise to show he's wrong.
Click to expand...

oc, when the "Ivory Tower" assumes/simplifys/claims something it has not to be proven , nor does it have to reflect reality, or be in favor of the opposite of your Analysis result.
instead a layman is asked to prove it wrong. while layman's get heavy jumped on when they dare to question something.

what would be your 3 top favorite Softwares to try a few 3.7m drop tests of a "upper tower part model"?
 
Dictator Cheney said:
oc, when the "Ivory Tower" assumes/simplifys/claims something it has not to be proven , nor does it have to reflect reality, or be in favor of the opposite of your Analysis result.
instead a layman is asked to prove it wrong. while layman's get heavy jumped on when they dare to question something.

what would be your 3 top favorite Softwares to try a few 3.7m drop tests of a "upper tower part model"?
Click to expand...

He's an expert in his field. Look it up. If you want to disprove him, YOU NEED TO ACTUALLY DO THE MATH. Speculation from a non-expert isn't going to cut it. Show us the math.

As far as a simulation goes, I would use ANSYS as that is the only full-scale 4d FEA program I know. Of course, I could actually do it by hand (with gross simplifications) if I had the spare 100 hours or so and the desire to repeat an analysis which I already know the result for.
 
Crayon, red ribbons, and cinnamon sticks.

Do you people have a problem with that?
 
Newtons Bit said:
He's an expert in his field. Look it up. If you want to disprove him, YOU NEED TO ACTUALLY DO THE MATH. Speculation from a non-expert isn't going to cut it. Show us the math.

As far as a simulation goes, I would use ANSYS as that is the only full-scale 4d FEA program I know. Of course, I could actually do it by hand (with gross simplifications) if I had the spare 100 hours or so and the desire to repeat an analysis which I already know the result for.
Click to expand...

im deeply disapointed that you point me to the thickness of the "ivory Tower Perimeter walls"

after walking on the "Chinese wall" im NOT impressed of the "Ivory Tower" walls.
 
Dictator Cheney said:
im deeply disapointed that you point me to the thickness of the "ivory Tower Perimeter walls"

after walking on the "Chinese wall" im NOT impressed of the "Ivory Tower" walls.
Click to expand...

That's all fine and dandy. But why don't you try and put your money where your mouth is, hmm? Gordon Ross at least had the gumption to do that, the rest of you truthers say the original analysis are deeply flawed etc etc but you can't actually provide any math to do so.

Heiwa has tried to do so. But even with using ridiculous assumptions in favor of collapse prevention, he still discovered that the upper most column of the lower block will buckle and fail. He just doesn't have the brain matter to figure that means the collapse continues to progress.

So what are you trying to do here exactly? The truthers have already tried, and failed, to disprove with math the basic concept that the tower will collapse once a single story loses the ability to support the above mass. Can you do any better?
 
Myriad said:
I imagine, based on my own experiences with developmentally disabled people my own age, that the people in that video, and their coaches or teachers, worked pretty hard to create that performance.

I don't think they did it to be used to insult people on the Internet.

I'm not pretending to be horribly offended or anything. Just saying what I think.

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...
Thank you.
 
Dictator Cheney said:
im deeply disapointed that you point me to the thickness of the "ivory Tower Perimeter walls" after walking on the "Chinese wall" im NOT impressed of the "Ivory Tower" walls.
Click to expand...


If you don’t understand the posts that you’re reading, then perhaps it would be a good idea to refrain from responding to them.

(Incidentally: :scared:)
 
Has any 'truther' admitted that it is possible for the impact and subsequent fire damage to cause the progressive collapse of the wtc towers yet?
 
funk de fino said:
More junk from the King of the Junk Science. Your paper is junk and you are a fraud.

If you took away the perimeter columns and the floors the core would fall down. The cores in the towers were the last parts to drop after the connections from the floor and perimeter columns were sheared off. It is there in video and picture form for all to see.

DC hailed your paper that talks about children jumping on a bed while at the same time he rails against Bazant and Seffen for their simple model. How ironic is that?
Click to expand...

Talking about junk, Bazant and Frank Greening have just (31 March 2008) produced a new paper that you find as reference [2] in my latest article at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm .
So Bazant and Greening suggests that the upper block (solid, rigid, uniform density, etc) remains intact during the whole incident and only selfdestructs afterwards. Any evidence for such a preposterous suggestion? Seen on any videos?
It is sad how scientists can suggest:
1. All supports suddenly disappear below the upper block.
2. The upper block free falls 3.7 meters.
3. The upper block impacts a lower structure with perfect alignment
4. The upper block is still intact.
5. The upper block (most air) destroys the columns below (the columns break every 10-12 meters like spaghetti).
6. The upper block lands intact on a heap of rubble.
7. The upper block selfdestructs.
On any video of the WTC1 collapse none of 1 - 7 can be seen.

I sometimes wonder about US science! Is it just some crazy ideas in the minds of some individuals without contact with real matter?
 
uk_dave said:
Has any 'truther' admitted that it is possible for the impact and subsequent fire damage to cause the progressive collapse of the wtc towers yet?
Click to expand...

By gravity only? For that the authorities and their associated scientists should present evidence to us 'truthers' in stead of conspiracy theories, see 7 of those in message above.
I can accept the fire as a fact. Looks pretty small. But any structural damages due to the fire? And free fall? And an impact? And the rest. Normally fire just produce local failures and any further collapse is soon arrested. This is what any serious structural engineer would expect.

Frankly speaking, WTC 1 looks IMHO like some type of CD (but it is OT).
 
Newtons Bit said:
Heiwa has tried to do so. But even with using ridiculous assumptions in favor of collapse prevention, he still discovered that the upper most column of the lower block will buckle and fail. He just doesn't have the brain matter to figure that means the collapse continues to progress.
Click to expand...

Pls, the uppermost columns of the lower structure will not be damaged at all if anything drops on them. Half the wall columns are outside the upper block and nothing can drop on them anyway. The other half gets loaded with the lowest floor of the upper block and will just slice through the floor. Similar things will happen at the core. Nothing can buckle the columns below. For that you need a vertical load of any kind applied to the (broken) column top ... and it is not possible. Except in various conspiracy theories and new NWO physics text books. All described in my article (incl. assumptions) - now on my web page. Link - see above.
 
Newtons Bit said:
Prove it. Do the analysis yourself. Look up what Bazant has published (both research and textbooks). I think he is more than qualified to make that decision. You need to bring evidence of otherwise to show he's wrong.
Click to expand...

I have just done it! Bazant's 13 september 2001 and his latest 31 March 2008 papers. The math may be right but the basic assumptions for the equations and integrations are just plain nonsense. As described on my web site.
 
Par said:
If you don’t understand the posts that you’re reading, then perhaps it would be a good idea to refrain from responding to them.

(Incidentally: :scared:)
Click to expand...

in other words you did not understand my posts.
 
Last edited:
uk_dave said:
Has any 'truther' admitted that it is possible for the impact and subsequent fire damage to cause the progressive collapse of the wtc towers yet?
Click to expand...

im just happy that the "Ivory tower" admitted that they have not proven theyr theory.
 
Newtons Bit said:
That's all fine and dandy. But why don't you try and put your money where your mouth is, hmm? Gordon Ross at least had the gumption to do that, the rest of you truthers say the original analysis are deeply flawed etc etc but you can't actually provide any math to do so.

Heiwa has tried to do so. But even with using ridiculous assumptions in favor of collapse prevention, he still discovered that the upper most column of the lower block will buckle and fail. He just doesn't have the brain matter to figure that means the collapse continues to progress.

So what are you trying to do here exactly? The truthers have already tried, and failed, to disprove with math the basic concept that the tower will collapse once a single story loses the ability to support the above mass. Can you do any better?
Click to expand...

So, they claims in my theory dont have to be backedup, they dont have to reflect reality, other will have to proove it wrong.

good to know....
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom