Moderated Continuation - Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

[tfk]

Bill,

We always knew that that Bazant was pulling all our legs ...

.
Who, on this entire planet, is dumb enough to appoint you to be their spokesfool?
.

... but that was difficult to establish beyond doubt in he eyes of the public when we had an enormous body of people who just said 'no'and were prepared to keep saying 'no' under any and all circumstances.

.
THAT's the reason that you couldn't (and still can't) understand what a "rigid body" is. Everyone just kept saying "No, bill, we refuse to explain it to you. Because then you'll use it to catch our math errors..."

Oh, wait...
.

So it's nice to have participated in the coalition that finally put the Bazant myth of the 'rigid upper part C' to rest for good using introvertible video evidence.

.
You "participated in the coalition that ... put Bazant's [analysis] ... to rest for good".

You've got the Chihuahua quivering again.

You DO realize, don't you, that you've completely disrupted my home life.

Just a few minutes ago, I got into an argument with the Chihuahua regarding "feeding times". I started into my "I am the intellectually superior species" (in my best Ricardo Cumberbund "Khan" imitation). The chihuahua starts dragging me over to the computer. He grabs the mouse and clicks a new hot link that the sneaky sucker had added to the toolbar bar when I wasn't looking. It was labeled "stoopid hooman". (He's great at differential equations, but his spelling ain't nuthin' to write home about.) Up pops YOUR LAST POST....!!

Needless to say, the chihuahua got his snack. HOW can you argue with an argument as compelling as that, eh?
.

You should get a real dog like mine. He's a long nosed long tailed short haired Irish Wolfhound. His name is Ferdia. A pure killer when he wants to be.

.
Perhaps you should have Ferdia write your posts for you. They might make more sense. They are CERTAIN to be less arrogant.

Perhaps he and Brutus, the chihuahua, would like to discuss collapse theories, failure modes and Energy calculations. We can give 'em their own thread. It's BOUND to be more informative than your & Heiwa's offerings.

And if there is a flaw in any of Bazant's papers, they are far, FAR more likely to find it than "your coalition of the clueless".

Tom

 

[tfk]

.
I asked specific questions.

1. What are the weak link components on Floor 98 that would have to break in order for the collapse to continue?
2. What are the components of floors 96 thru 100 that actually DO break when the columns on floor 98 buckle?
3. What are the components of floors 96 thru 100 that actually DO break when Part C crashes into Floor 98?
4. How much energy would it take to break them? (In Joules, please.)

Tom

.
Please answer the above questions. And no others.

Elastic/inelastic compression at contact is very relevant to establish where the contact forces are, energy applied/transformed and what elements will fail, if any.

It seems we agree, that if part C contacts part A, part A also contacts part C and that you finally agree that part C will be subject to local failures!

Bazant disagrees! Part C will, for unclear reasons, not be subject to local failures and Bazant suggests that it is superfluous to discuss that detail.

Detail? According Bazant, it is part C, undamaged, that one-way crushes part A. Never heard of before/after 911 but a normal phenomenon according Bazant ... that cannot be discussed. Superfluous!

What is part C? Well, it is mainly pre-fab perimeter wall assemblies and floor/truss sections bolted together around a fairly solid core. Most elements of part C are just bolted together (like part A below).

Bazant suggests that part C is a rock solid, rigid block of some sort, but we know better. It is a very flexible assemby of elements as just described. Like part A.

So when these two structural parts C and A, flexible, quite fragile actually, collide, you can be sure that part C breaks into pieces; the floor/truss sections are like paper, the wall perimeter assemblies will just drop off outside. If you believe that these bits and pieces then can one-way crush down part A (and the core !!!!) you are kindly requested to demonstrate it. And prove my Axiom wrong!

I asked specific questions.

1. What are the weak link components on Floor 98 that would have to break in order for the collapse to continue?
2. What are the components of floors 96 thru 100 that actually DO break when the columns on floor 98 buckle?
3. What are the components of floors 96 thru 100 that actually DO break when Part C crashes into Floor 98?
4. How much energy would it take to break them? (In Joules, please.)

Please answer these questions. And no other.
I am not interested in Bazant's analysis. Or your anaysis. I am interested in the questions above.

Tom

 

[NobbyNobbs]

OK, part C drops on part A and applies 1 GJ energy.

Where did this number come from?

At impact 0.5 GJ energy is used to deform parts C and A elastically

Where did this number come from?

(the temperature of associated structure is raised 0.05°C).

Where did this number come from?

Thus there remains 0.5 GJ energy to produce local failures in interface C/A. The local failures are assumed to be broken columns punching holes in the floors.

Why are you making this assumption?

As there are about 300 columns that can punch holes in the floors of parts C and A

Where did this number come from?

the 0.5 GJ is not sufficient to do that.

How do you know?

 

[FineWine]

OK, part C drops on part A and applies 1 GJ energy. At impact 0.5 GJ energy is used to deform parts C and A elastically (the temperature of associated structure is raised 0.05°C).
Thus there remains 0.5 GJ energy to produce local failures in interface C/A. The local failures are assumed to be broken columns punching holes in the floors. As there are about 300 columns that can punch holes in the floors of parts C and A the 0.5 GJ is not sufficient to do that. Destruction is thus arrested at once.

How long will you keep pretending that there is a relatively large Part A that the collapsing floors drop onto when everyone here, except your hopeless parrot, realizes that you have been exposed as a fraud? The floors drop onto the floor immediately below , crushing it and adding it to the total collapsing mass.

Destruction was not arrested in reality, and cannot be arrested even in theory. You remain spectacularly wrong and impenetrably obtuse.

 

[Heiwa]

AA. Where did this number come from?



BB. Where did this number come from?


CC. Where did this number come from?


DD. Why are you making this assumption?


EE. Where did this number come from?


FF. How do you know?

AA. It is m times h times g!

BB. In this example 50% of the energy applied is used to deform the structures.

CC. Some of the deformation energy is transformed into heat and warms the structure - 0.05°C in this example.

DD. This is the energy that remains that can produce failures.

EE. In this example 300 columns happen to contact other elements.

FF. See CC. Very little energy applied. Cannot do much harm!

You do not really believe that dropping a little part C on a big part A can one way crush down A ??????????????????????????????????????????????

 

[FineWine]

We always knew that that Bazant was pulling all our legs but that was difficult to establish beyond doubt in he eyes of the public when we had an enormous body of people who just said 'no'and were prepared to keep saying 'no' under any and all circumstances.
So it's nice to have participated in the coalition that finally put the Bazant myth of the 'rigid upper part C' to rest for good using introvertible video evidence. 'No' is no longer a realistic option for you guys and you will have to attenuate your position to accomodate this new empirical data.

Now you must show how some sticks and stones crushed 97 floors of WTC1 down to the ground. I wish you luck.

You should get a real dog like mine. He's a long nosed long tailed short haired Irish Wolfhound. His name is Ferdia. A pure killer when he wants to be.

How could you draw any conclusions about Bazant's paper? You weren't able to read it. You lack both the education and the intelligence. You're contending that Bazant tricked engineers all over the world, but incredibly stupid agenda-driven fools penetrated his deception? How did they manage that?

 

[Heiwa]

How long will you keep pretending that there is a relatively large Part A that the collapsing floors drop onto when everyone here, except your hopeless parrot, realizes that you have been exposed as a fraud? The floors drop onto the floor immediately below , crushing it and adding it to the total collapsing mass.

Destruction was not arrested in reality, and cannot be arrested even in theory. You remain spectacularly wrong and impenetrably obtuse.

Me, a fraud? Sorry. Anyone suggesting that a one-way Crush down is possible is a fraud. Are you religious? Do you believe in miracles?

But I give you the possibility to prove me wrong. Visit The Heiwa Challenge thread!

 

[FineWine]

AA. It is m times h times g!

BB. In this example 50% of the energy applied is used to deform the structures.

CC. Some of the deformation energy is transformed into heat and warms the structure - 0.05°C in this example.

DD. This is the energy that remains that can produce failures.

EE. In this example 300 columns happen to contact other elements.

FF. See CC. Very little energy applied. Cannot do much harm!

You do not really believe that dropping a little part C on a big part A can one way crush down A ??????????????????????????????????????????????

You've been caught lying again. Your Part C, the collapsing floors, is the big part. The next floor in line, the floor they collapse onto, is the little part. You imagine that thirteen (or fifteen, or twenty, or however many) floors hit the entire rest of the building.

You are absurdly wrong.

 

[tfk]

Where did this number come from?

Where did this number come from?

Where did this number come from?

Why are you making this assumption?

Where did this number come from?

How do you know?

.
They are referred to as DAREs.

"Digital Auto-Rectal Extractions".

Tom

 

[FineWine]

You're not wrong, and Tony doesn't seem to have a terribly good memory.



Feel free to follow the link back to the original post.

Dave

Szamboti was obviously wrong about the fictitious Silverstein quote. Do you think it was a deliberate lie? After all, if Silverstein had ever said anything that remotely resembled Szamboti's imaginary quote, it would be engraved in stone in "truther" folklore. I keep asking why people lie when it is so easy to catch them. Maybe Szamboti just got confused (he does that often).

 

[alienentity]

Szamboti was obviously wrong about the fictitious Silverstein quote. Do you think it was a deliberate lie? After all, if Silverstein had ever said anything that remotely resembled Szamboti's imaginary quote, it would be engraved in stone in "truther" folklore. I keep asking why people lie when it is so easy to catch them. Maybe Szamboti just got confused (he does that often).

Tony is excellent proof that when you throw out good science, all you have left is bad science.

There is an absence of empirical evidence of any explosive demolition in any of the WTC buildings. Good science follows this empirical evidence and draws the correct conclusions.
In order to support a claim for the opposite of good science, bad science is required. Hence truthers embrace it, no matter what the cost is to the facts and truth.

Tony has also written that he thinks the explosives were placed on the core, where the explosions couldn't be detected. Unfortunately he lacks an empirical evidence of this, just as he lacks proof of the Silverstein quote. These inconvenient truths are just speedbumps that truthers run over in their rush to implicate their own government, and (in the case of WTC7) FDNY along with it.....well anyone who opposes them, really.

 

[bill smith]

Bill,


.
Who, on this entire planet, is dumb enough to appoint you to be their spokesfool?
.

.
THAT's the reason that you couldn't (and still can't) understand what a "rigid body" is. Everyone just kept saying "No, bill, we refuse to explain it to you. Because then you'll use it to catch our math errors..."

Oh, wait...
.

.
You "participated in the coalition that ... put Bazant's [analysis] ... to rest for good".

You've got the Chihuahua quivering again.

You DO realize, don't you, that you've completely disrupted my home life.

Just a few minutes ago, I got into an argument with the Chihuahua regarding "feeding times". I started into my "I am the intellectually superior species" (in my best Ricardo Cumberbund "Khan" imitation). The chihuahua starts dragging me over to the computer. He grabs the mouse and clicks a new hot link that the sneaky sucker had added to the toolbar bar when I wasn't looking. It was labeled "stoopid hooman". (He's great at differential equations, but his spelling ain't nuthin' to write home about.) Up pops YOUR LAST POST....!!

Needless to say, the chihuahua got his snack. HOW can you argue with an argument as compelling as that, eh?
.

.
Perhaps you should have Ferdia write your posts for you. They might make more sense. They are CERTAIN to be less arrogant.

Perhaps he and Brutus, the chihuahua, would like to discuss collapse theories, failure modes and Energy calculations. We can give 'em their own thread. It's BOUND to be more informative than your & Heiwa's offerings.

And if there is a flaw in any of Bazant's papers, they are far, FAR more likely to find it than "your coalition of the clueless".

Tom

Now that Bazant's upper 'rigid block' of WTC1 has been proven to have disintegrated PRIOR tp contact with the lower 90% of the building I think I will move down the building to where the disintegrated rubble of the upper 13 or so floors made contact with the top of the lower 90% of the building. There might be something to be gleaned from that.

PS. If your chihuahua is dragging you across the room as you say I can only suggest you get a smaller dog. There may actuallly be one smaller than a chihuahua.

 

[alienentity]

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Finally, you complain that I discuss the obvious controlled demolition of Bldg. 7. I have never met anyone who has seen that collapse call it anything but. I also told you via e-mail that I watched Larry Silverstein use the actual words "Bldg. 7 was a controlled demolition for safety reasons" on a History Channel show called History's Business in late 2002, so I absolutely know I am right about that and none of yours or Popular mechanics non-engineering editors can say different. I tried to get a copy of that show when I realized 911 wasn't what we were told it was last year, and the History Channel told me that series is not publicly available. Interesting. No need to be suspicious though as you will simply say Bldg. 7 wasn't a controlled demolition.

The History Channel is also suppressing a video of Larry Silverstein actually saying Bldg. 7 was a "controlled demolition for safety reasons" on a Sunday morning show called History's Business in early 2004. I know as I watched him say it and at the time I was not suspicious about 911 and that comment made sense to me as I had never understood Bldg. 7's complete collapse.

(2007)
http://www.911blogger.com/node/10741#comment-157751

Yes, it does seem Tony plays fast and loose with the facts, even the ones he makes up.

 

[FineWine]

Now that Bazant's upper 'rigid block' of WTC1 has been proven to have disintegrated PRIOR tp contact with the lower 90% of the building I think I will move down the building to where the disintegrated rubble of the upper 13 or so floors made contact with the top of the lower 90% of the building. There might be something to be gleaned from that.

PS. If your chihuahua is dragging you across the room as you say I can only suggest you get a smaller dog. There may actuallly be one smaller than a chihuahua.

Nobody has "proven" that the upper-block disintegrated prior to contact with THE FLOOR IMMEDIATELY BELOW. It would be a difficult thing to prove, as the upper-block did not "disintegrate."

Your muddle-headed guru continues to make a complete fool of himself by desperately trying to pretend that the collapsing floors contact the entire building, and not, as is obvious to everyone sane, the next floor in line. Admittedly, your head is empty. But why do you insist on filling it with nonsense? The fool you worship cannot supply a single calculation supporting his madness. He has been torn to shreds by real engineers. He runs in terror when anyone points out that the falling mass hits THE NEXT FLOOR, not the whole building.

Heiwa has been beaten as badly and exposed as thoroughly as such hopeless, unteachable idiots as Ultima1, Christopher7, roundhead, and Homeland Insurgency. Are you so blinded by your hate-based ideology that you can't see it?

 

[alienentity]

History's Business episodes, (1/2 hr business show on History Channel)

3/3/2002: Brooks Brothers with CEO Claudio Del Vecchio
7/11/2004: Timberland CEO Jeffrey Swartz talks about the company's rise in the footwear market, including the story of how his grandfather Nathan and father Sidney launched the brand in 1973.
7/18/2004: Alan J. Weber, CEO of U.S. Trust, is the guest
7/25/2004: Harley-Davidson CEO Jeffrey Bluestein is the guest.

No mention of Larry Silverstein....


http://www.tvguide.com/detail/tv-show.aspx?tvobjectid=202011&more=ucepisodelist&episodeid=6271355

 

[FineWine]

History's Business episodes, (1/2 hr business show on History Channel)

3/3/2002: Brooks Brothers with CEO Claudio Del Vecchio
7/11/2004: Timberland CEO Jeffrey Swartz talks about the company's rise in the footwear market, including the story of how his grandfather Nathan and father Sidney launched the brand in 1973.
7/18/2004: Alan J. Weber, CEO of U.S. Trust, is the guest
7/25/2004: Harley-Davidson CEO Jeffrey Bluestein is the guest.

No mention of Larry Silverstein....


http://www.tvguide.com/detail/tv-show.aspx?tvobjectid=202011&more=ucepisodelist&episodeid=6271355

I believe that there was an edition of "History's Business" that featured Larry Silverstein. Of course, it can't be emphasized strongly enough that if he ever said anything remotely resembling Szamboti's bogus quote, "truthers" would have been screaming it from the rooftops for years.

 

[alienentity]

Found a reference:

History's Business, Season 1, Episode 9.

Can anybody find it?

 

[carlitos]

Mechanical Engineer
I am a 50-year-old degreed mechanical engineer who went to nine years of night school in the 1980's at Villanova University, after serving an enlistment in the U.S. Navy as an aircraft mechanic. I have studied the Kennedy assassination for years and am well aware of the disinformation that accompanies these type of events, to keep things confused and hard to decipher. I watched the towers fall live and always had a problem with the seeming lack of energy, in the short fall of the upper stories, to cause the complete collapse of the buildings. I could never understand Building 7's complete collapse until seeing Larry Silverstein say it was a controlled demolition for safety reasons on the History Channel in 2004. Yes, he actually used those words but try to find that show now. I didn't start to see 9/11 for what it was until this past spring (2006) after hearing about Professor Steven Jones' paper and asking myself when there would have been time to set the charges in Building 7. I was fortunate to have gotten an engineering education, where society must teach a person how to think in order to solve the problems it needs addressed. The big trick to solving problems is to imbue yourself with all of the information and then make use of the subconscious mind. In everyday terms that is to "sleep on it." Thank you for your humanity and may God keep you safe and allow you to continue to shine the light he has given you. - T.S.

I watched Silverstein use the words controlled demolition

I know it won't help in court but for anyone out there doubting, I actually watched Larry Silverstein say "Bldg. 7 was a controlled demolition for safety reasons" on a History Channel Show called History's Business on a Sunday morning in late 2002 or sometime in 2003.

FYI - History's Business With Sander Vanocur featuring Larry Silverstein originally aired Sep 8, 2002, according to a few TV blogs like Fancast. Can't find an episode list on imdb.com.

 

[boloboffin]

The fix is in: Vanocur interviewed RFK hours before the assassination.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24948843/

And according to Fancast.com, an episode of the program talking about IHOP will be on the History Channel August 2. I guess that means it's still in production.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Now that Bazant's upper 'rigid block' of WTC1 has been proven to have disintegrated PRIOR tp contact with the lower 90% of the building I think I will move down the building to where the disintegrated rubble of the upper 13 or so floors made contact with the top of the lower 90% of the building.

Bill let's agree this top part is floor 97, ok? Aaaannnnd floor 97 takes the hit from the 13 floors above it. Oh My! Now floor 96 wants to know what floor 97 is gonna do? What is floor 97 going to do Bill?