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

[NobbyNobbs]

Not just Iran, and North Korea; Venezuela, and Cuba (Venezuela especially) would be having a field day with this one if they truly had evidence of such an inside plot.

Much in the same way Russia exposed the moon landing hoax back in '69.


Oh, wait...

 

[tfk]

sorry, I don't have much time today.
But this one was just too hilarious to pass up....

So, just the conclusions...

It seems rasonable to surmise that a one way crush down of Part A by part C in WTC1 is impossible

.
Wrong.

Not "rasonable".

Not "reasonable" either.

NOTHING in the lifetime of the universe, that has been PROVEN to have happened, can be REASONABLY described as "impossible". That time span happens to include Sept. 11, 2001.
.

in that the core columns of part C were unfixed both top and bottom.

.
True. [Can't ... seem ... to ... catch ... my ... breath ... Room ... spinning ...!!] But irrelevant to crushing. [Whew. That's better.]
.

We know the top end was unfixed because the antenna fell into the building prior to collapse onset

.
Wrong.
Stupidly wrong.
Repeatedly wrong.
You've been told 30 times that it's wrong.
The antenna did NOT fall into the building prior to collapse.
Wrong.
.

meaning that the hat truss that held that end together and supported the 360-foot antenna was no longer intact or even in place so those column ends were loose.

.
Wrong. The hat truss was just fine at this point.
.

The bottom ends wre unfixed by virtue of being completely seperated frpm the lower block.

.
Wow. TWO statements in one post that are correct. You MAY have just set a personal best, bill.
.

So I can see what T. means

.
Wrong.
(Let's use the "understood" definition of "seen" in this case.)
Maybe you saw it, but you have never yet understood what I have meant. And I doubt that you do this time either.
.

when he says that the upper block was not a rigid body.

.
"WHOOOP! THERE IT IS...!!"

Let me get this straight. You have "seen what [I have] meant when said that the upper block was not a rigid body..."

After I just said 4 *(**ing times that "the upper block WAS a rigid body...??

See what I mean, bill.

You are incapable of understanding what I say. You are incapable of even retyping accurately what I say. You exhibit continuous, unremitting "stupid" on a colossal scale.
.

Anything but in fact. As the upstanding core columns destroyed the floors and horizontal bracing beams in part C as they were sequentially offered up C could only quickly fall to pieces with it's core columns splaying at every angle. Meantime the rock solid upstanding columns of part A would be doing yeoman's work of systematically wrecking part C.

.
Every single sentence completely, utterly, irrationally wrong.

You're back on track, bill.

Tom.

 

[bill smith]

general question:
did the NIST mention the sway dampening system in the top of each tower?
and if it may have had any effect on the collapse mechanism?
perhaps its reaction to being suddenly tilted to the side may be another variable to consider

You mean like a pendulum ?

 

[bill smith]

sorry, I don't have much time today.
But this one was just too hilarious to pass up....

So, just the conclusions...


.
Wrong.

Not "rasonable".

Not "reasonable" either.

NOTHING in the lifetime of the universe, that has been PROVEN to have happened, can be REASONABLY described as "impossible". That time span happens to include Sept. 11, 2001.
.

.
True. [Can't ... seem ... to ... catch ... my ... breath ... Room ... spinning ...!!] But irrelevant to crushing. [Whew. That's better.]
.

.
Wrong.
Stupidly wrong.
Repeatedly wrong.
You've been told 30 times that it's wrong.
The antenna did NOT fall into the building prior to collapse.
Wrong.
.

.
Wrong. The hat truss was just fine at this point.
.

.
Wow. TWO statements in one post that are correct. You MAY have just set a personal best, bill.
.

.
Wrong.
(Let's use the "understood" definition of "seen" in this case.)
Maybe you saw it, but you have never yet understood what I have meant. And I doubt that you do this time either.
.

.
"WHOOOP! THERE IT IS...!!"

Let me get this straight. You have "seen what [I have] meant when said that the upper block was not a rigid body..."

After I just said 4 *(**ing times that "the upper block WAS a rigid body...??

See what I mean, bill.

You are incapable of understanding what I say. You are incapable of even retyping accurately what I say. You exhibit continuous, unremitting "stupid" on a colossal scale.
.

.
Every single sentence completely, utterly, irrationally wrong.

You're back on track, bill.

Tom.

very convincing T. lol

PS. Does the notion of each weak component in part C such as floor-to-column connecions, floor trusses, the concrete floors themselves etc.each reaching the anvils of the rock solid giant upstandong core columns seperately and one by one bother you so much ?

 

[twinstead]

very convincing T. lol

Actually, bill, it was indeed very convincing. You just didn't get it.

 

[bill smith]

Actually, bill, it was indeed very convincing. You just didn't get it.

On past experience Twinstead you won't mind if I take that with a grain of salt ?

 

[Z]

On past experience Twinstead you won't mind if I take that with a grain of salt ?

I see you've chosen to run rather than address the excellent posts about your imaginary rock solid core component in the other thread, Bill... care to come back and play?

Or are you ready to admit that was just a simple graphical overlay?

 

[bill smith]

I see you've chosen to run rather than address the excellent posts about your imaginary rock solid core component in the other thread, Bill... care to come back and play?

Or are you ready to admit that was just a simple graphical overlay?

Yes, it was a graphical overlay. Sorry about that. Aplogise for me to the folks back home.

 

[bill smith]

Some very nice avatars around here these days.

 

[twinstead]

On past experience Twinstead you won't mind if I take that with a grain of salt ?

You're more than welcome, but I'm just keeping it real; at least I know when I've had my ass handed to me in a debate.

 

[tfk]

Bill,

very convincing T. lol

Ahhhh, snarky "lol-ing". What you do best. Too bad there isn't a real market for it. You'd clean up.

Well, let's see if this is at all convincing...


Do a search on the phrase "rigid body" (WITH quotes) within this thread only. You'll get 16 hits. ALL within the last 2 days.

A quick scan shows that 7 of them are by you & Heiwa, 9 by people who actually know what they are talking about.

Below is a sampling.

Bazant therefore reckons that ... any eventual change to it's rigid status can be set at zero....

FIRST TIME:

But once the ... energy imparted on A PORTION of the rigid body exceed the strain energy absorbing capacity of THAT PORTION of the rigid body, then THAT PORTION of the rigid body will fail. And the part that fails will no longer be part if its parent rigid body.

So he is not indicating that part C is to all intents and purposes 'rigid' ?

SECOND TIME:

Wrong. Away from the crush zone, Part A and Part C are both considered to be "rigid bodies".

Interesting. So then we CAN definitively take it that part C is assumed to be rigid.

THIRD TIME

[tfk explained it]. As did I. As did Mackey. As did Newtons Bit...
"Rigid Body"= Motion between components of the rigid body are of negligible concern, and not considered.

So I can see what T. means when he says that the upper block was not a rigid body.

FOURTH TIME:

Let me get this straight. You "see what meant when said that the upper block was not a rigid body..."
After I just said 4 *(**ing times that "the upper block WAS a rigid body...??

All of that above. And you still have the Fortress of Ignorance to say:

So I can see what T. means when he says that the upper block was not a rigid body.

So, what can we discern from the above?

We can discern that 8 repetitions is NOT sufficient for you to grasp this trivial concept.

Is that convincing enough for you?

C'mon, genius. "LoL" for me some more...

Tom

 

[FineWine]

Every government on Earth knows that 9/11 was an inside job FineWine. Pragmatic reasons such as America's big stick and economic power are powerful reasons for governments to keep silent on the issue. Moral cowardice is not exclusive to Americans. Thus the lack of acknowledgement.

You've been caught lying again. No government can know something that isn't true. The governments of nations unfriendly to the U.S. would relish the opportunity to rub our faces in our iniquity by revealing that 9/11 was an inside job.

Please, Bill, have some consideration for the sensibilities of the sane people here. When you use the word "thus," you give the impression you are attempting logical thought. The results are painful to watch. As Dirty Harry said, "A man's gotta know his limitations."

Everyone has noticed that America's "big stick" doesn't seem to affect Iran and North Korea very much. Please explain why their engineers don't expose the "bad science" in the NIST reports.

Bye, Bill. Sorry you have to run again.

 

[Heiwa]

Ok, hold on just a sec. You think that wherever the fire was, that is where it would stay, and it would just fizzle out?? Are you bloody SERIOUS?!?!?!

Smoke travels up. If its blocked, ie: from a ceiling, it will travel anywhere it can go. This will include:
Elevator shafts
HVAC ducting
stairwells
Etc. etc. etc.

Same thing with FIRE. Fire WILL travel if it is not extinguished. Fire very well CAN go up floors. It WILL travel. Again, I think that you don't have the FIRST clue about fire and its actions. It has been described as a living, breathing thing. This is ABSOLUTELY true.

So, to rebut your idiotic conclusions and ideas. You're wrong. On both accounts. Fire will travel as will smoke.

You don't know much about fire safety building rules, don't you, to prevent the spread of fire and smoke!
But I agree, fire may spread and, e.g. weaken upper part C; another contributing factor that a one-way crush down is not possible.

 

[aggle-rithm]

You don't know much about fire safety building rules, don't you, to prevent the spread of fire and smoke!
But I agree, fire may spread and, e.g. weaken upper part C; another contributing factor that a one-way crush down is not possible.

Are you sticking to the belief that ANY one way crush down is not possible, even though you have been shown that it is? Or are you now backing away from that belief and saying it was only not possible in the case of the WTC collapses?

ETA: You do realize that the last video you posted proves (by your logic) that upper part C is rigid and indestructible, don't you?

 

[Heiwa]

Are you sticking to the belief that ANY one way crush down is not possible, even though you have been shown that it is? Or are you now backing away from that belief and saying it was only not possible in the case of the WTC collapses?

ETA: You do realize that the last video you posted proves (by your logic) that upper part C is rigid and indestructible, don't you?

Axiom still applies; upper part C of any structure cannot one-way crush down part A below of same structure when dropped on A by gravity. If you can find any structure that does not follow this axiom, pls do not enter it, inform safety authorites (and me), etc, etc.

 

[bill smith]

Bill,



Ahhhh, snarky "lol-ing". What you do best. Too bad there isn't a real market for it. You'd clean up.

Well, let's see if this is at all convincing...


Do a search on the phrase "rigid body" (WITH quotes) within this thread only. You'll get 16 hits. ALL within the last 2 days.

A quick scan shows that 7 of them are by you & Heiwa, 9 by people who actually know what they are talking about.

Below is a sampling.



FIRST TIME:




SECOND TIME:




THIRD TIME




FOURTH TIME:



All of that above. And you still have the Fortress of Ignorance to say:


So, what can we discern from the above?

We can discern that 8 repetitions is NOT sufficient for you to grasp this trivial concept.

Is that convincing enough for you?

C'mon, genius. "LoL" for me some more...

Tom

Good. Now I think that the concept of Bazant's rigid body' is completely clear to everybody.

Part C is considered to be a rigid block everywhere except at the point of contact where it is being damaged/eroded.

Whew...that was the long way round for such a simple thing. In fact it means almost the same in English as it does in Engineerese.

So the upshot is- correct me if I'm wrong- that if we can show by video evidence that Part C no longer conformed to the above definaition and that the upper portion had compacted by say 15% or more PRIOR to the collision with Part A that Bazant's 'rigid block' is unfrocked and disproven. Ruled out in short ?

....and we can discuss the implications of that a little later.

 

[bill smith]

The video evidence.....

Start this video and freeze it as soon as you get the image onscreen. Take a gigarette paper if you have one and stick it alongside the right wall of WTC1 with the lower corner in line with the bottom of the upper part part C. Then put a mark on the paper in line with the visible parapet of the building.

Run the video until the flames stop being squirted out at the impact zone of the two parts and freeze it again.

Now put a new mark on he cigarette paper in line with the new level of the visible parapet

See anything interesting on the paper ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9-owhllM9k

 

[aggle-rithm]

Axiom still applies; upper part C of any structure cannot one-way crush down part A below of same structure when dropped on A by gravity. If you can find any structure that does not follow this axiom, pls do not enter it, inform safety authorites (and me), etc, etc.

Ironically, your continuing fantasy that a building cannot collapse is far more damaging to the cause of building safety than the imaginary hazards that you suggest.

Or, it would be, if you didn't have less clout in the engineering community than a Rabbi at Auschwitz.

 

[aggle-rithm]

The video evidence.....

Start this video and freeze it as soon as you get the image onscreen. Take a gigarette paper if you have one and stick it alongside the right wall of WTC1 with the lower corner in line with the bottom of the upper part part C. Then put a mark on the paper in line with the visible parapet of the building.

Run the video until the flames stop being squirted out at the impact zone of the two parts and freeze it again.

Now put a new mark on he cigarette paper in line with the new level of the visible parapet

See anything interesting on the paper ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9-owhllM9k

Not really.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Axiom still applies; upper part C of any structure cannot one-way crush down part A below of same structure when dropped on A by gravity. If you can find any structure that does not follow this axiom, pls do not enter it, inform safety authorites (and me), etc, etc.

What if "part C" was not required to remain intact in order to apply a sufficient dynamic load to the collapse interface to progress the collapse further down?